ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 0336

The Incremental Clinical Utility of a Multianalyte Assay Panel with Cell-Bound Complement Activation Products versus a Traditional ANA Testing Strategy for the Diagnosis and Treatment of SLE

Tyler O'Malley1, Fenglong Xie2, yujie Su2, cassie Clinton2, Debra J. Zack1, Jeffrey Curtis3 and John Wegener1, 1Exagen Inc., Vista, CA, 2University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, 3Division of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Department of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL

Meeting: ACR Convergence 2021

Keywords: Biomarkers, complement, Outcome measures, registry, Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
Session Information

Date: Saturday, November 6, 2021

Title: SLE – Diagnosis, Manifestations, & Outcomes Poster I: Diagnosis (0323–0356)

Session Type: Poster Session A

Session Time: 8:30AM-10:30AM

Background/Purpose: The comparative clinical utility of various diagnostic tests to aid the differential diagnosis of SLE is unclear. We compare the outcomes of testing with a multianalyte assay panel (MAP) with cell-bound complement activation products vs. standard of care lab testing in patients suspected of having SLE.

Methods: We used data from the electronic health record (EHR)-based Columbus registry from 1/2016 to 12/2020 for analysis and linked Healthcore medical, pharmacy, and claims data. We established two cohorts for comparison, the MAP testing strategy cohort and the traditional ANA testing strategy cohort (tANA), with or without anti-dsDNA or anti-Smith. All lab results from the MAP cohort were obtained directly from the lab vendor. Results from the tANA cohort were available from within the EHR. Baseline data was collected for both cohorts at 12 months (or more) before first testing. Using this data, we characterized the demographics, comorbidities, other autoimmune diagnoses, and medications (including SLE treatments and glucocorticoids). Except for SLE (which might have been only a working diagnosis), patients with pre-existing rheumatology conditions already identified at time of testing were excluded. Descriptive statistics compared the characteristics of MAP and tANA testing episodes. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) comparing the likelihood of SLE medication initiation and SLE diagnosis between the MAP and tANA cohorts. Multivariable adjustment was performed and included all imbalanced covariates described in table 1 with standardized mean difference (SMD) >0.10. A subgroup analysis was conducted in patients new to the practice in the preceding 12 months

Results: The MAP and tANA cohorts consisted of 21,827 and 22,778 testing episodes, respectively. Patients in both cohorts were of similar age, mean 51 and 54 years, respectively for MAP and tANA, predominantly female (85 and 81%), and majority white (57 and 64%). Approximately 4-5% of MAP and tANA patients already had a SLE diagnosis ICD-10 code prior to testing. A total of 2,437 (11.17%) patients tested positive by MAP compared to 5,364 (23.55%) of patients who tested positive by tANA.

Among patients with no baseline prescription for a SLE medication, MAP positive patients were more likely to initiate SLE medications compared to tANA positive patients (43% vs. 32%, adjusted OR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.85-2.44). Effects were stronger in the subgroup of patients new to the practice, 55% vs. 33% (adjusted OR = 2.77, 95% CI 2.31-3.32). MAP positive patients were approximately fivefold more likely to be diagnosed with SLE as compared to the tANA positive patients, 31 vs. 8% (adjusted OR = 4.78, 95% CI 4.04-5.65); similar results were observed in the subgroup of new patients (adjusted OR = 6.34, 95% CI 5.12-7.86). Among MAP algorithm negative patients, 96% were not diagnosed with SLE compared to 99% of tANA negative patients.

Conclusion: Positive MAP results associated with a greater likelihood to initiate SLE medications and to receive a SLE diagnosis compared to tANA while maintaining comparable negative predictive value. The findings highlight the superior actionability of MAP results vs. tANA.

*baseline refers to all available data before the AVISE and tANA test result was reported
†For AVISE group is the tANA, for tANA is the AVISE
‡New patient ambulatory codes: 99201-5; new consultation codes: 99241-5
tANA – traditional antinuclear antibody; SLE – systemic lupus erythematosus; UCTD – undifferentiated connective tissue disease; HCQ – hydroxychloroquine; MMF – mycophenolate; MTX – methotrexate; AZA – Azathioprine; LEF – leflunomide; RTX – rituximab; BEL – Belimumab; NSAID – non-steroidal anti-inflammatory; SNRI – serotonin-norephinephrine reuptake inhibitors; SSRI – selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor; SMD = standardized mean difference (SMDs > 0.10 are considered potentially clinically important).

*adjusted for imbalanced covariates described in table 1 with SMD >0.10

*adjusted for imbalanced covariates described in table 1 with SMD >0.10


Disclosures: T. O'Malley, Exagen, 3, 11; F. Xie, None; y. Su, None; c. Clinton, None; D. Zack, Exagen Inc, 3, 4, 11, Xencor, 2, 11; J. Curtis, AbbVie, 2, Amgen, 2, 5, Bristol-Myers Squibb, 2, Janssen, 2, Eli Lilly, 2, Myriad, 2, Pfizer Inc, 2, 5, Roche/Genentech, 2, UCB, 2, CorEvitas, 2, 5, Crescendo Bio, 5; J. Wegener, Exagen, 3, 11.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

O'Malley T, Xie F, Su y, Clinton c, Zack D, Curtis J, Wegener J. The Incremental Clinical Utility of a Multianalyte Assay Panel with Cell-Bound Complement Activation Products versus a Traditional ANA Testing Strategy for the Diagnosis and Treatment of SLE [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021; 73 (suppl 9). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/the-incremental-clinical-utility-of-a-multianalyte-assay-panel-with-cell-bound-complement-activation-products-versus-a-traditional-ana-testing-strategy-for-the-diagnosis-and-treatment-of-sle/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

« Back to ACR Convergence 2021

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/the-incremental-clinical-utility-of-a-multianalyte-assay-panel-with-cell-bound-complement-activation-products-versus-a-traditional-ana-testing-strategy-for-the-diagnosis-and-treatment-of-sle/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology