ROC Analysis Comparison of Three Assays for the Detection of Antibodies against Double-Stranded DNA in Serum for the Diagnosis of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Wasmuth, Jan‐Christian; Grün, B.; Terjung, Birgit; Homrighausen, Angela; Spengler, Ulrich

doi:10.1373/clinchem.2004.037960

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even if more differences emerge among the EIA methods, results of the present study suggest that commercial EIA methods available today seem to have overcome several problems of first-generation assays using immobilized dsDNA. Similarly to the report from Wasmuth et al, 16 our study shows how EIA methods today present a diagnostic efficiency comparable to or, in some cases, superior to the Farr method used in our study. The CLIFT method confirmed its higher specificity but also its lower sensitivity, in that 28% of patients with SLE who tested dsDNA-positive with the EIA method also tested negative with the CLIFT method.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Diagnosing systemic lupus erythematosus: new-generation immunoassays for measurement of anti-dsDNA antibodies are an effective alternative to the Farr technique and the Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence test

Antico¹,

Platzgummer

Bassetti

et al. 2010

Lupus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of four new enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) for anti-double-stranded-DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibodies, in comparison with the Farr assay and the Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence test (CLIFT). To this purpose, sera from four patient groups were collected: 52 sera from patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); 28 from patients with other connective tissue diseases (CTD); 36 from patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection; and 24 from those with acute viral infection. All sera were tested for anti-dsDNA antibodies by four EIA methods using a different antigenic DNA source [synthetic oligonucleotide (Method A), circular plasmid (Method B), recombinant (Method C), and purified extracted (Method D)], and by CLIFT and Farr assays. The diagnostic sensitivity of the assays was as follows: 84.6% (Method A), 73% (B), 82.7% (C), 84.6% (D), 55.8% (CLIFT), and 78.8% (Farr). Specificity was 82.9% (A), 97.7% (B), 96.5% (C), 94.3% (D), 96.5% (CLIFT), and 90.9% (Farr). From these data, we can conclude that the new-generation EIA methods evaluated in this study have higher sensitivity than the CLIFT and Farr assays and, with the exception of Method A, have specificity similar to the CLIFT and slightly higher than the Farr assay. These findings suggest that EIA tests may replace CLIFT as a screening test and the Farr assay as a specific test, for anti-dsDNA antibody detection.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Diagnosing systemic lupus erythematosus: new-generation immunoassays for measurement of anti-dsDNA antibodies are an effective alternative to the Farr technique and the Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence test

Antico¹,

Platzgummer

Bassetti

et al. 2010

Lupus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At a cut-off value of 1.0 RU, the sensitivity and specificity were found to be 46.9 and 92.8%, respectively. These values approach those of the sensitivity and specificity of anti-dsDNA aab assays [29].…”

Section: Difference In the Individual Centersmentioning

confidence: 57%

“…Differences with P value\0.05 were considered significant. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was carried out to analyze the discrimination between patients with SLE and various controls [29].…”

Section: Statistical Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies have compared different tests for the detection of anti-Rib antibodies [15,19,20,24,31,[35][36][37]. A powerful method for the comparison of diagnostic test is the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis [29], which has been employed in a few studies comparing different anti-Rib-P assays. The area under the curve (AUC) values were as follows: 0.651-0.582 (MBL ELISA with recombinant P0), 0.696 (Euroimmun, native Rib-P), 0.577 (QUANTA Plex TM INOVA, synthetic), 0.56 (Orgentec, native Rib-P) and 0.846 (QUANTA Lite (R) Ribosome P, INOVA, synthetic) [19,24].…”

Section: Association With Age and Clinical Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Multi-center evaluation of autoantibodies to the major ribosomal P C22 epitope

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anti-ribosomal P (Rib-P) autoantibodies have been demonstrated to be a specific diagnostic marker for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of anti-Rib-P (C22) antibodies in patients with SLE drawn from international, multi-center clinics. Sera collected from patients with SLE (n = 333) and various controls (n = 397) in four centers were tested for anti-C22 autoantibodies by ELISA (Dr. Fooke Laboratorien). SLE activity index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) was assessed for each patient in two centers. Autoantibody profiles were generated for the SLE samples from Canada using two profile assays. Using the manufacturer`s cut-off value, the prevalence of anti-C22 autoantibodies in patients with SLE between the participating centers varied from 18.2 to 29.0%. In the control sera, the prevalence of anti-C22 autoantibodies was low and the titer in the individual control groups varied significantly. In patients with connective tissue disease other than SLE and in patients with infections disease, the anti-C22 reactivity was significantly higher than in healthy controls (P < 0.0001). Overall sensitivity/specificity was 23.1/99.0%, respectively. Anti-Rib-P reactivity was significantly higher in young (mean age 33.9 vs. 45.3 years) SLE patients (P < 0.0001) and was associated with decreased C3 (P = 0.0335) and C4 levels (P = 0.0129). Moderate association between anti-C22 reactivity and SLEDAI-2K was observed in one cohort (P = 0.02). Anti-C22 autoantibodies are frequently and specifically found in patients with SLE. Although an association between anti-C22 reactivity and SLEDAI score was observed in one center, measurement of anti-C22 autoantibodies is likely not appropriate for measuring global disease activity.

show abstract

“…The specificity and sensitivity for SLE of anti-DNA antibodies depends on the assay used for its detection and the patient population studied and varies widely (Table 22.1; compiled from [7,[12][13][14][15]). In one meta-analysis, ELISA, CLIFT, and Farr assay were compared [16].…”

Section: Specificity and Sensitivitymentioning

confidence: 99%