Significant differences in the analytic concordance between anti-dsDNA IgG antibody assays for the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus—Implications for inter-laboratory testing

Chiaro, Tyson R.; Davis, Kenneth W.; Wilson, Andrew; Suh-Lailam, Brenda B.; Tebo, Anne E.

doi:10.1016/j.cca.2011.02.025

Cited by 22 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Farr RIA ve CLIF, SLE tanısında kullanılan en yararlı yöntemlerdir (23). Yüksek duyarlılığına rağmen düşük özgüllüğünden dolayı ELISA yöntemleri ile tespit edilen anti-dsDNA IgG antikorlarının, özgüllüğü daha yüksek olan testlerle doğrulanması önerilmektedir (24). Bu nedenle antidsDNA IgG ELISA testi ile pozitif sonuç alınan örnekler genellikle Farr RIA veya CLIF testi ile doğrulanmaktadır (24).…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…Yüksek duyarlılığına rağmen düşük özgüllüğünden dolayı ELISA yöntemleri ile tespit edilen anti-dsDNA IgG antikorlarının, özgüllüğü daha yüksek olan testlerle doğrulanması önerilmektedir (24). Bu nedenle antidsDNA IgG ELISA testi ile pozitif sonuç alınan örnekler genellikle Farr RIA veya CLIF testi ile doğrulanmaktadır (24). Farr RIA testinin anti-dsDNA'nın sadece IgG sınıfı değil tüm immünglobülin sınıflarını saptayabilmesi avantaj olsa da testte radyoaktif madde kullanılması ve otomatize edilememesi kullanımını azaltmaktadır (27).…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…ANA pozitif SLE hastalarında CLIF testinin pozitif olma oranının ne olduğu açısından literatür incelendiğinde testin düşük duyarlılığının ve yüksek özgüllüğünün ön plana çıktığı görülmüştür (24,28). CLIF testinin PPD'sinin araştırıldığı çok merkezli bir kohort çalışmasında yöntemin düşük duyarlılığı (%28-32) ve düşük pozitif prediktif (%46-61) değerine karşın oldukça yüksek özgüllüğe (%96-97) sahip olduğu vurgulanmıştır (28).…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…Chiaro ve ark. 'nın 300 olgu üzerinde yürüttüğü başka bir kohort çalışmasında CLIF testi diğer ELISA yöntemleriyle karşılaştırılmış, ANA pozitif hastaların ancak %68' inde CLIF testi pozitif bulunmuştur (24). Bu veriler ışığında, araştırmamızda belirlenen ANA pozitif SLE' li olgularda %46,8'lik CLIF testi pozitifliği, testin yüksek özgüllüğü ile ilişkilendirilmiştir.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparison of three ELISA methods with CLIF test for detection of Anti-dsDNA antibody

Cetin¹,

Toyran²,

Aytaç³

et al. 2015

Turk Hij Den Biyol Derg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is an autoimmune disease caused by antibodies which produced against antigens commonly on cell nuclei. According to the criteria of American College of Rheumatology (ACR), the immunological parameters which are used for diagnosis of SLE, are anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA) and anti-dsDNA autoantibodies. In this study it is aimed to investigate the specifity of three different ELISA tests by comparing with CLIF test, as a reference method, for the determination of anti-dsDNA antibodies.Methods: Sera of 81 patients who were diagnosed as SLE and sent to the Microbiology Department of our hospital between 1 May -31 July 2013, were included in the study. In these sera, ANA positivity was firstly investigated by immunofluorescence antibody test (IFA). Positive sera were stored at -80 O C for prospective analysis and processed with four different anti-dsDNA assays at the same day. These assays were three antidsDNA ELISA kits including; CHORUS dsDNA-G (DIESSE Diagnostica Senese, Italy), anti-dsDNA-Ncx ELISA IgG (EUROIMMUN, Germany, California), QUANTA Lite dsDNA SC ELISA (INOVA Diagnostics) and CLIF test (Crithidia luciliae anti-dsDNA, EUROIMMUN, Germany). Makale Dili "Türkçe"/Article Language "Turkish" Results

show abstract

Section: Discussionunclassified

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of three ELISA methods with CLIF test for detection of Anti-dsDNA antibody

Cetin¹,

Toyran²,

Aytaç³

et al. 2015

Turk Hij Den Biyol Derg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, traditional laboratory tests are performed with numerous commercially available kits that can vary in principle and cut-off values, which may alter the final results and diagnoses (Egner 2000;Reveille, 2004;Mahler et al, 2005;Isenberg et al, 2007;Chiaro et al, 2011). These and other factors complicate proper diagnosis of these two closely related and overlapping illnesses.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Auto-antigenic Properties of the Spliceosome as a Molecular Tool for Diagnosing Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Mixed Connective Tissue Disease Patients

Mesa¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Next-Generation Autoantibody Testing by Combination of Screening and Confirmation—the CytoBead® Technology

Sowa

Hiemann

Schierack

et al. 2016

Clinic Rev Allerg Immunol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Occurrence of autoantibodies (autoAbs) is a hallmark of autoimmune diseases, and the analysis thereof is an essential part in the diagnosis of organ-specific autoimmune and systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARD), especially connective tissue diseases (CTDs). Due to the appearance of autoAb profiles in SARD patients and the complexity of the corresponding serological diagnosis, different diagnostic strategies have been suggested for appropriate autoAb testing. Thus, evolving assay techniques and the continuous discovery of novel autoantigens have greatly influenced the development of these strategies. Antinuclear antibody (ANA) analysis by indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) on tissue and later cellular substrates was one of the first tests introduced into clinical routine and is still an indispensable tool for CTD serology. Thus, screening for ANA by IIF is recommended to be followed by confirmatory testing of positive findings employing different assay techniques. Given the continuous growth in the demand for autoAb testing, IIF has been challenged as the standard method for ANA and other autoAb analyses due to lacking automation, standardization, modern data management, and human bias in IIF pattern interpretation. To address these limitations of autoAb testing, the CytoBead® technique has been introduced recently which enables automated interpretation of cell-based IIF and quantitative autoAb multiplexing by addressable microbead immunoassays in one reaction environment. Thus, autoAb screening and confirmatory testing can be combined for the first time. The present review discusses the history of autoAb assay techniques in this context and gives an overview and outlook of the recent progress in emerging technologies.

show abstract

Significant differences in the analytic concordance between anti-dsDNA IgG antibody assays for the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus—Implications for inter-laboratory testing

Cited by 22 publications

References 19 publications

Comparison of three ELISA methods with CLIF test for detection of Anti-dsDNA antibody

Comparison of three ELISA methods with CLIF test for detection of Anti-dsDNA antibody

Auto-antigenic Properties of the Spliceosome as a Molecular Tool for Diagnosing Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Mixed Connective Tissue Disease Patients

Next-Generation Autoantibody Testing by Combination of Screening and Confirmation—the CytoBead® Technology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About