Article

Detection of anti-dsDNA as diagnostic tool.

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (Impact Factor: 9.27). 03/1981; 40(1):45-9. DOI: 10.1136/ard.40.1.45
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The diagnostic significance of anti-dsDNA determinations was evaluated in 2 different groups of patients. When the immunofluorescence technique (IFT) with Crithidia luciliae and the Farr assay with 3H-labelled-PM2 DNA were applied to a selected panel of 536 sera from patients with various well-defined autoimmune diseases, positive results were obtained only with serum samples from patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). On the other hand when we screened 4431 sera sent to our laboratory for diagnostic reasons, we observed a high incidence of antibodies to dsDNA in patients who did not fulfil the preliminary American Rheumatism Association's criteria for SLE and did not have the diagnosis SLE. Furthermore, a significant number of the positive sera showed peculiar behaviour in that they were positive only in the IFT on Crithidia luciliae and not in the Farr assay.

1 Bookmark
 · 
161 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: To verify the diagnostic accuracy of anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibodies detected by the Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence test (CLIFT) in a cohort of unselected patients, referred to a rheumatologist due to recent onset of rheumatic symptoms. Method: A total of 1073 consecutive patients were screened for anti-nuclear antibodies (ANAs). Serum samples from 292 ANA-positive and 292 matching ANA-negative patients were tested three times for anti-dsDNA antibodies, using two different CLIFT kits (ImmunoConcepts(®) and Euroimmun(®)). An initial clinical diagnosis was made by rheumatologists unaware of the results. The diagnoses were updated after a median follow-up of 4.8 years. Results: CLIFT was positive at least once in 60 patients but only 23 patients were CLIFT positive in all of the assays. Diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) was made initially in 65 patients, of whom 24 (37%) were CLIFT positive. Many other diagnoses were observed among the CLIFT-positive patients. Overall, 16 (5.5%) ANA-negative patients were CLIFT positive. After approximately 5 years, the diagnosis of SLE remained unchanged in 63 patients (23 CLIFT positive) and altered in only two (one CLIFT positive). Among the 36 CLIFT-positive patients who were not diagnosed with SLE at study entry, only one developed SLE during the follow-up period. Conclusions: CLIFT was not reliable as a diagnostic tool in unselected patients with rheumatic symptoms. ANAs were of little value as a screening test before the CLIFT analysis. CLIFT had surprisingly low positive predictive value (PPV) for the diagnosis of SLE despite its high specificity. For non-SLE patients, being CLIFT positive poses little risk of developing SLE within 5 years.
    Scandinavian journal of rheumatology 03/2013; · 2.51 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Kidney International 07/1997; 52(2):538-558. · 8.52 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: One hundred and thirty coded sera, 60 from patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and 70 from patients with other autoimmune rheumatic diseases were tested for deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) binding activity by five different types of assay. These were enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (distinguishing IgG and IgM anti-ssDNA and anti-dsDNA), Crithidia luciliae, a nitrocellulose filter assay, the Amersham kit, and another modified Farr assay, the radioimmunoassay (RIA) (UK). The Crithidia test was the most specific, none of the controls was positive, but the least sensitive (13% positive only). The RIA (UK) was the most sensitive (57% positive). In most of the assays 3-9% of the controls were positive. When the SLE sera were analysed according to disease activity the IgG anti-dsDNA ELISA, all three RIA values, and the Crithidia test values were raised in all the patients with severely active disease. Some patients with inactive disease, however, were positive in each of the tests. The best interassay correlations (r less than 0.49) were found between RIA (UK), and ss IgG and the Amersham kit; and between ds IgG and ss IgG. In the main, however, it was clear that different assays are dependent upon distinctive properties of DNA antibodies. It seems inevitable that most major rheumatology units will require more than one anti-DNA antibody assay.
    Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 06/1987; 46(6):448-56. · 9.27 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
2 Downloads
Available from