TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparisons of anti-dsdna antibody detection methods by chemiluminescent immunoassay and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in systemic lupus erythematosus
AU - Chang, Huang Chen
AU - Wu, Yen Ching
AU - Chen, Jun Peng
AU - Wu, Yi Da
AU - Huang, Wen Nan
AU - Chen, Yi Hsing
AU - Chen, Yi Ming
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
PY - 2021/11
Y1 - 2021/11
N2 - This study aimed to compare the test results of anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibodies obtained using chemiluminescent immunoassay (CIA) and enzyme-linked immunosor-bent assay (ELISA), and investigate predictors of inconsistent results. This retrospective study included 502 patients who underwent CIA and ELISA to determine their anti-dsDNA antibody values within a year. We compared the diagnostic power for SLE, disease activity, and predictive power for lupus nephritis (LN). A multivariate analysis was performed to determine the predictors of inconsistencies. CIA and ELISA were moderately correlated in terms of their consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.571), and yielded comparably favorable results in terms of SLE diagnostic power and SLE disease activity. However, if the patient had LN, CIA displayed higher predictive power than ELISA (0.620 vs. 0.555, p = 0.026). Compared with the CIA/ELISA double-positive group, the inconsistent group had lower anti-C1q circulating immune complexes (CIC) antibody values (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.18–0.94, p = 0.036), and lower SLEDAI scores (≥4) (OR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.14–0.79, p = 0.013). Anti-dsDNA antibody detection with CIA exhibited higher predictability for diagnosing LN than did ELISA. In the event of inconsistencies between anti-dsDNA methods, SLE disease activity and CIC test values should be considered simultaneously.
AB - This study aimed to compare the test results of anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibodies obtained using chemiluminescent immunoassay (CIA) and enzyme-linked immunosor-bent assay (ELISA), and investigate predictors of inconsistent results. This retrospective study included 502 patients who underwent CIA and ELISA to determine their anti-dsDNA antibody values within a year. We compared the diagnostic power for SLE, disease activity, and predictive power for lupus nephritis (LN). A multivariate analysis was performed to determine the predictors of inconsistencies. CIA and ELISA were moderately correlated in terms of their consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.571), and yielded comparably favorable results in terms of SLE diagnostic power and SLE disease activity. However, if the patient had LN, CIA displayed higher predictive power than ELISA (0.620 vs. 0.555, p = 0.026). Compared with the CIA/ELISA double-positive group, the inconsistent group had lower anti-C1q circulating immune complexes (CIC) antibody values (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.18–0.94, p = 0.036), and lower SLEDAI scores (≥4) (OR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.14–0.79, p = 0.013). Anti-dsDNA antibody detection with CIA exhibited higher predictability for diagnosing LN than did ELISA. In the event of inconsistencies between anti-dsDNA methods, SLE disease activity and CIC test values should be considered simultaneously.
KW - Anti-dsDNA antibody
KW - Chemiluminescent immunoassay
KW - Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
KW - Lupus nephritis
KW - Systemic lupus erythematosus
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85117735548&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/diagnostics11111940
DO - 10.3390/diagnostics11111940
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85117735548
VL - 11
JO - Diagnostics
JF - Diagnostics
SN - 2075-4418
IS - 11
M1 - 1940
ER -