Cargando…

Longitudinal study of patients with discrepant results in CLIFT and a solid-phase dsDNA antibody assay: does a gold standard dsDNA assay exist?

OBJECTIVE: Antidouble-stranded DNA (dsDNA) antibodies are essential for diagnosis and follow-up of systemic lupus erythematous (SLE). To ensure the best diagnostic approach, most healthcare laboratories opt for a combination of highly sensitive methods, such as solid-phase immunoassays, and highly s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Trujillo Aguilera, Antonio, Bernardo Serrano, Raquel, Navas, Ana, Alcaide Molina, Juan, Alvarez Romero, Paula, Jurado Roger, Aurora
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10618974/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37903589
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/lupus-2023-000984
_version_ 1785129889120124928
author Trujillo Aguilera, Antonio
Bernardo Serrano, Raquel
Navas, Ana
Alcaide Molina, Juan
Alvarez Romero, Paula
Jurado Roger, Aurora
author_facet Trujillo Aguilera, Antonio
Bernardo Serrano, Raquel
Navas, Ana
Alcaide Molina, Juan
Alvarez Romero, Paula
Jurado Roger, Aurora
author_sort Trujillo Aguilera, Antonio
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Antidouble-stranded DNA (dsDNA) antibodies are essential for diagnosis and follow-up of systemic lupus erythematous (SLE). To ensure the best diagnostic approach, most healthcare laboratories opt for a combination of highly sensitive methods, such as solid-phase immunoassays, and highly specific methods, such as the Crithidia luciliae indirect immunofluorescence test (CLIFT). Even so, discordant results are common, thus hindering the diagnostic process. Therefore, this study aimed to characterise a cohort of patients with discrepant results for a dsDNA fluorescence enzyme immunoassay (FEIA) and CLIFT during 2016–2018 and to follow patients up until December 2021. METHODS: We performed an observational, longitudinal and retrospective study on 417 samples from 257 patients who had been referred for suspected connective tissue diseases or followed up after diagnosis. All of them were positive for antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) using an indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) on Hep-2 cells, the entry criterion in our laboratory, and positive for FEIA dsDNA. Samples were then tested with CLIFT according to our routine protocol, which includes CLIFT testing after FEIA dsDNA results ≥10 UI/ml. After the assessment of data quality, the final analysis was based on 222 patients. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients (37.4%) had positive results in both tests and met the diagnostic criteria for SLE. However, 139 patients (62.6%) had discrepant results (FEIA+, CLIFT–). Of these, 58 patients (41.7%) had a diagnosis of SLE, with 47 (33.8%) having been previously diagnosed and under treatment. The remaining 11 patients (7.9%) had a new diagnosis of SLE, which was made up within 4 years of the initial screening. A total of 81 of the 139 patients (57.5%) with discrepant results did not meet lupus criteria during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that CLIFT could be negative in both treated and newly diagnosed SLE, thus underlining the importance of follow-up of dsDNA-positive results using solid-phase tests. Therefore, quantitative tests such as FEIA could add value to the diagnosis and management of patients with suspected SLE.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10618974
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106189742023-11-02 Longitudinal study of patients with discrepant results in CLIFT and a solid-phase dsDNA antibody assay: does a gold standard dsDNA assay exist? Trujillo Aguilera, Antonio Bernardo Serrano, Raquel Navas, Ana Alcaide Molina, Juan Alvarez Romero, Paula Jurado Roger, Aurora Lupus Sci Med Biomarker Studies OBJECTIVE: Antidouble-stranded DNA (dsDNA) antibodies are essential for diagnosis and follow-up of systemic lupus erythematous (SLE). To ensure the best diagnostic approach, most healthcare laboratories opt for a combination of highly sensitive methods, such as solid-phase immunoassays, and highly specific methods, such as the Crithidia luciliae indirect immunofluorescence test (CLIFT). Even so, discordant results are common, thus hindering the diagnostic process. Therefore, this study aimed to characterise a cohort of patients with discrepant results for a dsDNA fluorescence enzyme immunoassay (FEIA) and CLIFT during 2016–2018 and to follow patients up until December 2021. METHODS: We performed an observational, longitudinal and retrospective study on 417 samples from 257 patients who had been referred for suspected connective tissue diseases or followed up after diagnosis. All of them were positive for antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) using an indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) on Hep-2 cells, the entry criterion in our laboratory, and positive for FEIA dsDNA. Samples were then tested with CLIFT according to our routine protocol, which includes CLIFT testing after FEIA dsDNA results ≥10 UI/ml. After the assessment of data quality, the final analysis was based on 222 patients. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients (37.4%) had positive results in both tests and met the diagnostic criteria for SLE. However, 139 patients (62.6%) had discrepant results (FEIA+, CLIFT–). Of these, 58 patients (41.7%) had a diagnosis of SLE, with 47 (33.8%) having been previously diagnosed and under treatment. The remaining 11 patients (7.9%) had a new diagnosis of SLE, which was made up within 4 years of the initial screening. A total of 81 of the 139 patients (57.5%) with discrepant results did not meet lupus criteria during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that CLIFT could be negative in both treated and newly diagnosed SLE, thus underlining the importance of follow-up of dsDNA-positive results using solid-phase tests. Therefore, quantitative tests such as FEIA could add value to the diagnosis and management of patients with suspected SLE. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-10-30 /pmc/articles/PMC10618974/ /pubmed/37903589 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/lupus-2023-000984 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Biomarker Studies
Trujillo Aguilera, Antonio
Bernardo Serrano, Raquel
Navas, Ana
Alcaide Molina, Juan
Alvarez Romero, Paula
Jurado Roger, Aurora
Longitudinal study of patients with discrepant results in CLIFT and a solid-phase dsDNA antibody assay: does a gold standard dsDNA assay exist?
title Longitudinal study of patients with discrepant results in CLIFT and a solid-phase dsDNA antibody assay: does a gold standard dsDNA assay exist?
title_full Longitudinal study of patients with discrepant results in CLIFT and a solid-phase dsDNA antibody assay: does a gold standard dsDNA assay exist?
title_fullStr Longitudinal study of patients with discrepant results in CLIFT and a solid-phase dsDNA antibody assay: does a gold standard dsDNA assay exist?
title_full_unstemmed Longitudinal study of patients with discrepant results in CLIFT and a solid-phase dsDNA antibody assay: does a gold standard dsDNA assay exist?
title_short Longitudinal study of patients with discrepant results in CLIFT and a solid-phase dsDNA antibody assay: does a gold standard dsDNA assay exist?
title_sort longitudinal study of patients with discrepant results in clift and a solid-phase dsdna antibody assay: does a gold standard dsdna assay exist?
topic Biomarker Studies
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10618974/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37903589
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/lupus-2023-000984
work_keys_str_mv AT trujilloaguileraantonio longitudinalstudyofpatientswithdiscrepantresultsincliftandasolidphasedsdnaantibodyassaydoesagoldstandarddsdnaassayexist
AT bernardoserranoraquel longitudinalstudyofpatientswithdiscrepantresultsincliftandasolidphasedsdnaantibodyassaydoesagoldstandarddsdnaassayexist
AT navasana longitudinalstudyofpatientswithdiscrepantresultsincliftandasolidphasedsdnaantibodyassaydoesagoldstandarddsdnaassayexist
AT alcaidemolinajuan longitudinalstudyofpatientswithdiscrepantresultsincliftandasolidphasedsdnaantibodyassaydoesagoldstandarddsdnaassayexist
AT alvarezromeropaula longitudinalstudyofpatientswithdiscrepantresultsincliftandasolidphasedsdnaantibodyassaydoesagoldstandarddsdnaassayexist
AT juradorogeraurora longitudinalstudyofpatientswithdiscrepantresultsincliftandasolidphasedsdnaantibodyassaydoesagoldstandarddsdnaassayexist