de Leeuw Karina, Bungener Laura, Roozendaal Caroline, Bootsma Hendrika, Stegeman Coen A
Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology.
Department of Laboratory Medicine.
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2017 May 1;56(5):698-703. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kew462.
Auto-antibodies directed to dsDNA (anti-dsDNA) are used in diagnosis and follow-up for SLE. However, multiple assays are used. The objective of this study was to determine the best-performing assays, especially in prediction of exacerbations.
Seven assays were compared during LN (n = 58). The two assays with the most frequent positive results during active nephritis were selected and tested in 152 SLE patients with quiescent disease, 40 with active disease and 214 disease controls. Furthermore, longitudinal samples of SLE patients with and without exacerbations were examined to determine the positive predictive value of an increase for an exacerbation.
Of seven assays, results of the Farr (Siemens) and enzyme-labelled anti-isotype assay (EliA) (ThermoFisherScientific) were foremost associated with active nephritis (both 95%). Sensitivity in active SLE was equal using Farr or EliA (95 vs 93%). In quiescent disease, the specificity of EliA was higher (Farr: 53% vs EliA: 91%). In longitudinal analyses, a 25% increase of anti-dsDNA preceded an exacerbation in 75 vs 69% (Farr vs EliA). In SLE patients without exacerbations (n = 42), a rise was seen in 10 vs 12%. Increases in anti-dsDNA occurred more often prior to nephritis (n = 17) compared with non-nephritic flares (n = 17), which was not different between both assays (Farr: 82 and 66%, respectively; EliA: 93 and 43%, respectively).
Anti-dsDNA is most frequently positive using Farr and EliA during active nephritis, with comparable sensitivity. Both assays performed equally during exacerbations. However, EliA had higher specificity in quiescent disease and had several advantages, including no use of radioactive materials and less time required.
针对双链DNA的自身抗体(抗双链DNA)用于系统性红斑狼疮(SLE)的诊断和随访。然而,使用了多种检测方法。本研究的目的是确定性能最佳的检测方法,尤其是在预测病情加重方面。
在狼疮性肾炎(LN)患者(n = 58)中比较了七种检测方法。选择在活动性肾炎期间阳性结果最频繁的两种检测方法,并在152例病情静止的SLE患者、40例病情活动的患者和214例疾病对照中进行检测。此外,对有或无病情加重的SLE患者的纵向样本进行检查,以确定抗双链DNA升高对病情加重的阳性预测值。
在七种检测方法中,Farr法(西门子公司)和酶标抗同种型检测法(EliA)(赛默飞世尔科技公司)的结果与活动性肾炎最相关(均为95%)。使用Farr法或EliA法时,活动性SLE的敏感性相同(分别为95%和93%)。在病情静止时,EliA法的特异性更高(Farr法:53% vs EliA法:91%)。在纵向分析中,抗双链DNA升高25%在病情加重前出现的比例在Farr法和EliA法中分别为75%和69%。在无病情加重的SLE患者(n = 42)中,Farr法和EliA法出现升高的比例分别为10%和12%。抗双链DNA升高在肾炎(n = 17)之前比非肾炎发作(n = 17)更常见,两种检测方法之间无差异(Farr法分别为82%和66%;EliA法分别为93%和开43%)。
在活动性肾炎期间,使用Farr法和EliA法时抗双链DNA最常呈阳性,敏感性相当。两种检测方法在病情加重期间表现相当。然而,EliA法在病情静止时具有更高的特异性,并且有几个优点,包括不使用放射性物质和所需时间更少。