A fluorescence sedimentation assay for dsDNA antibodies

Anti-dsDNA Testing Specificity for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Autoantibody specificity in autoimmune diseases is variable due to each patient's individual spectrum of autoantibodies and the inherent differences between detection methods and tests. Since false-positive results have downstream consequences, we conducted a comprehensive assessment of anti-double stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) specificity from published studies of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

METHODS

A systematic review (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects) identified cross-sectional or case-control studies published January 2004 to August 2019, reporting anti-dsDNA test accuracy data in SLE. Study quality was assessed using Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, version 2. A meta-analysis was conducted to estimate specificity by test method or named test where feasible.

RESULTS

Thirty studies were included covering 43 different tests. The Crithidia luciliae indirect immunofluorescence test (CLIFT) and fluorescence enzyme immunoassay methods are likely to be ≥ 90% specific (Euroimmun 97.8% (95% CI 96.2%-98.7%) 4 studies; EliA 94.7% (95% CI 91.7%-96.7%), 6 studies; CLIFT 98.7% (95% CI 96.7%-99.5%), 8 studies/7 tests]. For other test methods, specificity was not fully demonstrated to be ≥ 90% and/or the control group included healthy patients possibly overestimating specificity. More studies are required for NOVA Lite [96.0% (95% CI 87.2%-98.9%), 5 studies], chemiluminescence immunoassays [92.3% (95% CI 83.6%-96.6%), 6 studies/4 tests], multiplex immunoassays [89.3% (95% CI 86.1%-91.8%), 4 studies/2 tests], and Farr fluorescent immunoassays (no estimate, 2 studies). Specificity data reported for Farr radioimmunoassays [93.8% (95% CI 85.4-97.5%), 11 studies, 9 tests] and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays [93.4% (95% CI 89.9%-95.7%), 15 studies/16 tests] lacked consistency.

CONCLUSION

Anti-dsDNA testing shows considerable variation in test specificity, with potential impact on the management of SLE patients. This review may help laboratory specialists and clinicians choose and interpret the appropriate anti-dsDNA test for their setting.

Role of anti-DNA auto-antibodies as biomarkers of response to treatment in systemic lupus erythematosus patients: hypes and hopes. Insights and implications from a comprehensive review of the literature

Introduction: Due to the polymorphic clinical presentations and manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), biomarkers with enough diagnostic and prognostic value are of paramount importance. Recently, anti-double stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) auto-antibodies have been proposed to monitor the response to different therapies. It has also been suggested that they should be employed as entry markers in trial studies. However, their clinical use remains still debated and, sometimes, controversial, due to conflicting findings reported. Areas covered: Through an extensive literature review, we evaluated changes in anti-dsDNA auto-antibodies levels before and after the administration of the treatment (either biological or non-biological). Expert opinion: Anti-dsDNA auto-antibodies related findings are still difficult to compare mainly because of the different detecting methods employed, even though in most studies included in this review a consistent decreasing pattern after the treatment seems to emerge. Hence, if properly standardized, anti-dsDNA auto-antibody profile may be a reliable biomarker to monitor the effectiveness of biologics as well as of non-biological drugs, especially if grouped in composite outcomes scores, such as the 'Lupus Multivariable Outcome Score' (LUMOS) or measured with other biomarkers, such as anti-nucleosome auto-antibodies. We recommend the assessment of anti-dsDNA auto-antibodies levels in both daily practice and research settings.