ELISA methods to detect anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibodies are highly sensitive, but are less specific for the diagnosis of SLE than the immunofluorescence test on Crithidia luciliae (CLIFT) and the Farr assay because they also detect low-avidity antibodies. This study evaluated the specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of a new automated fluoroimmunoassay (EliA dsDNA; Pharmacia, Freiburg, Germany). We compared the results with those obtained using a commercial CLIFT and an in-house anti-dsDNA IgG ELISA method, and verified its putative ability to detect only high-avidity anti-dsDNA antibodies. Sera from 100 SLE patients and 120 controls were studied. The control group included 20 healthy donors, 70 patients with other rheumatic diseases (32 systemic sclerosis (SSc); 18 primary Sjögren syndrome (pSS), 20 rheumatoid arthritis (RA)), and 30 patients with various infectious diseases (ID). Anti-dsDNA avidity was estimated using an ELISA method based upon the law of mass action, and a simplified Scatchard plot analysis for data elaboration; the apparent affinity constant (Kaa) was calculated and expressed as arbitrary units (L/U). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for SLE were 64%, 95.8%, 93.8% and 72.7%, respectively, for the EliA anti-dsDNA assay; 55%, 99.2%, 98.5%, and 68.8%, respectively, for the CLIFT; and 64%, 93.3%, 90.6%, and 72.3%, respectively, for the in-house ELISA. Although EliA anti-dsDNA was positive mainly in SLE patients with high- (Kaa>80 L/U) and intermediate- (Kaa 30-80 L/U) avidity antibodies (45.3% and 49.9%, respectively), it was also positive in five (7.8%) SLE patients with low-avidity anti-dsDNA antibodies, and five controls (three SSc, one pSS, and one ID) (mean Kaa = 16.4 +/- 9.04 L/U). In conclusion, EliA anti-dsDNA assay showed a higher sensitivity than the CLIFT, and a good specificity and PPV for SLE. Its putative ability to detect only high-avidity anti-dsDNA antibodies remains questionable.
ELISA methods to detect anti‐double‐stranded DNA (anti‐dsDNA) antibodies are highly sensitive, but are less specific for the diagnosis of SLE than the immunofluorescence test on Crithidia luciliae (CLIFT) and the Farr assay because they also detect low‐avidity antibodies. This study evaluated the specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of a new automated fluoroimmunoassay (EliA dsDNA; Pharmacia, Freiburg, Germany). We compared the results with those obtained using a commercial CLIFT and an in‐house anti‐dsDNA IgG ELISA method, and verified its putative ability to detect only high‐avidity anti‐dsDNA antibodies. Sera from 100 SLE patients and 120 controls were studied. The control group included 20 healthy donors, 70 patients with other rheumatic diseases (32 systemic sclerosis (SSc); 18 primary Sjögren syndrome (pSS), 20 rheumatoid arthritis (RA)), and 30 patients with various infectious diseases (ID). Anti‐dsDNA avidity was estimated using an ELISA method based upon the law of mass action, and a simplified Scatchard plot analysis for data elaboration; the apparent affinity constant (Kaa) was calculated and expressed as arbitrary units (L/U). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for SLE were 64%, 95.8%, 93.8% and 72.7%, respectively, for the EliA anti‐dsDNA assay; 55%, 99.2%, 98.5%, and 68.8%, respectively, for the CLIFT; and 64%, 93.3%, 90.6%, and 72.3%, respectively, for the in‐house ELISA. Although EliA anti‐dsDNA was positive mainly in SLE patients with high‐ (Kaa>80 L/U) and intermediate‐ (Kaa 30–80 L/U) avidity antibodies (45.3% and 49.9%, respectively), it was also positive in five (7.8%) SLE patients with low‐avidity anti‐dsDNA antibodies, and five controls (three SSc, one pSS, and one ID) (mean Kaa = 16.4 ± 9.04 L/U). In conclusion, EliA anti‐dsDNA assay showed a higher sensitivity than the CLIFT, and a good specificity and PPV for SLE. Its putative ability to detect only high‐avidity anti‐dsDNA antibodies remains questionable. J. Clin. Lab. Anal. 16:227–232, 2002. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.