Clinical comparison of QUANTA flash dsDNA chemiluminescent immunoassay with four current assays for the detection of anti-dsDNA autoantibodies

Maria Infantino, Francesca Meacci, Chelsea Bentow, Peter Martis, Maurizio Benucci, Antonella Afeltra, Amelia Rigon, Fabiola Atzeni, Piercarlo Sarzi-Puttini, Mariangela Manfredi, Michael Mahler

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction. The objective of the present study was to compare QUANTA Flash dsDNA, a chemiluminescent immunoassay (CIA) on the BIO-FLASH, a rapid-response chemiluminescent analyzer, to three other anti-dsDNA antibody assays and to Crithidia luciliae indirect immunofluorescence test (CLIFT). Methods. In the first part of the study, 161 samples, 61 from patients suffering from systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and 100 from a disease control group, were tested by QUANTA Flash dsDNA CIA, QUANTA Lite dsDNA SC ELISA, BioPlex 2200 multiplex flow immunoassay (MFI), ImmuLisa dsDNA ELISA, and NOVA Lite CLIFT. A second cohort of 69 SLE patients was then tested by QUANTA Flash dsDNA and CLIFT to expand the study. Results. The overall qualitative agreements varied between 77.0% (NOVA Lite CLIFT versus QUANTA Lite) and 89.4% (ImmuLisa versus NOVA Lite CLIFT). The clinical sensitivities for the anti-dsDNA antibody tests varied from 8.2% (NOVA Lite CLIFT) to 54.1% (QUANTA Lite), while the clinical specificities varied from 88.0% (BioPlex 2200) to 100.0% (NOVA Lite CLIFT). Good correlation was found between QUANTA Flash dsDNA and NOVA Lite CLIFT. Conclusion. Significant variations among dsDNA methods were observed. QUANTA Flash dsDNA provides a good combination of sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of SLE and good agreement to CLIFT.

Original languageEnglish
Article number902821
JournalJournal of Immunology Research
Volume2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 5 2015

Fingerprint

Crithidia
Indirect Fluorescent Antibody Technique
Immunoassay
Autoantibodies
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
Anti-Idiotypic Antibodies
Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Immunology
  • Immunology and Allergy

Cite this

Clinical comparison of QUANTA flash dsDNA chemiluminescent immunoassay with four current assays for the detection of anti-dsDNA autoantibodies. / Infantino, Maria; Meacci, Francesca; Bentow, Chelsea; Martis, Peter; Benucci, Maurizio; Afeltra, Antonella; Rigon, Amelia; Atzeni, Fabiola; Sarzi-Puttini, Piercarlo; Manfredi, Mariangela; Mahler, Michael.

In: Journal of Immunology Research, Vol. 2015, 902821, 05.01.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Infantino, M, Meacci, F, Bentow, C, Martis, P, Benucci, M, Afeltra, A, Rigon, A, Atzeni, F, Sarzi-Puttini, P, Manfredi, M & Mahler, M 2015, 'Clinical comparison of QUANTA flash dsDNA chemiluminescent immunoassay with four current assays for the detection of anti-dsDNA autoantibodies', Journal of Immunology Research, vol. 2015, 902821. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/902821
Infantino, Maria ; Meacci, Francesca ; Bentow, Chelsea ; Martis, Peter ; Benucci, Maurizio ; Afeltra, Antonella ; Rigon, Amelia ; Atzeni, Fabiola ; Sarzi-Puttini, Piercarlo ; Manfredi, Mariangela ; Mahler, Michael. / Clinical comparison of QUANTA flash dsDNA chemiluminescent immunoassay with four current assays for the detection of anti-dsDNA autoantibodies. In: Journal of Immunology Research. 2015 ; Vol. 2015.
@article{3e86f3d4955b4b20944b463f51bd14ac,
title = "Clinical comparison of QUANTA flash dsDNA chemiluminescent immunoassay with four current assays for the detection of anti-dsDNA autoantibodies",
abstract = "Introduction. The objective of the present study was to compare QUANTA Flash dsDNA, a chemiluminescent immunoassay (CIA) on the BIO-FLASH, a rapid-response chemiluminescent analyzer, to three other anti-dsDNA antibody assays and to Crithidia luciliae indirect immunofluorescence test (CLIFT). Methods. In the first part of the study, 161 samples, 61 from patients suffering from systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and 100 from a disease control group, were tested by QUANTA Flash dsDNA CIA, QUANTA Lite dsDNA SC ELISA, BioPlex 2200 multiplex flow immunoassay (MFI), ImmuLisa dsDNA ELISA, and NOVA Lite CLIFT. A second cohort of 69 SLE patients was then tested by QUANTA Flash dsDNA and CLIFT to expand the study. Results. The overall qualitative agreements varied between 77.0{\%} (NOVA Lite CLIFT versus QUANTA Lite) and 89.4{\%} (ImmuLisa versus NOVA Lite CLIFT). The clinical sensitivities for the anti-dsDNA antibody tests varied from 8.2{\%} (NOVA Lite CLIFT) to 54.1{\%} (QUANTA Lite), while the clinical specificities varied from 88.0{\%} (BioPlex 2200) to 100.0{\%} (NOVA Lite CLIFT). Good correlation was found between QUANTA Flash dsDNA and NOVA Lite CLIFT. Conclusion. Significant variations among dsDNA methods were observed. QUANTA Flash dsDNA provides a good combination of sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of SLE and good agreement to CLIFT.",
author = "Maria Infantino and Francesca Meacci and Chelsea Bentow and Peter Martis and Maurizio Benucci and Antonella Afeltra and Amelia Rigon and Fabiola Atzeni and Piercarlo Sarzi-Puttini and Mariangela Manfredi and Michael Mahler",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "5",
doi = "10.1155/2015/902821",
language = "English",
volume = "2015",
journal = "Journal of Immunology Research",
issn = "2314-8861",
publisher = "Hindawi Limited",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical comparison of QUANTA flash dsDNA chemiluminescent immunoassay with four current assays for the detection of anti-dsDNA autoantibodies

AU - Infantino, Maria

AU - Meacci, Francesca

AU - Bentow, Chelsea

AU - Martis, Peter

AU - Benucci, Maurizio

AU - Afeltra, Antonella

AU - Rigon, Amelia

AU - Atzeni, Fabiola

AU - Sarzi-Puttini, Piercarlo

AU - Manfredi, Mariangela

AU - Mahler, Michael

PY - 2015/1/5

Y1 - 2015/1/5

N2 - Introduction. The objective of the present study was to compare QUANTA Flash dsDNA, a chemiluminescent immunoassay (CIA) on the BIO-FLASH, a rapid-response chemiluminescent analyzer, to three other anti-dsDNA antibody assays and to Crithidia luciliae indirect immunofluorescence test (CLIFT). Methods. In the first part of the study, 161 samples, 61 from patients suffering from systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and 100 from a disease control group, were tested by QUANTA Flash dsDNA CIA, QUANTA Lite dsDNA SC ELISA, BioPlex 2200 multiplex flow immunoassay (MFI), ImmuLisa dsDNA ELISA, and NOVA Lite CLIFT. A second cohort of 69 SLE patients was then tested by QUANTA Flash dsDNA and CLIFT to expand the study. Results. The overall qualitative agreements varied between 77.0% (NOVA Lite CLIFT versus QUANTA Lite) and 89.4% (ImmuLisa versus NOVA Lite CLIFT). The clinical sensitivities for the anti-dsDNA antibody tests varied from 8.2% (NOVA Lite CLIFT) to 54.1% (QUANTA Lite), while the clinical specificities varied from 88.0% (BioPlex 2200) to 100.0% (NOVA Lite CLIFT). Good correlation was found between QUANTA Flash dsDNA and NOVA Lite CLIFT. Conclusion. Significant variations among dsDNA methods were observed. QUANTA Flash dsDNA provides a good combination of sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of SLE and good agreement to CLIFT.

AB - Introduction. The objective of the present study was to compare QUANTA Flash dsDNA, a chemiluminescent immunoassay (CIA) on the BIO-FLASH, a rapid-response chemiluminescent analyzer, to three other anti-dsDNA antibody assays and to Crithidia luciliae indirect immunofluorescence test (CLIFT). Methods. In the first part of the study, 161 samples, 61 from patients suffering from systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and 100 from a disease control group, were tested by QUANTA Flash dsDNA CIA, QUANTA Lite dsDNA SC ELISA, BioPlex 2200 multiplex flow immunoassay (MFI), ImmuLisa dsDNA ELISA, and NOVA Lite CLIFT. A second cohort of 69 SLE patients was then tested by QUANTA Flash dsDNA and CLIFT to expand the study. Results. The overall qualitative agreements varied between 77.0% (NOVA Lite CLIFT versus QUANTA Lite) and 89.4% (ImmuLisa versus NOVA Lite CLIFT). The clinical sensitivities for the anti-dsDNA antibody tests varied from 8.2% (NOVA Lite CLIFT) to 54.1% (QUANTA Lite), while the clinical specificities varied from 88.0% (BioPlex 2200) to 100.0% (NOVA Lite CLIFT). Good correlation was found between QUANTA Flash dsDNA and NOVA Lite CLIFT. Conclusion. Significant variations among dsDNA methods were observed. QUANTA Flash dsDNA provides a good combination of sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of SLE and good agreement to CLIFT.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84921329744&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84921329744&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1155/2015/902821

DO - 10.1155/2015/902821

M3 - Article

C2 - 25759849

AN - SCOPUS:84921329744

VL - 2015

JO - Journal of Immunology Research

JF - Journal of Immunology Research

SN - 2314-8861

M1 - 902821

ER -