Search

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, w

Background and aims: The objective of this meta-analysis was to review the diagnostic performance of anti-dsDNA testing, to determine whether test specificity meets the revised 2019 EULAR/ACR classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The new criteria state that anti-dsDNA testing should be conducted using “an immunoassay with demonstrated ≥ 90% specificity for SLE against relevant disease controls”. Materials and methods: A systematic review (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and DARE) identified cross-sectional or case-control studies published January 2004 to August 2019, reporting anti-dsDNA test accuracy data. Studies included cases of SLE (confirmed using one or more of three validated SLE classification criteria sets) and a disease control group. Data were adjusted to exclude healthy controls. A hierarchical, bivariate mixed-effect meta-analysis of eligible quantitative studies was conducted in STATA MP v16.1 to produce a pooled estimate of sensitivity and specificity. Results: The review identified six fluorescence immunoassay (FEIA) dsDNA studies (1977 total patients, of whom 47% had SLE) eligible to be included in quantitative meta-analysis and all reported a point estimate >90% for specificity. The meta-analysis estimated a pooled specificity of 94.7% (95% CI 91.67%–96.67%). Conclusion: The meta-analysis has demonstrated that the specificity of FEIA dsDNA is ≥90% for SLE, against relevant disease controls, and therefore performs in accordance with the 2019 classification criteria.

Michelle E Orme,1 Katherine S MacGilchrist,2 Stephen Mitchell,2 Dean Spurden,3 Alex Bird31Icera Consulting, Swindon, Wiltshire, UK; 2Systematic Review Department, Abacus International, Bicester, Oxfordshire, UK; 3Pfizer UK Limited, Tadworth, Surrey, UKBackground: Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) extend the treatment choices for rheumatoid arthritis patients with suboptimal response or intolerance to conventional DMARDs. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the relative efficacy of EU-licensed bDMARD combination therapy or monotherapy for patients intolerant of or contraindicated to continued methotrexate.Methods: Comprehensive, structured literature searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, as well as hand-searching of conference proceedings and reference lists. Phase II or III randomized controlled trials reporting American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria scores of 20, 50, and 70 between 12 and 30 weeks' follow-up and enrolling adult patients meeting ACR classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis previously treated with and with an inadequate response to conventional DMARDs were eligible. To estimate the relative efficacy of treatments whilst preserving the randomized comparisons within each trial, a Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted in WinBUGS using fixed and random-effects, logit-link models fitted to the binomial ACR 20/50/70 trial data.Results: The systematic review identified 10,625 citations, and after a review of 2450 full-text papers, there were 29 and 14 eligible studies for the combination and monotherapy meta-analyses, respectively. In the combination analysis, all licensed bDMARD combinations had significantly higher odds of ACR 20/50/70 compared to DMARDs alone, except for the rituximab comparison, which did not reach significance for the ACR 70 outcome (based on the 95% credible interval). The etanercept combination was significantly