Anti-nucleosome antibodies may predict lupus nephritis and severity of disease in systemic lupus erythematosus

Background/ObjectiveDetection of anti-nucleosome antibodies in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) has been well established and it is claimed that their presence is associated with disease activity. The objective of this study is to determine the diagnostic value of anti-nucleosome antibodies in the assessment of lupus nephritis and clinically active SLE.MethodsThe anti-nucleosome antibodies were evaluated in the serum of 200 Tunisian SLE patients at disease onset by a sensitive immunodot assay. Serum samples from each patient were also tested for ANA and anti-ds DNA antibody by IIF on Hep 2 cells and Crithidia luciliae respectively. During the follow-up, the patients were regularly monitored for clinical parameters. Global SLE activity was measured by the European Consensus Lupus Activity Measurement (ECLAM).ResultsThe prevalence of anti-nucleosome and anti-dsDNA antibodies was 69% and 63.5% respectively. Anti-nucleosome antibodies were found to be 30.1% positive in SLE patients lacking anti-dsDNA antibody. 79.5% patients had active SLE at the first clinical examination. Anti-nucleosome antibodies were more sensitive than anti-dsDNA antibodies to detect active SLE (78% vs. 71.7%, P =0.19). 52.5% of SLE patients had renal involvement. Among these patients, the rate of anti-nucleosome positivity and anti-dsDNA were 77.1% and 67.6% respectively. The positivity of anti-nucleosome antibodies was significantly higher in patients with renal disease than the subjects without renal disease (P = 0.009). Anti-nucleosome and anti-ds DNA antibodies were significantly correlated with disease activity (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001 respectively).ConclusionAnti-nucleosome antibody reactivity may be a useful marker in the diagnosis and assessment of active SLE.     

Anti-nucleosome antibody: significance in lupus patients lacking anti-double-stranded DNA antibody

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical significance of anti-nucleosome antibodies in SLE patients lacking anti-double stranded DNA (dsDNA) antibodies. METHODS: IgG anti-nucleosome antibodies were detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) in the sera of SLE patients. Anti-dsDNA antibodies were measured by Farr assays and ELISA, not only in the samples taken for anti-nucleosome testing, but also in sera obtained regularly during the follow-up. RESULTS: Ninety-eight (76.0%) out of 129 patients with SLE had anti-nucleosome antibodies. Twenty-five patients (19.4%) consistently showed little or no anti-dsDNA reactivity during the course of their disease, and among these anti-nucleosome antibodies were present in the sera of 15 (60.0%). Of the patients with anti-dsDNA-negative SLE, renal disorders were present in 8 patients (32.0%), all of whom had anti-nucleosome antibodies. Renal disorders were not found in patients (n = 10) who had neither anti-dsDNA nor anti-nucleosome antibodies. Other autoantibodies such as anti-Ro, anti-Sm and anti-cardiolipin were not associated with renal disorders in this group. The levels of anti-nucleosome antibody strongly correlated with the SLEDAI scores, but inversely correlated with serum complement levels in anti-dsDNA negative SLE patients. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that the anti-nucleosome antibody may be a useful marker for diagnosis and activity assessment of anti-dsDNA negative SLE. Anti-nucleosome antibody may be an important factor for renal involvement in this subgroup of patients.     

Anti-dsDNA antibodies and disease classification in antinuclear antibody positive patients: the role of analytical diversity

BACKGROUND: The presence of "anti-DNA antibodies in abnormal titres" is a well established criterion for SLE classification, but there is no agreement on the performance of this test. OBJECTIVE: To study the correlation between clinical findings and five different solid and solution phase anti-DNA antibody assays. METHODS: 158 consecutively collected ANA positive sera were studied in a double blind fashion. Anti-DNA antibodies were determined by different solid phase assays (ssDNA-, dsDNA- specific ELISA, EliA anti-dsDNA assay, Crithidia luciliae assay), and by an experimental solution phase anti-DNA assay using biotinylated pUC18 plasmid, human, calf thymus, and E coli DNA. Antibody affinity was determined by surface plasmon resonance. Clinical data were obtained independently of the laboratory analyses and later related to the anti-dsDNA findings. RESULTS: Anti-dsDNA antibodies were most frequently detected by ELISA, but were not specific for SLE as they were present in up to 30% of other disease groups. Those detected by the Crithidia luciliae assay were predictive for SLE, while antibodies binding in solution phase ELISA using the pUC18 correlated strongly with the Crithidia luciliae assay. Surface plasmon resonance analysis showed that antibody binding to pUC18 was not due to higher relative affinity for dsDNA in general, but apparently to specificity for that plasmid DNA. Serum samples from three patients with lupus nephritis were positive in both pUC18 solution phase and Crithidia luciliae assays. CONCLUSIONS: Assay principle selection is decisive for the detection of clinically significant anti-DNA antibodies. Revision of the anti-DNA antibody criterion in the SLE classification may be needed.     

Anti-telomere antibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE): a comparison with five antinuclear antibody assays in 430 patients with SLE and other rheumatic diseases

Objective: To investigate the prevalence and diagnostic significance of antibodies against telomeric DNA in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and other autoimmune rheumatic diseases, and to make comparisons with five conventional anti-DNA or anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) assays. Methods: Antibodies to telomeres, which are highly repetitive sequences of DNA (TTAGGG/CCCTAA) at the end of eukaryotic chromosomes, were measured by an enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in 305 patients with SLE and 125 patients with other autoimmune rheumatic diseases (78 rheumatoid arthritis, 32 primary Sjögren''s syndrome, eight mixed connective tissue disease, seven miscellaneous rheumatic diseases). Other assays used were two commercial ELISA assays for anti-dsDNA using calf thymus as antigen, Crithidialuciliae immunofluorescence, and radioimmunoassay (RIA) for anti-dsDNA and immunofluorescence using Hep-2 cells for ANA. Results: The prevalence of anti-telomere in SLE was 60%, v 5% in rheumatoid arthritis and 18% in other autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Specificity of anti-telomere for SLE was 91%; positive and negative predictive values were 95% and 46%, respectively. For anti-dsDNA by two ELISA assays using calf thymus as antigen, sensitivities were 69% and 29% and specificities 66% and 96%, respectively. Other anti-dsDNA assays had low sensitivities (RIA 43%, Crithidia immunofluorescence 13%). The association of anti-telomere with a history of nephritis in patients with SLE was stronger (p = 0.005) than by any other assay (p = 0.006–0.999). The correlations between the different assays were good (p<0.001 for all comparisons). Conclusions: The new ELISA for anti-telomere antibodies using standardised human dsDNA as antigen is a sensitive and highly specific test for SLE.     

Anti-nucleosome antibodies as prediction factor of development of autoantibodies during therapy with three different TNFα blocking agents in rheumatoid arthritis

Anti-nucleosome antibodies have a role in the diagnosis and follow-up of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and have a possible correlation with SLE activity and with kidney and hematological involvement. The aim of our study was to detect in 91 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) the positivity of anti-nucleosome antibodies during therapy with three different TNFα blocking agents and to underline the possible correlation with the development of antinuclear autoantibodies (ANA) and anti-dsDNA autoantibodies. We detected anti-nucleosome antibodies, ANA, and anti-dsDNA during therapy with three different TNFα blocking agents at T-0 and after 12 and 24 weeks of treatment, respectively. Anti-nucleosome antibodies (IgG class) were analyzed by ELISA technique (Orgentec Diagnostika GmbH, Mainz, Germany), ANA both by indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) technique on Hep-2 (Scimedx, USA) and by ELISA (Autoimmune EIA ANA screening test Bio-Rad Laboratories, CA, USA), and anti-dsDNA (IgG and IgM classes) by ELISA (Kallestad, Bio-Rad Laboratories, CA, USA) and confirmed by IIF on Crithidia luciliae (ImmunoConcepts N.A., Sacramento, CA, USA). We observed 19 patients on infliximab treatment at 3 mg/kg every 8 weeks, 43 patients on etanercept treatment at 25 mg twice a week, and 29 patients on adalimumab treatment at 40 mg every other week. At baseline, we observed positivity as follow: in the group of patients treated with infliximab—anti-nucleosome 1/19 (5.26%), ANA 3/19 (15.7%), anti-dsDNA 1/19 (5.26%); in the group treated with etanercept—anti-nucleosome 2/43 (4.65%), ANA 1/43 (2.43%), anti-dsDNA 0/43; and in the group treated with adalimumab—anti-nucleosome 2/29 (6.89%), ANA 1/29 (3.44%), anti-dsDNA 0/29. The results at 12 weeks for the three autoantibodies were: for infliximab—3/19 (15.7%), 10/19 (52.6%), 2/19 (10.5%); for etanercept—3/43 (6.9%), 10/43 (23.2%), 1/43 (2.32%); and for adalimumab—3/29 (10.3%), 4/29 (13.7%), 1/29 (3.4%). At 24 weeks, the results were for infliximab 6/19 (31.5%), 12/19 (63.1%), 2/19 (10.5%); for etanercept 11/43 (25.5%), 22/43 (51.1%), 2/43 (4.65%); and for adalimumab 4/29 (13.7%), 13/29 (44.8%), 1/29 (3.4%). We observed a concordance anti-nucleosome/ANA antibodies of 85.5% (p < 0.001). Our data showed a concordance between anti-nucleosome antibodies and ANA positivity in patients with RA during therapy with TNFα blocking agents. The induction of autoantibodies positivity is different for each TNFα blocking agent.     

Anti-dsDNA antibody assay: high specificity and sensitivity with a filtration radioassay in comparison to low specificity with the standard ELISA

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a new fluid-phase filtration radioassay possesses both high sensitivity and specificity compared with the currently used ELISA and Farr assays. METHODS: Sequential sera (25 samples) from 9 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), sera from 20 patients with SLE possessing anti-dsDNA antibodies by the Crithidia assay, 75 patients with rheumatoid arthritis possessing rheumatoid factors, 50 healthy control subjects, 767 from patients with type 1 diabetes, and a commercial standard serum sample were tested for anti-dsDNA antibodies with the 3 different assays. RESULTS: Of serial dilutions of a standard anti-dsDNA antibody sample, only the highest positive sample (50 IU/ml) in the ELISA and the highest 2 positive samples (50 and 25 IU/ml) in the Farr assay were above the normal range. In contrast, all dilutions (to 2.5 IU/ml) of the standard anti-dsDNA antibody sample were above the normal range in the filtration radioassay. Using the values of 50 healthy control subjects in each assay to define the normal range, all 25 sequential sera from 9 patients with SLE were positive. In addition, 20/20 of the SLE individual sera, 2/75 (2.7%) of the RA sera, and 12/767 (1.6%) of the diabetes sera were positive (signal above normal range) in the filtration radioassay. The SLE sera were further examined in 2 additional assays, ELISA and Farr assay, and both assays were less sensitive and specific compared with the filtration radioassay. CONCLUSION: The fluid-phase filtration radioassay demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for the detection of anti-dsDNA antibodies in SLE, with the standard ELISA exhibiting lower specificity. We suggest that testing for anti-dsDNA antibodies can be improved using a fluid-phase filtration radioassay in comparison to commercial assays.     

Measurement of anti-DNA antibodies: a reappraisal using five different methods.

One hundred and thirty coded sera, 60 from patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and 70 from patients with other autoimmune rheumatic diseases were tested for deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) binding activity by five different types of assay. These were enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (distinguishing IgG and IgM anti-ssDNA and anti-dsDNA), Crithidia luciliae, a nitrocellulose filter assay, the Amersham kit, and another modified Farr assay, the radioimmunoassay (RIA) (UK). The Crithidia test was the most specific, none of the controls was positive, but the least sensitive (13% positive only). The RIA (UK) was the most sensitive (57% positive). In most of the assays 3-9% of the controls were positive. When the SLE sera were analysed according to disease activity the IgG anti-dsDNA ELISA, all three RIA values, and the Crithidia test values were raised in all the patients with severely active disease. Some patients with inactive disease, however, were positive in each of the tests. The best interassay correlations (r less than 0.49) were found between RIA (UK), and ss IgG and the Amersham kit; and between ds IgG and ss IgG. In the main, however, it was clear that different assays are dependent upon distinctive properties of DNA antibodies. It seems inevitable that most major rheumatology units will require more than one anti-DNA antibody assay.     

Antidouble stranded DNA antibody assays in systemic lupus erythematosus: correlations of longitudinal antibody measurements

To determine whether different assays of antidouble stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibodies provide comparable information in quantitative antibody assessment over time, longitudinal correlations between 3 anti-dsDNA antibody methods were derived. Determinations of anti-dsDNA antibody levels on serial samples from 9 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) were performed by filter binding radioimmunoassay, enzyme linked immunosorbent assay, and Crithidia indirect immunofluorescence. Substantial pairwise correlations among assay methods were found (r = 0.544 to 0.804; p less than 0.001). In addition, anti-dsDNA antibody levels as measured by each assay were inversely correlated with levels of the 3rd component of complement. Our results indicate that changes in antibody levels as determined by these 3 methods closely parallel each other over time, and suggest that the array of anti-dsDNA antibodies detected in patient sera remains relatively constant over time.     

Anti-Sm: Its predictive value in systemic lupus erythematosus

Summary The clinical manifestations of 131 rheumatic disease patients with anti-Sm antibody were studied. A variety of standard tests was utilized in the study, namely, the FANA test with mouse kidney as substrate for the assay of ANA, the Crithidia test for anti-double stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) and double immunodiffusion for detecting antibodies to extractable nuclear antigens. The patients were grouped according to the presence of anti-Sm alone, or anti-Sm with some other antibodies. There were 17 with anti-Sm alone; 55 with anti-Sm + anti-RNP; 15 with anti-Sm + anti-dsDNA; and 44 with anti-Sm + anti-RNP. The result of our study showed that although anti-Sm could be found in other diseases, it was exclusively detected in SLE only if anti-dsDNA was also present. Further, the SLE patients with anti-Sm alone had more frequent central nervous system manifestations than other groups of patients. The renal manifestation was observed more frequently in the group of SLE patients with anti-Sm + anti-dsDNA (92.9%). Among other major manifestations, haematologic involvement had a tendency to be less common in the group of patients with anti-Sm alone. The study concludes that the presence of anti-Sm antibody may be of some value to predict the clinical outcome.     

Clinical significance of antinuclear antibodies. Comparison of detection with immunofluorescence and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays

Objective. To compare the measurement of antinuclear antibodies (ANA) by immunofluorescence and by 6 different commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) in clearly defined patient groups and serum samples. Methods. Serum samples were derived from 3 sources: 1) patients with a known clinical diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) (group 1), 2) sera with known monospecific ANA reactivity (group 2), and 3) sera from consecutive patients for whom ANA testing had been ordered (group 3). Each of these sera was tested for the presence of ANA by immunofluorescence on HEp-2 cells, and by using each of 6 commercially available ELISA ANA kits. Results. In patients with known clinical SLE, 88% were ANA positive by immunofluorescence. Positivity with the different ELISAs ranged from 62% to 90%. While most ELISAs successfully detected antibodies to SS-A, RNP, and Sm, there were significant differences between assays in the detection of anticentromere antibodies and anti-DNA. Measurement of ANA in consecutive patients for whom an ANA test was requested showed that, generally, those assays with high sensitivity for detection of SLE had a high false-positive rate, whereas those assays with a low false-positive rate failed to identify some patients with a clinical diagnosis of SLE. Conclusion. There are significant differences in the detection of ANA by immunofluorescence and different ELISA kits. Agreement between different assays is generally marginal. When ordering and interpreting an ANA test, the clinician must be familiar with the specific assay being used to measure ANA and the differences between the various ANA assays.     

High frequency of Smith autoantibodies in Omani patients with systemic lupus erythematosus

This study was conducted to investigate the frequency and significance of some antinuclear autoantibodies in Omani patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA), anti-double stranded-DNA (anti-dsDNA), and anti-Smith (anti-Sm) autoantibodies were investigated in 60 Omani patients clinically diagnosed with SLE according to the American College of Rheumatology Criteria. The SLE group included 57 females and 3 males with an average age of 26 years. In addition, a group of 60 healthy Omanis (26 females and 34 males; average age 25 years) was used as a control. ANA patterns and autoantibody profile were assayed by indirect immunofluorescence assay using Hep-2 cells and liver/kidney/stomach tissue, respectively. Anti-dsDNA were examined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays; anti-Sm antibodies were measured by immunoblotting technique. Out of the 60 SLE patients, 59/60 (98.3%) were seropositive for ANA. Anti-dsDNA and anti-Sm each was detected in 50/60 (83.3%) of the Omani patients. The homogenous pattern of ANA was detected in 30/60 (50%) of patients, whereas the frequency of fine-speckled and coarse-speckled was 16/60 (26.7%) and 6/60 (10%), respectively. High titers (≥1:320) of ANA was detected in 56/60 (93.3%) of SLE patients. High titers of anti-Sm were detected in 22/60 (33.3%) of patients. High titers (>100 IU/ml) of anti-dsDNA were detected in 40/60 (66.7%) of patients. In the control group, ANA were detected in 8/60 (13.3%) but at low titers, whereas anti-dsDNA and anti-Sm were not detected in the healthy control group. This study shows that anti-Sm is as important as the anti-dsDNA for confirming the diagnosis of SLE and that anti-Sm occurs at a much higher frequency (83.3%) than that reported in other populations indicating the importance of this specific autoantibody for the diagnosis and possibly prognosis of Omani SLE patients.     

Rapid detection of autoantibodies to dsDNA with the particle gel immunoassay (ID-PaGIA)

OBJECTIVE: To describe a new particle agglutination test for the detection of autoantibodies to double stranded DNA (dsDNA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Serum samples were collected from 40 unselected healthy blood donors and 200 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) or a positive antinuclear antibody screen, or both. The samples were tested in the presence of red high density polystyrene particles coated with purified human dsDNA using the gel technique (Micro Typing System, ID-PaGIA, particle gel immunoassay). The results were compared with those obtained by the two standard anti-dsDNA antibody detection methods, Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence test (CLIF) and enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). RESULTS: The three anti-dsDNA assays exhibited an overall agreement of 87% and significant correlation with each other (p<0.0001). In the SLE group (n=71), 45 patients (63%) were found to be positive by ID-PaGIA compared with only 11/129 (9%) patients in the non-SLE group. Thus the ID-PaGIA had a sensitivity of 63%, and a specificity of 92% for SLE. In comparison, the standard detection methods showed sensitivities of 62% (CLIF) and 70% (ELISA) and specificities of 99% (CLIF) and 84% (ELISA) for SLE. Anti-dsDNA reactivity in the agglutination assay correlated closely with the quantities of antibody obtained by CLIF (r=0.81, p<0.0001) and ELISA (r=0.73, p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The new particle gel agglutination test is a sensitive and specific immunoassay. It is a simple test procedure that might be well suited as a rapid screening method.     

Autoantibodies in lupus nephritis patients requiring renal transplantation

The goal of this nested case-control study was to compare autoantibody profiles in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients with lupus nephritis (LN), lupus nephritis patients requiring renal transplantation (LNTP) and a SLE control group without nephritis (CON). Sera were assayed for a variety of autoantibodies by addressable laser bead immunoassay (ALBIA) and enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) and to dsDNA by Crithidia luciliae assay. The frequency of nucleosome autoantibodies was significantly greater in the LNTP group (79%) compared to the LN (18%) and CON (9%) groups (P < 0.0005). The frequency of other autoantibodies, including anti-dsDNA, did not differ significantly between groups. Among patients with LN, the odds of progressing to renal transplantation was 16-fold higher (OR 16.5 [95% CI 2.5, 125.7], P = 0.0005) in patients testing positive for anti-nucleosome antibodies compared to those who tested negative. Furthermore, the level of anti-nucleosome antibodies was significantly ( P < 0.00005) higher in the LNTP group (3.69 +/- 2.79) than the LN (0.51 +/- 0.51) and CON (0.34 +/- 0.44) groups. Review of 48 renal biopsies from 29 patients indicated that there was no difference in renal histological classification among patients with anti-nucleosome antibodies compared to those who tested negative. Our observations suggest that nucleosome autoantibodies are a biomarker for more severe SLE renal disease requiring transplantation.     

Anti-nucleosome antibodies in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus of recent onset. Potential utility as a diagnostic tool and disease activity marker

OBJECTIVE: To compare the utility of anti-chromatin antibodies for the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and as markers of disease activity. METHODS: We included 73 consecutive patients (62 female) with SLE (four or more ACR criteria) of recent onset (<1 yr since diagnosis). As control groups we included 130 healthy blood donors and 261 patients with 11 systemic autoimmune diseases (SAD). Disease activity was assessed using the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI). A venous blood sample was drawn to measure three anti-chromatin antibodies [anti-nucleosome (anti-NCS), anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) and anti-histones (anti-HST)] by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS: The prevalence of anti-chromatin antibodies in SLE patients and healthy controls was 100 and 3% respectively for anti-NCS, 63 and 5% for anti-dsDNA, and 15 and 3% for anti-HST. Anti-NCS had a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 97% for SLE diagnosis. When SLE and SAD patients were compared [excluding mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD)], the sensitivity of anti-NCS, anti-dsDNA and anti-HST antibodies for SLE diagnosis was 93, 71 and 40% respectively and the specificity was 97, 98 and 98%. Anti-chromatin antibodies were not useful in differentiating between SLE and MCTD patients. Anti-NCS antibodies showed the highest correlation with disease activity (r = 0.45, P < 0.0001), especially in patients negative for anti-dsDNA antibodies (r = 0.58, P = 0.001). Anti-NCS antibodies also showed strong association with renal damage (odds ratio 4.1, 95% confidence interval 1.2-13.6, P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Anti-NCS antibodies could be a useful tool in the diagnosis and assessment of disease activity in SLE patients, especially in patients who are negative for anti-dsDNA antibodies.     

Production and characterization of human monoclonal anti-idiotype antibodies to anti-dsDNA antibodies

Anti-dsDNA autoantibodies are the hallmark of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and frequently correlate with disease activity. In this study we report the isolation and characterization of human anti-Id monoclonal antibody fragments as single-chain Fv fragments (scFv) against anti-dsDNA antibody. The anti-Id monoclonal antibodies, specific for anti-dsDNA antibodies, have been cloned from phage display antibody scFv libraries derived from a patient with SLE. The V gene repertoires were derived from the RNA obtained from the B cells of an SLE patient with anti-Ro/SSA and anti-La/SSB antibodies. Affinity-purified anti-dsDNA antibodies were used for selection of bacterial clones producing specific scFv antibody fragments against anti-dsDNA antibodies and little reactivity with normal IgG and other IgG antibodies by ELISA. The anti-Id antibody recognizes a public idiotope that is broadly cross-reactive with polyclonal and monoclonal anti-dsDNA antibodies. This binding was largely inhibited by dsDNA antigen. The anti-Id antibody inhibited anti-dsDNA binding to dsDNA antigen in immunoassays and in the Crithidia luciliae assay. The anti-Id scFv antibody fragments derived from human genes could modulate the pathogenicity of anti-dsDNA autoantibodies and may have therapeutic implications in SLE. They may also be used as probes in studies of the structure of the idiotype.     

Autoantibody formation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with anti-TNF alpha

Background: Research on autoantibody formation in patients treated with TNFα inhibitors has produced contradictory results. Objective: To study the prevalence of autoantibodies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with the TNFα inhibitor infliximab. Methods: 53 patients (48 female, 11 male) treated with infliximab for rheumatoid arthritis were followed for autoantibody production before treatment and after 14, 30, and 54 weeks. Six patients treated with etanercept were studied for comparison. The analyses included antibodies against nuclear antigens (ANA), extractable nuclear antigens, double stranded (ds)DNA (by ELISA, IIF on Crithidia luciliae for IgM and IgG, and Farr assay), nucleosomes, cardiolipin, smooth muscle, mitochondria, proteinase 3, and myeloperoxidase antigens. Results: The number of patients treated with infliximab who developed antibodies against dsDNA of both IgG and IgM class (tested by IIF) increased significantly. The prevalence of patients positive for IgG class increased to 66% at 30 weeks and 45% at 54 weeks, and of IgM class to 85% and 70%, respectively. The titre and number of patients expressing antibodies against nucleosomes and ANA also increased significantly. The number of rheumatoid factor or anticardiolipin positive patients was stable and there was no increase in antibodies against the other antigens. A lupus-like syndrome was seen in one patient. No patient treated with etanercept developed any of these autoantibodies. Conclusions: Patients treated with infliximab may develop anti-dsDNA antibodies of both IgM and IgG class, anti-nucleosome antibodies, and ANA, with a gradual increase until 30 weeks.     

The clinical significance of measuring different anti-dsDNA antibodies by using the Farr assay, an enzyme immunoassay and a Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence test.

Anti-double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) antibodies are highly specific for the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) but are heterogeneous in respect to, for example, avidity, class and cross-reactivity. Sera from 2061 patients were measured by three methods: an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), an indirect immunofluorescence test with Crithidia luciliae as substrate (CLIF), and the Farr assay, a radioimmunological method based on the ammonium sulfate precipitation of immune complexes. The different anti-dsDNA antibody determinations were evaluated by analysis of patient records. The reason for a reactive Farr assay in 14 patients was predominantly the measurement of antibodies of the IgM class, which are not detected by the ELISA. The detection of additional antibodies to dsDNA of the IgA class, to single-stranded DNA or to histones plays a minor role. In comparison with the Farr assay, we found more positive results with the ELISA, which additionally detects anti-dsDNA antibodies of low avidity. The ELISA might also yield positive values in conditions such as chronic liver diseases, various infections and connective tissue diseases other than SLE. Avoiding the disadvantages of radioactivity, the ELISA is well suited as a screening test for dsDNA antibodies. However, positive results should be confirmed by the CLIF test or preferably by the Farr assay, thus combining sensitivity with specificity.     

Correlations between antinucleosome antibodies and anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies, C3, C4, and clinical activity in lupus patients

OBJECTIVE: To examine the correlations between antinucleosome antibodies and anti-double-stranded (ds) DNA antibodies, complement (C) 3 and 4 levels, and clinical activities in SLE patients. METHODS: Antinucleosome antibodies and anti-dsDNA antibodies were detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA). The levels of C3 and C4 were measured by nephelometry. Clinical activities were determined by SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI). RESULTS: Of 65 SLE patients, the prevalence of antinucleosome antibodies were higher than anti-ds DNA antibodies (52.3 vs 36.9%, respectively, p < 0.05). Similar results were obtained in 45 active SLE patients, 64.4% for antinucleosome antibodies and 46.7% for anti-ds DNA antibodies. Of 34 patients lacking anti-ds DNA antibodies, 16 (47.1%) were shown antinucleosome antibodies. Activity of antinucleosome antibodies was significantly correlated with the SLEDAI scores and inversedly correlated with the C3 levels but not with the C4 levels. CONCLUSION: Antinucleosome antibodies could be one of the earliest and most sensitive markers in diagnosis of SLE, particularly in anti-dsDNA antibodies-negative patients. More importantly, antinucleosome antibodies is correlated with clinical activities and C3 levels.     

Utility of anti-Sm,anti-RNP,anti–Ro/SS-A,and anti–La/SS-B (extractable nuclear antigens) detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus

Objective. To determine the utility of anti-extractable nuclear antigen (anti-ENA) antibodies detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay as a predictor for the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Methods. Among 2,185 serum samples sent for testing for antinuclear antibodies (ANA) by indirect immunofluorescence, 259 consecutive patients with positive ANA were identified. Medical charts of these patients were reviewed to assess the clinical diagnosis, with the reviewer having no knowledge of the anti-ENA result. Clinical data were abstracted for all patients, and diagnoses established using American College of Rheumatology criteria. The utility of ENA antibodies in the diagnosis of SLE was determined by univariate and multivariate analysis among all patients who were positive for ANA, patients who were positive for ANA and for anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA), and patients who were positive for ANA and negative for anti-dsDNA. Clinical differences between SLE patients with and those without anti-ENA antibodies were assessed. Results. Anti-ENA antibodies, especially anti-Ro/SS-A, showed strong predictive diagnostic value among ANA+/anti-dsDNA– patients, but were of no utility among ANA+/anti-dsDNA+ patients. The only clinical manifestations that were more common among anti-ENA+ SLE patients were pleuritis and the use of hydroxychloroquine. Conclusion. The presence of anti-ENA antibodies, especially anti-Ro/SS-A, is a useful predictor for the diagnosis of SLE, primarily among patients attending a referral rheumatology center who are positive for ANA and negative for anti-dsDNA. No major clinical differences were noted among ANA+ SLE patients with versus those without ENA.     

Anti-dsDNA antibodies in Brazilian patients of mainly African descent with systemic lupus erythematosus: lack of association with lupus nephritis

Renal disease is associated with morbidity and mortality in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and anti-dsDNA antibodies with SLE immunopathogenesis. We investigated the dsDNA antibody profile of 84 Brazilian SLE patients, 27 with lupus nephritis. Thirty-six (39.1%) patients had dsDNA IgG antibodies shown in enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (454.7 ± 281.1 WHO units/mL), nine presenting renal disease. The following profile of dsDNA antibodies was demonstrated in Crithidia luciliae test: IgA (seven out of 36; 19.4%), IgG (22 out of 36, 66.1%); IgM (nine out of 36, 25.0%), and IgE (four out of 36, 11.1%). Two or three isotypes of dsDNA antibodies were observed in nine (25.0%) patients, while 11 (30.5%) were seronegative in the C. luciliae test. Patients with dsDNA antibodies had lower serum C3 and C4 when compared with SLE individuals without these immunoglobulins (P < 0.01 and P < 0.001, respectively). There was no association between any dsDNA antibody isotype and lupus kidney disease nor was anti-dsDNA IgM antibody associated with absence of nephritis.