Video: Knock on Wood| Webinar: ACR/CHEST ILD Guidelines in Practice
fa-facebookfa-linkedinfa-youtube-playfa-rss

An official publication of the ACR and the ARP serving rheumatologists and rheumatology professionals

  • Conditions
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout and Crystalline Arthritis
    • Myositis
    • Osteoarthritis and Bone Disorders
    • Pain Syndromes
    • Pediatric Conditions
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Sjögren’s Disease
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
    • Systemic Sclerosis
    • Vasculitis
    • Other Rheumatic Conditions
  • FocusRheum
    • ANCA-Associated Vasculitis
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout
    • Lupus Nephritis
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
  • Guidance
    • Clinical Criteria/Guidelines
    • Ethics
    • Legal Updates
    • Legislation & Advocacy
    • Meeting Reports
      • ACR Convergence
      • Other ACR meetings
      • EULAR/Other
    • Research Rheum
  • Drug Updates
    • Analgesics
    • Biologics/DMARDs
  • Practice Support
    • Billing/Coding
    • EMRs
    • Facility
    • Insurance
    • QA/QI
    • Technology
    • Workforce
  • Opinion
    • Patient Perspective
    • Profiles
    • Rheuminations
      • Video
    • Speak Out Rheum
  • Career
    • ACR ExamRheum
    • Awards
    • Career Development
  • ACR
    • ACR Home
    • ACR Convergence
    • ACR Guidelines
    • Journals
      • ACR Open Rheumatology
      • Arthritis & Rheumatology
      • Arthritis Care & Research
    • From the College
    • Events/CME
    • President’s Perspective
  • Search

New Study Reveals Limitations in ANA Test Kits for Lupus

Kimberly Retzlaff  |  Issue: September 2018  |  September 20, 2018

“The focus of our work was to figure out what this [variability] was about, because the general belief is that almost everyone with lupus is ANA positive,” Dr. Pisetsky says.

Study Results & Implications

Dr. Pisetsky and colleagues studied sera from 103 patients from an Ohio State University cohort with established SLE who were historically ANA positive. The investigators screened the patients’ sera using three commercially available kits for IFA ANA determinations, as well as with an ELISA and a bead-based multiplex assay.

ad goes here:advert-1
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

Results indicated marked variation in ANA positivity depending on the assay platform and kit used. Of the three IFA kits, 4.9–22.3% of the samples tested negative. Similarly, 12 samples tested negative with the ELISA assay, and 14 tested negative with the multiplex assays.

A couple of years ago Dr. Pisetsky and a different group of researchers studied 181 patients enrolled in a clinical trial for a new agent to treat SLE and found a wide variation in ANA negativity using five kits (0.6–27.6%). They presented their results at the 2016 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting.

ad goes here:advert-2
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

These results have implications for the clinical trial setting because of how researchers screen and enroll patients in trials of new therapeutic agents. “But the study has implications beyond the clinical trial setting,” Dr. Pisetsky says. “One of the important messages is that the so-called gold standard [IFA test] really has limitations, and there are significant differences in the detection of antibodies by kits produced by different manufacturers. So, the frequency of ANA negativity can vary.”

Beyond that, two implications are significant for practicing rheumatologists. “First, increasingly, the ANA is being used as an important criterion for classification of lupus,” Dr. Pisetsky says, which assumes nearly everyone with lupus is ANA positive. However, if the kits used for ANA testing are limited in their detection, it’s possible some patients who have lupus will test negative and potentially be misdiagnosed. Practicing rheumatologists may consider exploring different ANA assays used for diagnosis and possibly adapting other protocols.

“Second, in general, people are tested for ANA only at diagnosis—on initial presentation—and they’re not tested sub­sequently because of the belief that the information is already there,” Dr. Pisetsky says. Some patients may be retested if they change providers or care settings, but routinely, retesting for ANA is not usual in patients with lupus. “This study suggests that there may be reasons to retest.”

Retesting could become important as clinicians and researchers continue to investigate how patients respond to different treatments. The current approach of using ANA results to determine eligibility for clinical trials suggests differences exist in the responsiveness of patients with lupus to treatment depending on ANA status, although this depends on which kit is used for the ANA assay, Dr. Pisetsky says.

Page: 1 2 3 | Single Page
Share: 

Filed under:ConditionsSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Tagged with:ANA testantinuclear antibody testassay

Related Articles

    Laboratory Testing for Diagnosis, Management of Patients with Rheumatic Disease

    December 1, 2014

    A review of data on antinuclear antibodies and tests for rheumatoid arthritis

    Know Your Labs

    February 1, 2009

    A review of state-of-the-art testing for SLE and connective tissue disease.

    Antiphospholipid Antibody Testing Update

    January 13, 2012

    Successes, challenges, and controversies of diagnostic methods for APS

    A 52-Year-Old Lupus Paper Remains Important Today

    December 14, 2020

    Over 50 years ago, an article appeared in The New England Journal of Medicine: “Immunologic Factors and Clinical Activity in Systemic Lupus Erythema­tosus.”1 Written by a young postdoctoral fellow, Peter H. Schur, MD, and colleagues, the article synthesized important work in the field at the time. What follows is a discussion of the historical context…

  • About Us
  • Meet the Editors
  • Issue Archives
  • Contribute
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
fa-facebookfa-linkedinfa-youtube-playfa-rss
  • Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1931-3268 (print). ISSN 1931-3209 (online).
  • DEI Statement
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookie Preferences