Video: Every Case Tells a Story| Webinar: ACR/CHEST ILD Guidelines in Practice

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
    • 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

The Value of Repeat Antibody Testing in Lupus Patients

Catherine Kolonko  |  Issue: November 2018  |  November 18, 2018

Overall, there were no changes in anti-ENA screening for 89.4% of patients over the study period. … Rheumatologists could save money by not ordering repeat tests that, with some exceptions, don’t change over time, says Dr. Pope.

The Study

Researchers reviewed annual antibody and complement testing recorded in the charts of 130 lupus patients enrolled in the 1000 Canadian Faces of Lupus prospective registry. Specifically, they analyzed the annual seroconversion frequency for anti-ENA antibodies, anti-dsDNA and C3 and C4—from one test to the next and over the entire follow-up period, given one or multiple consistent results—and they calculated what it cost to detect the changes.

ad goes here:advert-1
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

To be included in the study, subjects had to meet the ACR criteria for SLE and have a least one repeat test for all analyzed marker types at one year after the first test.

Overall, no changes in anti-ENA screening were reported for 89.4% of patients over the study period. Results for the remaining patients showed that 3.3% changed from negative to positive and 7.3% from positive to negative. Following a single anti-ENA screen, there was a 3.9% change from negative to positive tests and conversely a 4.2% change from positive to negative. After years of consecutive multiple consistent tests, the frequencies of changes progressively declined, according to the article.

ad goes here:advert-2
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

In comparison, the other markers that were tested changed more frequently than anti-ENA. The rate of patients with no changes after the first test observed was 60.8% in anti-dsDNA, 83.3% in C3 and 75.4% in C4.

Cost for repeat testing of the anti-ENA screen was more than for the other biomarkers evaluated. Researchers estimated the Medicare cost at $621 to detect one anti-ENA change to positive one year after an initial negative screen and roughly $2,000 to $3,000 with each following year, according to the study article.

The Medicare cost to detect anti-dsDNA change to positive was estimated at roughly $238 after the first annual test and remained below $700 after four consistent years. The cost to detect low C3 and C4 was estimated just under $220 each, according to the article.

The authors note that repeat serologic monitoring of patients with SLE adds to healthcare costs. In particular, the research shows the costs to detect infrequent changes with anti-ENA testing were significant.

“Consistent with our clinical observations, we documented a low frequency of changes (<5% over the study) among anti-ENA autoantibodies in patients with SLE enrolled in a prospective cohort,” states the article. “These data suggest that it is not necessary to repeat anti-ENA testing during routine follow up, because the initial test result is unlikely to change.”

Page: 1 2 3 | Single Page
Share: 

Filed under:ConditionsResearch RheumSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Tagged with:Access to carecostsSocioeconomic Impact

Related Articles

    Rheumatologist Richard M. Pope, MD, Was Honored at Northwestern University Symposium

    September 8, 2016

    When the head of the division steps down, how do you mark that event? The Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University-Chicago hosted a day-long symposium to honor Richard M. Pope, MD, who had been chief of the division for 27 years, according to Harris Perlman, PhD, the new chief of the Division of Rheumatology. Richard…

    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

    Antiphospholipid Antibody Testing Update

    January 13, 2012

    Successes, challenges, and controversies of diagnostic methods for APS

    Serological Antibody Tests in COVID-19: Test Reliability and Utility

    June 10, 2020

    Serological testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies may play a critical role in the management of the worldwide health crisis. Such testing may reveal key information for epidemiology, convalescent plasma therapies and vaccine development. However, the situation is complex, and much is unknown. Although such testing may ultimately be used to…

  • About Us
  • Meet the Editors
  • Issue Archives
  • Contribute
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • 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