Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services

User menu

  • My Cart
  • Log In
  • Log Out

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Rheumatology
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services
  • My Cart
  • Log In
  • Log Out
The Journal of Rheumatology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • Follow jrheum on Twitter
  • Visit jrheum on Facebook
  • Follow jrheum on LinkedIn
  • Follow jrheum on YouTube
  • Follow jrheum on Instagram
  • Follow jrheum on RSS
Abstract

Anti-dsDNA antibody testing by Farr and ELISA techniques is not equivalent.

Tuhina Neogi, Dafna D Gladman, Dominique Ibanez and Murray Urowitz
The Journal of Rheumatology September 2006, 33 (9) 1785-1788;
Tuhina Neogi
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dafna D Gladman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dominique Ibanez
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Murray Urowitz
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • eLetters
PreviousNext
Loading

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the degree of correlation between Farr and ELISA methods of detecting anti-dsDNA antibodies in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and their association with measures of disease activity. METHODS: Anti-dsDNA antibodies were assayed using the Farr and ELISA methods in patients followed between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2002. Statistical correlations between Farr and ELISA were determined. Relationships between the 2 assays and measures of disease activity [SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K-DNA), renal, central nervous system (CNS), and vasculitis] were determined for the same clinic visit. RESULTS: 550 patients with 2940 clinic visits met the inclusion criteria. Correlation between Farr and ELISA levels was 0.46 using the first visit for each patient. When the Farr was abnormal, the ELISA was equally likely to be normal or abnormal. Abnormal Farr results were associated with higher SLEDAI-2K scores than normal Farr results (6.2 vs 4.3, respectively; p < 0.0001). There was less of a distinction with ELISA results (5.9 vs 4.8; p = 0.04). Farr levels were significantly associated with the presence of renal disease and vasculitis, while ELISA levels were not. Neither Farr nor ELISA results correlated with the presence of active CNS involvement. CONCLUSION: Farr and ELISA techniques for the detection of anti-dsDNA antibodies in patients with SLE are poorly correlated. The Farr is superior to the ELISA in correlating with measures of global disease activity, as well as renal and vasculitis involvement. The Farr technique should continue to be used in clinical practice. The ELISA adds no additional information.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 33, Issue 9
1 Sep 2006
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by Author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Rheumatology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Anti-dsDNA antibody testing by Farr and ELISA techniques is not equivalent.
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Rheumatology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Rheumatology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Anti-dsDNA antibody testing by Farr and ELISA techniques is not equivalent.
Tuhina Neogi, Dafna D Gladman, Dominique Ibanez, Murray Urowitz
The Journal of Rheumatology Sep 2006, 33 (9) 1785-1788;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

 Request Permissions

Share
Anti-dsDNA antibody testing by Farr and ELISA techniques is not equivalent.
Tuhina Neogi, Dafna D Gladman, Dominique Ibanez, Murray Urowitz
The Journal of Rheumatology Sep 2006, 33 (9) 1785-1788;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • eLetters

Related Articles

Cited By...

Similar Articles

Content

  • First Release
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Collections
  • Audiovisual Rheum
  • COVID-19 and Rheumatology

Resources

  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Author Payment
  • Reviewers
  • Advertisers
  • Classified Ads
  • Reprints and Translations
  • Permissions
  • Meetings
  • FAQ
  • Policies

Subscribers

  • Subscription Information
  • Purchase Subscription
  • Your Account
  • Terms and Conditions

More

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • My Alerts
  • My Folders
  • Privacy/GDPR Policy
  • RSS Feeds
The Journal of Rheumatology
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
Copyright © 2022 by The Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Co. Ltd.
Print ISSN: 0315-162X; Online ISSN: 1499-2752
Powered by HighWire