Analytical Comparison of an In-House FARR Fluorescence Immunoassay with Commercial Analytical Assays for the Detection of Anti-Double-Stranded DNA Antibodies

Background/Objectives: Anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies (anti-dsDNA) are a specific biomarker for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). We aimed to analytically compare the in-house Farr fluorescence immunoassay (Farr-FIA), developed based on classical Farr-RIA, for the detection of anti-dsDNA with commercially available assays, including a chemiluminescence assay (CLIA) and the Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence test (CLIFT). Additionally, we evaluated analytical agreement for diagnostic combinations of these methods. Methods: We analyzed 182 samples from patients at the Department of Rheumatology, UMC Ljubljana, using Farr-FIA, CLIFT (Immuno Concepts—CLIFT 1 and Inova Diagnostics—CLIFT 2), and the QUANTA Flash dsDNA CLIA on the BIO-FLASH analyzer (Inova Diagnostics). Agreement between methods and diagnostic combinations was assessed using Cohen’s kappa. Results: Overall agreement between methods using manufacturer determined cut-offs ranged from 78.6% to 91.8% (κ = 0.582–0.836). The in-house Farr-FIA showed 78.6–86.8% comparability with commercial assays (κ = 0.582–0.730). Analytical agreement between combinations of two methods ranged from κ = 0.788 to 1.000, indicating moderate to almost perfect agreement. Our routine combination of CLIFT 1 followed by Farr-FIA showed high agreement (κ = 0.788–0.938) with other two-step approaches. Regardless of initial screening (CLIFT 1, CLIFT 2, or CLIA), applying Farr-FIA as a confirmatory method yielded highly consistent final classifications (97.3–100% agreement). However, the screening methods differed in the proportion of samples requiring confirmatory method (e.g., CLIFT 2 identified more positives requiring Farr-FIA), consequently affecting workflow and costs, although the final diagnostic results remain the same. Conclusions: Farr-FIA demonstrated moderate to substantial analytical agreement with established commercial assays (CLIA and CLIFT). Several diagnostic combinations demonstrated high analytical agreement; however, the choice of initial screening method substantially influences the number of samples requiring confirmatory testing and, therefore, affects laboratory workload.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Diagnostics
Published
2026-08-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16162612
Primary Topic
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Analytical Comparison of an In-House FARR Fluorescence Immunoassay with Commercial Analytical Assays for the Detection of Anti-Double-Stranded DNA Antibodies

Katja Lakota, Manca Ogrič, Saša Čučnik
Diagnostics
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
article

Analytical Comparison of an In-House FARR Fluorescence Immunoassay with Commercial Analytical Assays for the Detection of Anti-Double-Stranded DNA Antibodies

Katja Lakota, Manca Ogrič, Saša Čučnik
article en

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies (anti-dsDNA) are a specific biomarker for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). We aimed to analytically compare the in-house Farr fluorescence immunoassay (Farr-FIA), developed based on classical Farr-RIA, for the detection of anti-dsDNA with commercially available assays, including a chemiluminescence assay (CLIA) and the Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence test (CLIFT). Additionally, we evaluated analytical agreement for diagnostic combinations of these methods. Methods: We analyzed 182 samples from patients at the Department of Rheumatology, UMC Ljubljana, using Farr-FIA, CLIFT (Immuno Concepts—CLIFT 1 and Inova Diagnostics—CLIFT 2), and the QUANTA Flash dsDNA CLIA on the BIO-FLASH analyzer (Inova Diagnostics). Agreement between methods and diagnostic combinations was assessed using Cohen’s kappa. Results: Overall agreement between methods using manufacturer determined cut-offs ranged from 78.6% to 91.8% (κ = 0.582–0.836). The in-house Farr-FIA showed 78.6–86.8% comparability with commercial assays (κ = 0.582–0.730). Analytical agreement between combinations of two methods ranged from κ = 0.788 to 1.000, indicating moderate to almost perfect agreement. Our routine combination of CLIFT 1 followed by Farr-FIA showed high agreement (κ = 0.788–0.938) with other two-step approaches. Regardless of initial screening (CLIFT 1, CLIFT 2, or CLIA), applying Farr-FIA as a confirmatory method yielded highly consistent final classifications (97.3–100% agreement). However, the screening methods differed in the proportion of samples requiring confirmatory method (e.g., CLIFT 2 identified more positives requiring Farr-FIA), consequently affecting workflow and costs, although the final diagnostic results remain the same. Conclusions: Farr-FIA demonstrated moderate to substantial analytical agreement with established commercial assays (CLIA and CLIFT). Several diagnostic combinations demonstrated high analytical agreement; however, the choice of initial screening method substantially influences the number of samples requiring confirmatory testing and, therefore, affects laboratory workload.

DiagnosticsVol. 16(16)
University of Primorska (SI), University of Ljubljana (SI), Ljubljana University Medical Centre (SI)
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.