OBJECTIVE: A positive antinuclear antibody (ANA), while sensitive, is not specific for systemic lupus erythematosus or connective tissue diseases (CTD). The purpose of the present study was to review those sera with a high titre (> or = dilutions above screening) ANA and determine from a review of the charts if these higher titres offered a satisfactory specificity for CTD. METHODS: All FANA testing in this region is carried out in one of two related laboratories. We reviewed the medical records of patients who had a positive ANA at a titre 4 dilutions above screening at this city-wide laboratory over a 6-month period to determine whether this titre ("high titre") may offer relative diagnostic certainty. Antibodies to extractable nuclear antigens (ENA) and native DNA were also obtained. RESULTS: 422 ANA results were positive at high titre. The medical record was available for review in 320 patients, of whom 238 (75%) were seen by a specialist physician, almost always including a rheumatologist. Our review determined that 35% had a diagnosis of connective tissue disease, 21% had a diagnosis of a possible/probable inflammatory disease, 16% had an alternative specific diagnosis provided, and in 29% no final disease specific diagnosis was recorded but CTD was not suggested to us or the specialist by the data available. One or more anti-ENA antibodies and/or anti-DNA were positive in 69 (22%) and 8% of the sera tested respectively. CONCLUSION: While long term follow-up is still required, a significant proportion of patients with high titre ANA have no CTD at the time of testing. Setting a higher cutoff for reporting of ANA may not increase specificity sufficiently to make it a useful alternative or addition to reporting a positive or negative value at screening titre alone.
OBJECTIVE: A positive antinuclear antibody (ANA), while sensitive, is not specific for systemic lupus erythematosus or connective tissue diseases (CTD). The purpose of the present study was to review those sera with a high titre (> or = dilutions above screening) ANA and determine from a review of the charts if these higher titres offered a satisfactory specificity for CTD. METHODS: All FANA testing in this region is carried out in one of two related laboratories. We reviewed the medical records of patients who had a positive ANA at a titre 4 dilutions above screening at this city-wide laboratory over a 6-month period to determine whether this titre ("high titre") may offer relative diagnostic certainty. Antibodies to extractable nuclear antigens (ENA) and native DNA were also obtained. RESULTS: 422 ANA results were positive at high titre. The medical record was available for review in 320 patients, of whom 238 (75%) were seen by a specialist physician, almost always including a rheumatologist. Our review determined that 35% had a diagnosis of connective tissue disease, 21% had a diagnosis of a possible/probable inflammatory disease, 16% had an alternative specific diagnosis provided, and in 29% no final disease specific diagnosis was recorded but CTD was not suggested to us or the specialist by the data available. One or more anti-ENA antibodies and/or anti-DNA were positive in 69 (22%) and 8% of the sera tested respectively. CONCLUSION: While long term follow-up is still required, a significant proportion of patients with high titre ANA have no CTD at the time of testing. Setting a higher cutoff for reporting of ANA may not increase specificity sufficiently to make it a useful alternative or addition to reporting a positive or negative value at screening titre alone.