Main Article Content


Background : Clinical manifestation of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) may be varies in attacking various body tissue and organ system. Anti-dsDNA is the important antibody in
determining diagnosis and prognosis of SLE. This study was conducted to explain the characteristics of antidsDNA and organ system involved in SLE patients.

Method:  We used quantitative descriptive analysis methods. Data were collected from medical records of SLE patients who came to Dr. Hasan Sadikin Bandung General Hospital Rheumatology Clinic from September to November 2016. Using categorical descriptive research equation, we found that total minimum samples were 67 subjects. Data observed included the level of anti-dsDNA antibody and clinical manifestation of organ system

Result: From 67 samples, there were 65 females which accounted for 97% of the research subjects. Distribution of organ system involved in our subjects was musculoskeletal (29%), mucocutaneous (27%), hematologic (21%), kidney (15%), neuropsychiatry (4%),
lung involvement (4%) and cardiovascular (0%). Organ system involved related with strong positive anti-dsDNA were mucocutaneous (21,6%), hematologic (25%), musculoskeletal (12,5%), kidney (14,3%) and lungs (20%).
Conclusion:  The most frequent organ system involved in SLE patients at our setting was musculoskeletal. The common organ involvement related with strong positive antidsDNA were mucocutaneous, musculoskeletal, and hematologic.

Keywords: anti-dsDNA, involvement of organ system, clinical manifestation, systemic lupus erythematosus

Article Details

How to Cite
Nadifa, S., Achadiyani, A., Dharmadji, H. P., & Hamijoyo, L. (2017). The Characteristic of Anti dsDNA and Organ System Involved in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Patient at Hasan Sadikin General Hospital, Bandung. Indonesian Journal of Rheumatology, 9(1).


  1. Yazdany J, Dall’Era M. Definition and classification of lupus and lupusrelated disorder. In: Isenberg D, Shen N, Vollenhoven RF, Weisman MH, editors. Dubois’ Lupus Erythematous and Related Syndrome. 8th ed. Philadelphia:Saunders Elsevier; 2013. p.1-6
  2. Feldman CH, Hiraki LT, Liu J, et al. Epidemiology and sociodemographics of systemic lupus erythematosus and lupus nephritis among US adults with Medicaid coverage, 2000-2004. Arthritis Rheum. 2013;65(3):753– 63.
  3. Osio-Salido E, Manapat-Reyes H. Epidemiology of systemic lupus erythematosus in Asia. Lupus. 2010;19:1365–73.
  4. Yeh KW, Yu CH, Chan PC, Horng JT, Huang JL. Burden of systemic lupus erythematosus in Taiwan: A population-based survey. Rheumatol Int. 2013 ;33(7) : 1805–11.
  5. Cabral M, Escobar C, Conde M, Ramos M, Melo Gomes JA. Juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus in Portugal: Clinical and immunological patterns of disease expression in a cohort of 56 patients. Acta Reumatol Port. 2013;38(4):274–85.
  6. Hochberg MC. Updating the American college of rheumatology revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1997;40(9):1725.
  7. Eriksson C, Kokkonen H, Johansson M, et al. Autoantibodies predate the onset of systemic lupus erythematosus in northern Sweden. Arthritis Res Ther. BioMed Central Ltd; 2011;13(1):R30.
  8. Yang J, Xu Z, Sui M, et al. Co-positivity for anti-dsDNA, -nucleosome and -histone antibodies in lupus nephritis is indicative of high serum levels and severe nephropathy. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0140441.
  9. Attar SM, Koshak EA. Medical condition associated with a positive antidouble-stranded deoxyribonucleic acid. Saudi Med J. 2010;31(7):781-87
  10. Somers EC, Marder W, Cagnoli P, et al. Population-based incidence and prevalence of systemic lupus erythematosus: The Michigan lupus epidemiology and surveillance program. Arthritis Rheumatol.2014; 66(2):369–78.
  11. Yazdany J, Gillis JZ, Trupin L, et al. Association of socioeconomic and demographic factors with utilization of rheumatology subspecialty care in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum. 2007; 57(4):593-600
  12. Hiraki LT, Feldman HC, Liu J et al. Prevalence, incidence, and demographic of systemic lupus erythematosus and lupus nephritis among Medicaicenrolled U.S. children, 2000-2004. Arthritis Rheum. 2012; 64 (8): 2669– 76.
  13. Cooper GS, Wither J, Bernatsky S, et al. Occupational and environmental exposures and risk of systemic lupus erythematosus: Silica, sunlight, solvents. Rheumatology. 2010;49(11):2172–80.
  14. Jallouli M, et al. Renal Data from the Arab world clinical and immunological manifestations of systemic lupus. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transplant. 2008;19(6):1001–8.
  15. Infantino M, Meacci F, Bentow C, et al. Clinical comparison of QUANTA flash dsDNA chemiluminescent immunoassay with four current assays for the detection of anti-dsDNA autoantibodies. Hindawi Publishing Corporation; 2015;2015.
  16. Fabrizio C, Fulvia C, Carlo P, et al. Systemic lupus erythematosus with and without anti-dsDNA antibodies : Analysis from a Large Monocentric Cohort. Hindawi Publising Corporation. 2015;2015.
  17. Compagno M, Rekvig OP, Bengtsson AA, et al. Clinical phenotype associations with various types of anti-dsDNA antibodies in patient with recent onset of rheumatic symptoms. Result from multicentre observational study. Lupus Science & Medicine. 2014; 1:e000007.
  18. Atta, Pereira, Santiago S-A. Anti-dsDNA antibodies in Brazilian patients of mainly African descent with systemic lupus erythematosus : Lack of association with lupus nephritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2009;693–7.
  19. Yung S, Chan TM. Mechanisms of kidney injury in lupus nephritis – the role of anti-dsDNA antibodies. Front Immunol. 2015;6(September):1–11