Multicenter Delphi Exercise to Identify Important Key Items for Classifying Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Evaluation of Progression From Preclinical to Systemic Autoimmune Rheumatic Disease: Novel Use of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology/American College of Rheumatology Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Classification Criteria as an Outcome Measure

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to evaluate the development of a systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease (SARD) in undifferentiated and asymptomatic individuals with antinuclear antibodies (ANAs). We comparatively evaluated those who did and did not develop a SARD and fulfillment of classification criteria.

METHODS

We conducted a cohort study of undifferentiated and asymptomatic patients with ANAs who were assessed for the development of a SARD. The primary outcome was a diagnosis of a SARD over a two-year period. We assessed fulfillment of classification criteria. Risk ratios (RRs) were used to evaluate differences among those who did and did not progress to a SARD.

RESULTS

We evaluated 207 asymptomatic ANA-positive or undifferentiated patients, of whom 23 (11%) progressed to a SARD, whereas 187 (89%) did not progress. Progressors developed systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) (n = 11 [48%]), Sjögren disease (n = 5 [22%]), systemic sclerosis (n = 3 [13%]), rheumatoid arthritis (n = 1 [4%]), and from ANA-positive to undifferentiated connective tissue disease (n = 3 [13%]). Fever (RR 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.8-0.93) and antiphospholipid antibodies (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.87-0.93) occurred less frequently, whereas arthritis (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.20-2.55) occurred more frequently in progressors. Progressors to SLE had arthritis (91%), whereas none developed delirium, psychosis, or nephritis. Among patients with SLE, 100% fulfilled the EULAR/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) SLE criteria (sensitivity 91.7%, specificity 100%), whereas 73% fulfilled the 1997 ACR SLE criteria (sensitivity 81.8%, specificity 98.9%).

CONCLUSION

Most undifferentiated/asymptomatic individuals with ANA do not progress to a SARD over a two-year period. SLE progressors appear to have mild disease in the short term. The EULAR/ACR SLE criteria have improved ability to identify those who develop SLE.

Revisiting Childhood-Onset Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (cSLE) is a chronic autoimmune disease with a multisystemic involvement diagnosed during childhood. The disease is marked by the production of autoantibodies targeting self-antigens, often before symptoms emerge. The presentation, clinical course, and outcome vary significantly among patients with cSLE. The onset of cSLE can be at any age during childhood while a diagnosis of cSLE before the age of 5 years is rare and raises a suspicion of monogenic lupus. Childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus affects various organs and systems, most frequently presenting with mucocutaneous, musculoskeletal, renal, and neuropsychiatric manifestations. Multiple disease flares can be seen during the disease course. Childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus causes significant morbidity and mortality. Children and adolescents with cSLE show higher disease activity and damage, and more aggressive immunosuppressive treatments are needed compared to adultonset SLE. Early diagnosis can be difficult due to the insidious onset with nonspecific symptoms. Disease activity and damage measures aim to ensure an accurate evaluation of disease status. A multidisciplinary approach and individualized disease management are important. Disease management is complex including the control of disease activity, the reduction of flares and damage, and a limitation of drug toxicity while improving the health-related quality of life in patients with cSLE.

Oral lesions of systemic lupus erythematosus: A collaborative Latin American study

BACKGROUND

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a multifactorial autoimmune disease that may affect the oral mucosa. The variable spectrum of oral lesions observed in SLE can pose challenges in diagnosis, particularly when the lesions occur in isolation. The aim of this study was to describe the oral lesions occurring in patients with SLE from Latin America.

METHODS

This collaborative record-based study involving 11 oral and maxillofacial pathology and medicine services across Venezuela, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, and Mexico describes the clinicopathological profile of SLE-related oral lesions.

RESULTS

Seventy patients with SLE and oral lesions were included in the study. The majority were females (75.7%; female/male ratio: 3.1:1) and white (62.1%), with a mean age of 38.4 years (range: 11-77 years). The most common site of oral lesions was the hard/soft palate (32.0%). Clinically, oral lesions predominantly presented as ulcers (26.6%), erosions (26.6%), and white lesions (23.4%). Isolated oral lesions occurred in 65.2% of individuals, while cutaneous manifestations occurred in 80.3%. The main clinical diagnostic hypothesis in 71.4% of cases was an immune-mediated disease. Oral biopsies followed by histopathological analysis were performed in 50 cases.

CONCLUSION

Oral lesions of SLE exhibit a variety of clinical and histopathological features. A key point in diagnosis is that unusual oral changes without an obvious local cause may indicate a possible systemic condition presenting with oral lesions. A multidisciplinary approach, which includes regular oral examination, is warranted to identify oral lesions and provide treatment.

SLE criteria are by necessity still based on clinical (and immunological) criteria items

INTRODUCTION

The 2019 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology (EULAR/ACR) classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) rely on clinical and routine immunological items. The criteria have anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA) as an obligatory entry criterion; items are weighted and ordered in domains. While demonstrating good sensitivity and specificity, the lack of a more molecular approach to some came as a disappointment.

AREAS COVERED

Based on a non-systematic literature search, this review covers items investigated in the EULAR/ACR classification criteria project, but not included in the set of criteria. It demonstrates data on the importance of the criteria and analyses implications of multiomics studies started around the same time as the criteria project. We also discuss data on the type-I interferon signature and on other cytokines, as well as on complement proteins and their split products. The final part deals with the variability in disease and the apparently random pattern of autoantibodies and organ manifestations in individual patients.

EXPERT OPINION

We believe that the EULAR/ACR criteria are a relevant step toward the right direction. A more uniform molecular approach will not be feasible as long as the molecular mechanisms underlying the tendency toward producing multiple autoantibodies are not better understood.

[Immunopathogenesis of systemic lupus erythematosus]

Insights into the immunopathogenesis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) help to understand the complex disease patterns and to develop new treatment strategies. The disease manifestations essentially result from autoantibodies, immune complexes and cytokines. Particularly the propensity towards developing various autoantibodies is central to the disease itself; autoantibody specificities lead to highly variable organ manifestations. This review article delineates the clinically relevant state of knowledge on SLE pathogenesis, with the goal to establish a model useful for clinical practice, which also helps to classify the novel therapeutic approaches.

The greatest contribution to medical science is the transformation from studying symptoms to studying their causes-the unrelenting legacy of Robert Koch and Louis Pasteur-and a causality perspective to approach a definition of SLE

The basic initiative related to this study is derived from the fact that systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a unique and fertile system science subject. We are, however, still far from understanding its nature. It may be fair to indicate that we are spending more time and resources on studying the complexity of classified SLE than studying the validity of classification criteria. This study represents a theoretical analysis of current instinctual SLE classification criteria based on "the causality principle." The discussion has its basis on the radical scientific traditions introduced by Robert Koch and Louis Pasteur. They announced significant changes in our thinking of disease etiology through the implementation of the modern version of "the causality principle." They influenced all aspects of today's medical concepts and research: the transformation of medical science from studies of symptoms to study their causes, relevant for monosymptomatic diseases as for syndromes. Their studies focused on bacteria as causes of infectious diseases and on how the immune system adapts to control and prevent contagious spreading. This is the most significant paradigm shift in the modern history of medicine and resulted in radical changes in our view of the immune system. They described acquired post-infection immunity and active immunization by antigen-specific vaccines. The paradigm "transformation" has a great theoretical impact also on current studies of autoimmune diseases like SLE: symptoms and their cause(s). In this study, the evolution of SLE classification and diagnostic criteria is discussed from "the causality principle" perspective, and if contemporary SLE classification criteria are as useful as believed today for SLE research. This skepticism is based on the fact that classification criteria are not selected based on cogent causal strategies. The SLE classification criteria do not harmonize with Koch's and Pasteur's causality principle paradigms and not with Witebsky's Koch-derived postulates for autoimmune and infectious diseases. It is not established whether the classification criteria can separate SLE as a "one disease entity" from "SLE-like non-SLE disorders"-the latter in terms of SLE imitations. This is discussed here in terms of weight, rank, and impact of the classification criteria: Do they all originate from "one basic causal etiology"? Probably not.

SLE classification criteria: Is "The causality principle" integrated and operative - and do the molecular and genetical network, on which criteria depend on, support the definition of SLE as "a one disease entity" - A theoretical discussion

Molecular and cellular aspects of the autoimmune pathophysiology in SLE is linked to the "The causality principle". SLE Classification Criteria identify per definition disease measures (here: synonymous with classification criteria), but not diagnostic criteria within a classical framework. These two mostly theoretical criteria collections represent a salient conflict between phenomenology and the causality principle - between disease measures and molecular interactions that promote such measures, in other words their cause(s). Essentially, each criterion evolves from immunogenic and inflammatory signals - some are interconnected, some are not. Disparate signals instigated by disparate causes. These may promote clinically heterogenous SLE cohorts with respect to organ affection, autoimmunity, and disease course. There is today no concise measures or arguments that settle whether SLE cohorts evolve from one decisive etiological factor (homogenous cohorts), or if disparate patho-biological factors promote SLE (heterogenous cohorts). Current SLE cohorts are not ideal substrates to serve as study objects if the research aims are to describe etiology, and molecular interactions that cause - and link - primary and secondary pathophysiological events together - events that account for early and progressive SLE. We have to develop SLE criteria allowing us to identify definable categories of SLE in order to describe etiology, pathophysiology and diagnostic criteria of delimitated SLE versions. In this regard, the causality principle is central to define dominant etiologies of individual SLE categories, and subsequent and consequent down-stream diagnostic disease measures. In this sense, we may whether we like it or not identify different SLE categories like "genuine SLE" and "SLE-like non-SLE" syndromes. Many aspects of this problem are thoroughly discussed in this study.

Classification of systemic lupus erythematosus: From the development of classification criteria to a new taxonomy?

SLE is a highly variable systemic autoimmune disease. Its immunopathological effector phase is partly understood. However, the background of its variability is not. SLE classification criteria have been relying on the clinical manifestations and standard autoimmune serology. This still holds true for the 2019 EULAR/ACR classification criteria. On one hand, this has led to significant precision in defining patients with SLE. On the other hand, the information in the criteria neither helps understanding the individual patient's pathophysiology, nor does it predict the efficacy of the available immunomodulatory therapies. Chances of further improvement of clinical criteria are most likely limited. This is where new multi-omic approaches have started to make an impact. While not yet able to differentiate diseases with the same precision as the classification criteria, the results of these studies go far beyond the scope of the criteria with regard to immune dysregulation. Looking at both sides in detail, we here try to synthesize the available data, aiming at a better understanding of SLE and its immune pathophysiology.

2023 ACR/EULAR antiphospholipid syndrome classification criteria

OBJECTIVE

To develop new antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria with high specificity for use in observational studies and trials, jointly supported by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and EULAR.

METHODS

This international multidisciplinary initiative included four phases: (1) Phase I, criteria generation by surveys and literature review; (2) Phase II, criteria reduction by modified Delphi and nominal group technique exercises; (3) Phase III, criteria definition, further reduction with the guidance of real-world patient scenarios, and weighting via consensus-based multicriteria decision analysis, and threshold identification; and (4) Phase IV, validation using independent adjudicators' consensus as the gold standard.

RESULTS

The 2023 ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria include an entry criterion of at least one positive antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) test within 3 years of identification of an aPL-associated clinical criterion, followed by additive weighted criteria (score range 1-7 points each) clustered into six clinical domains (macrovascular venous thromboembolism, macrovascular arterial thrombosis, microvascular, obstetric, cardiac valve, and hematologic) and two laboratory domains (lupus anticoagulant functional coagulation assays, and solid-phase enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for IgG/IgM anticardiolipin and/or IgG/IgM anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibodies). Patients accumulating at least three points each from the clinical and laboratory domains are classified as having APS. In the validation cohort, the new APS criteria vs the 2006 revised Sapporo classification criteria had a specificity of 99% vs 86%, and a sensitivity of 84% vs 99%.

CONCLUSION

These new ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria were developed using rigorous methodology with multidisciplinary international input. Hierarchically clustered, weighted, and risk-stratified criteria reflect the current thinking about APS, providing high specificity and a strong foundation for future APS research.

The 2023 ACR/EULAR Antiphospholipid Syndrome Classification Criteria

OBJECTIVE

To develop new antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria with high specificity for use in observational studies and trials, jointly supported by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and EULAR.

METHODS

This international multidisciplinary initiative included 4 phases: 1) Phase I, criteria generation by surveys and literature review; 2) Phase II, criteria reduction by modified Delphi and nominal group technique exercises; 3) Phase III, criteria definition, further reduction with the guidance of real-world patient scenarios, and weighting via consensus-based multicriteria decision analysis, and threshold identification; and 4) Phase IV, validation using independent adjudicators' consensus as the gold standard.

RESULTS

The 2023 ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria include an entry criterion of at least one positive antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) test within 3 years of identification of an aPL-associated clinical criterion, followed by additive weighted criteria (score range 1-7 points each) clustered into 6 clinical domains (macrovascular venous thromboembolism, macrovascular arterial thrombosis, microvascular, obstetric, cardiac valve, and hematologic) and 2 laboratory domains (lupus anticoagulant functional coagulation assays, and solid-phase enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for IgG/IgM anticardiolipin and/or IgG/IgM anti-β2 -glycoprotein I antibodies). Patients accumulating at least 3 points each from the clinical and laboratory domains are classified as having APS. In the validation cohort, the new APS criteria versus the 2006 revised Sapporo classification criteria had a specificity of 99% versus 86%, and a sensitivity of 84% versus 99%.

CONCLUSION

These new ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria were developed using rigorous methodology with multidisciplinary international input. Hierarchically clustered, weighted, and risk-stratified criteria reflect the current thinking about APS, providing high specificity and a strong foundation for future APS research.

Imaging Features of Calcium Pyrophosphate Deposition Disease: Consensus Definitions From an International Multidisciplinary Working Group

OBJECTIVE

To develop definitions for imaging features being considered as potential classification criteria for calcium pyrophosphate deposition (CPPD) disease, additional to clinical and laboratory criteria, and to compile example images of CPPD on different imaging modalities.

METHODS

The American College of Rheumatology and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology CPPD classification criteria Imaging Advisory Group (IAG) and Steering Committee drafted definitions of imaging features that are characteristic of CPPD on conventional radiography (CR), conventional computed tomography (CT), dual-energy CT (DECT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). An anonymous expert survey was undertaken by a 35-member Combined Expert Committee, including all IAG members. The IAG and 5 external musculoskeletal radiologists with expertise in CPPD convened virtually to further refine item definitions and voted on example images illustrating CR, CT, and DECT item definitions, with ≥90% agreement required to deem them acceptable.

RESULTS

The Combined Expert Committee survey indicated consensus on all CR definitions. The IAG and external radiologists reached consensus on CT and DECT item definitions, which specify that calcium pyrophosphate deposits appear less dense than cortical bone. The group developed an MRI definition and acknowledged limitations of this modality for CPPD. Ten example images for CPPD were voted acceptable (4 CR, 4 CT, and 2 DECT), and 3 images of basic calcium phosphate deposition were voted acceptable to serve as contrast against imaging features of CPPD.

CONCLUSION

An international group of rheumatologists and musculoskeletal radiologists defined imaging features characteristic of CPPD on CR, CT, and DECT and assembled a set of example images as a reference for future clinical research studies.

Identifying Potential Classification Criteria for Calcium Pyrophosphate Deposition Disease: Item Generation and Item Reduction

OBJECTIVE

Classification criteria for calcium pyrophosphate deposition (CPPD) disease will facilitate clinical research on this common crystalline arthritis. Our objective was to report on the first 2 phases of a 4-phase process for developing CPPD classification criteria.

METHODS

CPPD classification criteria development is overseen by a 12-member steering committee. Item generation (phase I) included a scoping literature review of 5 literature databases and contributions from a 35-member combined expert committee and 2 patient research partners. Item reduction and refinement (phase II) involved a combined expert committee meeting, discussions among clinical, imaging, and laboratory advisory groups, and an item-rating exercise to assess the influence of individual items toward classification. The steering committee reviewed the modal rating score for each item (range -3 [strongly pushes away from CPPD] to +3 [strongly pushes toward CPPD]) to determine items to retain for future phases of criteria development.

RESULTS

Item generation yielded 420 items (312 from the literature, 108 from experts/patients). The advisory groups eliminated items that they agreed were unlikely to distinguish between CPPD and other forms of arthritis, yielding 127 items for the item-rating exercise. Fifty-six items, most of which had a modal rating of +/- 2 or 3, were retained for future phases. As numerous imaging items were rated +3, the steering committee recommended focusing on imaging of the knee and wrist and 1 additional affected joint for calcification suggestive of CPP crystal deposition.

CONCLUSION

A data- and expert-driven process is underway to develop CPPD classification criteria. Candidate items comprise clinical, imaging, and laboratory features.

SLE classification criteria: Science-based icons or algorithmic distractions – an intellectually demanding dilemma

It is, so to say, not a prerogative authority assigned to SLE classification criteria that allow them to declare something definitively important about SLE. This is particularly true as criteria-based classification processes overrule the highly needed evolution of concise diagnostic criteria. It is classification criteria that allocate SLE patients into cohorts intended to describe the nature of their disease. Therefore, all major SLE classification criteria since the 1971 preliminary criteria usurp the role of diagnostic criteria. Today´s practice silently accept that the SLE classification process “diagnose” SLE patients despite the fact that classification criteria are not accepted as diagnostic criteria! This is a central paradox in contemporary SLE research strategies. Contemporary SLE cohorts are designed to investigate SLE´s etiological features. However, each cohort that is categorized by classification criteria has one central inherent problem. From theoretical and practical arguments, they embody multiple distinct clinical phenotypes. This raises the critical and principal question if phenotypically heterogenic SLE cohorts are useful to identify basic SLE-specific etiology(ies) and disease process(es). In times to come, we must prioritize development of firm diagnostic criteria for SLE, as the classification criteria have not contributed to reduce the enigmatic character of the syndrome. No radical improvements are visible in the horizon that may lead to concise investigations of SLE in well-defined homogenous SLE cohorts. We must develop new strategies where studies of phenotypically standardized cohorts of SLE must be central elements. Problems related to contemporary SLE classification criteria are contemplated, analyzed, and critically discussed in this study.

Glomerular Hematuria and the Utility of Urine Microscopy: A Review

Evaluation of hematuria and microscopic examination of urine sediment are commonly used tools by nephrologists in their assessment of glomerular diseases. Certain morphological aspects of urine red blood cells (RBCs) seen by microscopy may help in identifying the source of hematuria as glomerular or not. Recognized signs of glomerular injury are RBC casts or dysmorphic RBCs, in particular acanthocytes (ring-shaped RBCs with protruding blebs). Despite being a highly operator-dependent test, urine sediment examination revealing these signs of glomerular hematuria has demonstrated specificities and positive predictive values ranging between 90%-100% for diagnosing glomerular disease, although sensitivity can be quite variable. Hematuria is a commonly used tool for diagnosing patients with proliferative glomerulonephritis such as IgA nephropathy, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis, and lupus nephritis, sometimes even as a surrogate for kidney involvement. Studies examining the role for hematuria in monitoring and predicting adverse outcomes in these diseases have shown inconsistent results, possibly due to inconsistent definitions that often fail to consider specific markers of glomerular hematuria such as dysmorphic RBCs, acanthocytes, or RBC casts. A consensus definition of what constitutes glomerular hematuria would help standardize use in future studies and likely improve the diagnostic and prognostic value of hematuria as a marker of glomerulonephritis.

Advances in SLE classification criteria

This year, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 1982 classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) celebrate their 40th anniversary. From this start, the quest for optimal SLE criteria has led to the 1997 ACR update, the 2012 publication of the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) criteria, and, in 2019, the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/ACR classification criteria. The latter have since been externally validated in more than two dozen studies and have become the gold standard inclusion criterion of SLE clinical trials. This comprehensive review attempts to follow the evolving success story of SLE classification, highlighting relevant decisions and their rationale, and discussing consequences for the way SLE is defined and managed.

Anti-dsDNA antibodies in the classification criteria of systemic lupus erythematosus

Anti-double stranded DNA (dsDNA) antibodies play an important role in the diagnosis, classification and management of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), an autoimmune disease characterized by heterogeneous clinical manifestations and a wide range of autoantibodies, which makes the diagnosis quite challenging. In the absence of diagnostic criteria, classification criteria have been used for many decades. The first classification criteria for SLE were formulated in 1971 by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), followed by two revisions in 1982 and 1997. In order to improve their clinical performance and to reflect new knowledge on autoantibodies, new classification criteria for SLE were issued in 2012 by the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC). These criteria proposed to classify only patients that have at least one immunologic criterion, overcoming SLE classification based solely on clinical manifestations. In 2019, the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/ACR proposed new criteria that aimed to maintain the high specificity of the ACR criteria with a sensitivity close to the SLICC 2012 criteria. These 2019 criteria reinforced the importance of autoantibodies in SLE diagnosis, assigning the highest score (6 points) to anti-dsDNA antibodies in the fully weighted scoring of the disease. The current criteria require the use of an anti-dsDNA assay with at least 90% specificity, such as the Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence test (CLIFT) or FARR assay. However, the criteria do not comment on all the tests currently widely used in clinical laboratories. Neither do they consider the technological evolutions, nor standardization issues. Since strict adherence to any of the classification criteria, including the serological items, could lead to possible misclassification of SLE and/or delayed diagnosis, test characteristics of the distinct immunoassays should be taken into consideration.

Limited sensitivity and specificity of the ACR/EULAR-2019 classification criteria for SLE in JSLE?-observations from the UK JSLE Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to test the performance of the new ACR and EULAR criteria, that include ANA positivity as entry criterion, in JSLE.

METHODS

Performance of the ACR/EULAR-2019 criteria were compared with Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC-2012), using data from children and young people (CYP) in the UK JSLE Cohort Study (n = 482), with the ACR-1997 criteria used as reference standard. An unselected cohort of CYP positive for ANA (n = 129) was used to calculate positive/negative predictive values of the criteria.

RESULTS

At both first and last visits, the number of patients fulfilling the different classification criteria varied significantly (P < 0.001). The sensitivity of the SLICC-2012 criteria was higher when compared with that of the ACR/EULAR-2019 criteria at first and last visits (98% vs 94% for first visit, and 98% vs 96% for last visit; P < 0.001), when all available CYP were considered. The ACR/EULAR-2019 criteria were more specific when compared with the SLICC-2012 criteria (77% vs 67% for first visit, and 81% vs 71% for last visit; P < 0.001). Significant differences between the classification criteria were mainly caused by the variation in ANA positivity across ages. In the unselected cohort of ANA-positive CYP, the ACR/EULAR-2019 criteria produced the highest false-positive classification (6/129, 5%).

CONCLUSION

In CYP, the ACR/EULAR-2019 criteria are not superior to those of the SLICC-2012 or ACR-1997 criteria. If classification criteria are designed to include CYP and adult populations, paediatric rheumatologists should be included in the consensus and evaluation process, as seemingly minor changes can significantly affect outcomes.

Dissociation in SLE: A part of lupus fog?

INTRODUCTION

Lupus fog is ill-defined. We aimed to study whether lupus fog is the result of dissociation by studying the prevalence of dissociation and dissociative fog in patients with SLE and neuropsychiatric manifestations of inflammatory and non-inflammatory origin.

METHODS

Patients visiting the tertiary referral center for neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus (NPSLE) of the LUMC between 2007-2019 were included. Patients were classified as having neuropsychiatric symptoms of inflammatory or non-inflammatory origin. Dissociation was studied using the Dissociative Experience Scale-II (DES), in which the presence of 28 dissociative symptoms is rated (0-100% of the time), of which one question assesses the presence of a dissociative fog directly. Average scores are calculated and scores ≥ 25 are considered indicative of a dissociative disorder. A score of ≥ 30 on question 28 (dissociative fog) was considered indicative for the presence of a fog. Summary scores in the general adult population range from 4.4 to 14. Multiple regression analysis (MRA) was performed to study the association between inflammatory neuropsychiatric symptoms and dissociation. DES results are presented as median (range) and MRA as B and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

DES questionnaires were available for 337 patients, of which 69 had an inflammatory NPSLE phenotype (20%). Mean age in the total study population was 43 ± 14 years and the majority was female (87%). The median dissociation score was 7.1 (0-75) and did not differ between patients with neuropsychiatric symptoms of inflammatory or non-inflammatory origin (B: -0.04 (95% CI: -0.17; 0.09)). 35 patients (10%) had a score indicative of a dissociative disorder. The most common type of dissociation was absorption/imagination. 43 patients (13%) reported a dissociative fog.

DISCUSSION

In most patients with SLE and neuropsychiatric symptoms, dissociative symptoms are within normal range, regardless of underlying etiology. Dissociative fog is present, but uncommon. Lupus fog is most likely not associated with dissociation.

The Key Success Factors for Attracting Foreign Investment in the Post-Epidemic Era

The global economy has been hit by the unexpected COVID-19 outbreak, and foreign investment has been seen as one of the most important tools to boost the economy. However, in the highly uncertain post-epidemic era, determining how to attract foreign investment is the key to revitalizing the economy. What are the important factors for governments to attract investment, and how to improve them? This will be an important decision in the post-epidemic era. Therefore, this study develops a novel decision-making model to explore the key factors in attracting foreign investment. The model first uses fuzzy Delphi to explore the key factors of attracting foreign investment in the post-epidemic era, and then uses DEMATEL to construct the causal relationships among these factors. To overcome the uncertainty of various information sources and inconsistent messages from decision-makers, this study combined neutrosophic set theory to conduct quantitative analysis. The results of the study show that the model is suitable for analyzing the key factors of investment attraction in the post-epidemic period. Based on the results of the study, we also propose strategies that will help the relevant policy-making departments to understand the root causes of the problem and to formulate appropriate investment strategies in advance. In addition, the model is also used for comparative analysis, which reveals that this novel approach can integrate more incomplete information and present expert opinions in a more objective way.

Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Classification and Diagnosis

Since the European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology 2019 classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) were published, they were externally validated by groups worldwide. In particular, the new criteria worked well also in East Asian and pediatric cohorts. Antinuclear antibodies (ANA) as an entry criterion were critically discussed, but the group of ANA-negative patients is small (<5%) worldwide. Specificity of the criteria is dependent on correct attribution only of those criteria that are not better explained by other causes. Although the classification criteria should not be used for diagnosis, many novel aspects inform diagnostic considerations.

Applying the 2019 EULAR/ACR lupus criteria to patients from an established cohort: a Latin American perspective

Objective

To evaluate the performance of the 2019 European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) criteria in terms of earlier patients’ classification in comparison to the 1982/1997 ACR or the 2012 Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) criteria.

Materials and methods

Patients from a Latin America, multiethnic, multicentre cohort, where SLE was defined using the physicians’ diagnosis, were included. To calculate the sensitivity of the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria, the 1982/1997 ACR criteria were considered the gold standard. Additionally, comparison of the 1982/1997 ACR criteria and the 2012 SLICC criteria with the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria was performed.

Results

The sensitivity of the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria when compared with the 1982/1997 ACR criteria as the gold standard was 91.3%. This new set of criteria allowed an earlier SLE patient classification in 7.4% (mean 0.67 years) and 0.6% (mean 1.47 years) than the 1982/1997 ACR and the 2012 SLICC criteria, respectively. Patients accruing the 2019 EULAR/ACR earlier than the 1982/1997 ACR criteria were more likely to have high anti-dsDNA titres; those accruing them later were less likely to have mucocutaneous and joint manifestations; this was not observed when comparing them with the 2012 SLICC criteria.

Conclusions

The 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria classified earlier only a small proportion of Latin America patients than with the two other criteria sets in real-life clinical practice scenarios. Further studies in different patient populations are needed before these new criteria are adopted worldwide.

New lupus criteria: a critical view

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the validation of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2019 classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

RECENT FINDINGS

Positive antinuclear antibodies, which constitute the obligatory entry criterion of the EULAR/ACR criteria, were found in the vast majority of SLE patients worldwide, with 97% (94-100%) of patients antinuclear antibodies positive in studies investigating EULAR/ACR criteria performance. Combined over the publications, EULAR/ACR criteria sensitivity was 92% (range 85-97%). Specificity varied more relevantly, with the publications published after the EULAR/ACR 2019 criteria showing 93% (83-98%) specificity. Of particular relevance is the good performance of the EULAR/ACR criteria seen in pediatric SLE as well as in early SLE.

SUMMARY

The new classification criteria have been investigated in an impressive number of cohorts worldwide, adding to the data from the EULAR/ACR criteria project cohort. It is critical to strictly keep to the attribution rule, that items are only counted if there is no more likely alternative explanation than SLE, the domain structure, where only the highest weighted item in a domain counts, and the limitation to highly specific tests for antibodies to double-stranded DNA.

European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) SLE classification criteria item performance

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

The European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2019 classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus system showed high specificity, while attaining also high sensitivity. We hereby analysed the performance of the individual criteria items and their contribution to the overall performance of the criteria.

METHODS

We combined the EULAR/ACR derivation and validation cohorts for a total of 1197 systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and n=1074 non-SLE patients with a variety of conditions mimicking SLE, such as other autoimmune diseases, and calculated the sensitivity and specificity for antinuclear antibodies (ANA) and the 23 specific criteria items. We also tested performance omitting the EULAR/ACR criteria attribution rule, which defines that items are only counted if not more likely explained by a cause other than SLE.

RESULTS

Positive ANA, the new entry criterion, was 99.5% sensitive, but only 19.4% specific, against a non-SLE population that included other inflammatory rheumatic, infectious, malignant and metabolic diseases. The specific criteria items were highly variable in sensitivity (from 0.42% for delirium and 1.84% for psychosis to 75.6% for antibodies to double-stranded DNA), but their specificity was uniformly high, with low C3 or C4 (83.0%) and leucopenia <4.000/mm³ (83.8%) at the lowest end. Unexplained fever was 95.3% specific in this cohort. Applying the attribution rule improved specificity, particularly for joint involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Changing the position of the highly sensitive, non-specific ANA to an entry criterion and the attribution rule resulted in a specificity of >80% for all items, explaining the higher overall specificity of the criteria set.

Classifying and diagnosing systemic lupus erythematosus in the 21st century

The EULAR/ACR 2019 classification criteria for SLE constitute a current and optimized clinical approach to SLE classification. Classification is still not based on molecular approaches and the results from large studies using polyomics may be interpreted as demonstrating the relevance of the genetic and environmental background rather than splitting SLE into several entities. In fact, an association study within the EULAR/ACR classification criteria project found associations between manifestations only within organ domains. This independency of various organ manifestations argues for SLE as one disease entity. The current review article will therefore concentrate on the clinical and immunological manifestations of SLE and on what we have already learned in this century. Moreover, the structure and essential rules of the EULAR/ACR 2019 classification criteria will be discussed. While classification and diagnosis are distinct concepts, which have to remain clearly separated, information derived from the process towards the classification criteria is also useful for diagnostic purposes. Therefore this article also tries to delineate what classification can teach us for diagnosis, covering a wide variety of SLE manifestations.

Associations Between Classification Criteria Items in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

OBJECTIVE

A project aimed at developing new classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is based on weighted criteria that include both laboratory and clinical items. Combinations of certain symptoms may occur commonly in SLE, which provides an argument against independently counting these items. The current study was undertaken to evaluate the interrelationship between candidate criteria items in the International Early SLE cohort and in the Euro-Lupus cohort.

METHODS

The International Early SLE cohort included 389 patients, who were diagnosed within 3 years prior to the study. Data on the ACR's 1997 update of the SLE revised criteria, the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics 2012 criteria, and on 30 additional items were collected. To evaluate the interrelationship of the criteria, a tetrachoric correlation was used to assess the degree of association between different manifestations in the same organ system. The correlations identified in the International Early SLE cohort were validated in the Euro-Lupus cohort.

RESULTS

A few relevant correlations were observed among specific clinical cutaneous manifestations (in particular, malar rash correlated with photosensitivity, alopecia, and oral ulcers) and serologic manifestations (anti-Sm and anti-double-stranded DNA and anti-RNA polymerase, anti-Ro and anti-La, and antiphospholipid antibodies), and these results were validated in the Euro-Lupus cohort. The associations within the mucocutaneous domain, hematologic and the specific autoantibodies suggest that within a single domain only the highest ranking item should be counted to avoid overrepresentation.

CONCLUSION

Some of the candidate SLE criteria cluster within domains. Given these interrelationships, multiple criteria within a domain should not be independently counted. These results are important to consider for the structure of new SLE classification criteria.

New classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To compare the recently published European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) classification criteria for SLE with the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Centers (SLICC) criteria and the earlier ACR criteria, focusing on their key concepts.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although the SLICC criteria introduced numbers of new criteria items, the new EULAR/ACR criteria added only noninfectious fever, based on an early SLE cohort study and an SLE patient survey, and condensed hematological, mucocutaneous and neurological items. Whereas the SLICC criteria maintained the overall structure familiar from the ACR criteria, the EULAR /ACR criteria use antinuclear antibodies (ANA) as an obligatory entry criterion, have weighted criteria and group these in domains. Where the SLICC criteria greatly increased sensitivity, losing some specificity, the EULAR/ACR criteria increased specificity again, for excellent classification criteria performance.

SUMMARY

Despite differences in structure and statistical performance, the EULAR/ACR and SLICC criteria agree on the importance of both immunological and clinical findings, on the high impact of lupus nephritis by histology, and on most clinical items.

Performance of the 2019 EULAR/ACR classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus in early disease, across sexes and ethnicities

OBJECTIVES

The European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2019 Classification Criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have been validated with high sensitivity and specificity. We evaluated the performance of the new criteria with regard to disease duration, sex and race/ethnicity, and compared its performance against the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) 2012 and ACR 1982/1997 criteria.

METHODS

Twenty-one SLE centres from 16 countries submitted SLE cases and mimicking controls to form the validation cohort. The sensitivity and specificity of the EULAR/ACR 2019, SLICC 2012 and ACR 1982/1997 criteria were evaluated.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of female (n=1098), male (n=172), Asian (n=118), black (n=68), Hispanic (n=124) and white (n=941) patients; with an SLE duration of 1 to <3 years (n=196) and ≥5 years (n=879). Among patients with 1 to <3 years disease duration, the EULAR/ACR criteria had better sensitivity than the ACR criteria (97% vs 81%). The EULAR/ACR criteria performed well in men (sensitivity 93%, specificity 96%) and women (sensitivity 97%, specificity 94%). Among women, the EULAR/ACR criteria had better sensitivity than the ACR criteria (97% vs 83%) and better specificity than the SLICC criteria (94% vs 82%). Among white patients, the EULAR/ACR criteria had better sensitivity than the ACR criteria (95% vs 83%) and better specificity than the SLICC criteria (94% vs 83%). The EULAR/ACR criteria performed well among black patients (sensitivity of 98%, specificity 100%), and had better sensitivity than the ACR criteria among Hispanic patients (100% vs 86%) and Asian patients (97% vs 77%).

CONCLUSIONS

The EULAR/ACR 2019 criteria perform well among patients with early disease, men, women, white, black, Hispanic and Asian patients. These criteria have superior sensitivity than the ACR criteria and/or superior specificity than the SLICC criteria across many subgroups.

Systemic sclerosis: To subset or not to subset, that is the question

Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a heterogeneous disease with variability in autoantibody profiles, skin and internal organ involvement, disease trajectory, and survival. The ability to identify more homogeneous subsets of SSc patients has informed patient care and been an essential aspect of SSc research. In this article, the historic evolution of subsetting systems in SSc are described including clinically based SSc subsetting systems, their utility, strengths, and limitations. There is a shifting paradigm of SSc subsets, including biologic classification of SSc subsets and fully data-driven approaches to SSc subset classification, taking into consideration the needs of the SSc global community in the modern era and the ability to prognosticate patients with SSc.

EULAR/ACR classification criteria for SLE

Supported by both the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) from the beginning, a large transatlantic, and in many phases worldwide, project has led to new classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The project had ambitious goals, particularly maintaining the high specificity of the ACR criteria, while reaching a sensitivity close to the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) 2012 criteria. The validation data suggest that the new criteria reached this goal, with a specificity of 93% (as for the ACR criteria) and a sensitivity of 96% (vs 97% for the SLICC criteria). The new EULAR/ACR classification criteria use positive antinuclear antibodies (ANA) as an entry criterion and have weighted items, ranging from 2 (for delirium, non-infectious fever and anti-phospholipid antibodies) to 10 (for class III or IV lupus nephritis). The cut-off for classification is 10, reached by class III/IV nephritis alone. Items are organized in domains, within which only the highest item is to be counted. Instead of many defined exclusions, one rule is used for all, namely that items are to be attributed to SLE and counted only if there is no more likely alternative diagnosis. These criteria are now expected to be externally validated in various other cohorts. The team spirit and collegiality characteristic for this EULAR/ACR criteria effort will hopefully facilitate future international projects on SLE.

Neue Klassifikationskriterien des SLE: was helfen sie für die klinische Diagnose des SLE?

Im September 2019 sind die gemeinsamen Klassifikationskriterien der European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) und des American College of Rheumatology (ACR) für den systemischen Lupus erythematodes (SLE) erschienen. Die EULAR/ACR 2019 Klassifikationskriterien verwenden (jemals) positive antinukleäre Antikörper (ANA) als obligates Eingangskriterium und gewichtete Kriterien mit Werten von 2 bis 10 und einem Cut-off von 10. Die Kriterien sind in 10 Domänen geordnet, innerhalb derer Assoziationen zwischen verschiedenen Manifestationen bestehen, und nur der höchste Wert in einer Domäne wird verwendet. Kriterien werden nur gewertet, wenn es für sie keine andere Erklärung gibt, die wahrscheinlicher ist als der SLE. Die neuen Kriterien sind statistisch den älteren Kriteriensets überlegen. Sie gelten aber nur für die Klassifikation. Für die meisten Rheumatologinnen und Rheumatologen ist das Stellen der Diagnose eines SLE wesentlich relevanter als der Einschluss in SLE-Studien, für den die Klassifikationskriterien gedacht sind. Daher stellt sich die Frage, wie weit die Klassifikationskriterien für die Diagnose helfen können. Direkt dafür verwendet werden dürfen sie wirklich nicht. Erfahrene Ärztinnen und Ärzte sind besser und v. a. sensitiver als die besten Kriterien. Manche Detailinformationen helfen aber dennoch dabei, die individuelle Diagnose für konkret Patientinnen und Patienten zu stellen. Die vorliegende Arbeit erörtert die Neuigkeiten in den EULAR/ACR 2019-Kriterien, stellt den Unterschied zwischen Klassifikation und Diagnose dar und diskutiert, welche Informationen auch im klinischen Alltag Anwendung finden können.

A comparison of the performance of the 2019 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology criteria and the 2012 Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics criteria with the 1997 American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematous in new-onset Chinese patients

Background

New criteria published by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) use a point system that gives varying weight to each of 22 criteria. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria and the 2012 Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) criteria with the 1997 ACR criteria in a Chinese cohort.

Methods

A cross-sectional observation study of patients with a clinical diagnosis of SLE was performed. We collected 199 new-onset SLE patients and 175 control subjects. The data were retrospectively collected to establish the patients who fulfilled the 1997 ACR, 2012 SLICC and 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria. The sensitivity and specificity of the three classification criteria were compared using McNemar’s test.

Results

The sensitivity and specificity of the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria were 96.5% and 90.3%, respectively. For the 2012 SLICC criteria, the sensitivity and specificity were 92.0% and 84.0%, respectively, while for the 1997 ACR criteria, these two values were 75.4% and 96.0%. Leucopaenia (62%), arthritis (54%) and autoimmune haemolysis (45%) were the most frequently observed clinical manifestations in the group that fulfilled the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria. Fever was reported by 39% of participants.

Conclusion

Compared with the 1997 ACR and 2012 SLICC criteria, the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria performed best in terms of sensitivity but less well in terms of specificity in Chinese new-onset lupus patients.

Peripheral Nervous System Disease in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Results From an International Inception Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency, clinical characteristics, associations, and outcomes of different types of peripheral nervous system (PNS) disease in a multiethnic/multiracial, prospective inception cohort of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients.

METHODS

Patients were evaluated annually for 19 neuropsychiatric (NP) events including 7 types of PNS disease. SLE disease activity, organ damage, autoantibodies, and patient and physician assessment of outcome were measured. Time to event and linear regressions were used as appropriate.

RESULTS

Of 1,827 SLE patients, 88.8% were female, and 48.8% were white. The mean ± SD age was 35.1 ± 13.3 years, disease duration at enrollment was 5.6 ± 4.2 months, and follow-up was 7.6 ± 4.6 years. There were 161 PNS events in 139 (7.6%) of 1,827 patients. The predominant events were peripheral neuropathy (66 of 161 [41.0%]), mononeuropathy (44 of 161 [27.3%]), and cranial neuropathy (39 of 161 [24.2%]), and the majority were attributed to SLE. Multivariate Cox regressions suggested longer time to resolution in patients with a history of neuropathy, older age at SLE diagnosis, higher SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 scores, and for peripheral neuropathy versus other neuropathies. Neuropathy was associated with significantly lower Short Form 36 (SF-36) physical and mental component summary scores versus no NP events. According to physician assessment, the majority of neuropathies resolved or improved over time, which was associated with improvements in SF-36 summary scores for peripheral neuropathy and mononeuropathy.

CONCLUSION

PNS disease is an important component of total NPSLE and has a significant negative impact on health-related quality of life. The outcome is favorable for most patients, but our findings indicate that several factors are associated with longer time to resolution.

2019 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology Classification Criteria for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

OBJECTIVE

To develop new classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) jointly supported by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

METHODS

This international initiative had four phases. 1) Evaluation of antinuclear antibody (ANA) as an entry criterion through systematic review and meta-regression of the literature and criteria generation through an international Delphi exercise, an early patient cohort, and a patient survey. 2) Criteria reduction by Delphi and nominal group technique exercises. 3) Criteria definition and weighting based on criterion performance and on results of a multi-criteria decision analysis. 4) Refinement of weights and threshold scores in a new derivation cohort of 1,001 subjects and validation compared with previous criteria in a new validation cohort of 1,270 subjects.

RESULTS

The 2019 EULAR/ACR classification criteria for SLE include positive ANA at least once as obligatory entry criterion; followed by additive weighted criteria grouped in 7 clinical (constitutional, hematologic, neuropsychiatric, mucocutaneous, serosal, musculoskeletal, renal) and 3 immunologic (antiphospholipid antibodies, complement proteins, SLE-specific antibodies) domains, and weighted from 2 to 10. Patients accumulating ≥10 points are classified. In the validation cohort, the new criteria had a sensitivity of 96.1% and specificity of 93.4%, compared with 82.8% sensitivity and 93.4% specificity of the ACR 1997 and 96.7% sensitivity and 83.7% specificity of the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics 2012 criteria.

CONCLUSION

These new classification criteria were developed using rigorous methodology with multidisciplinary and international input, and have excellent sensitivity and specificity. Use of ANA entry criterion, hierarchically clustered, and weighted criteria reflects current thinking about SLE and provides an improved foundation for SLE research.

2019 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus

OBJECTIVE

To develop new classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) jointly supported by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

METHODS

This international initiative had four phases. (1) Evaluation of antinuclear antibody (ANA) as an entry criterion through systematic review and meta-regression of the literature and criteria generation through an international Delphi exercise, an early patient cohort and a patient survey. (2) Criteria reduction by Delphi and nominal group technique exercises. (3) Criteria definition and weighting based on criterion performance and on results of a multi-criteria decision analysis. (4) Refinement of weights and threshold scores in a new derivation cohort of 1001 subjects and validation compared with previous criteria in a new validation cohort of 1270 subjects.

RESULTS

The 2019 EULAR/ACR classification criteria for SLE include positive ANA at least once as obligatory entry criterion; followed by additive weighted criteria grouped in seven clinical (constitutional, haematological, neuropsychiatric, mucocutaneous, serosal, musculoskeletal, renal) and three immunological (antiphospholipid antibodies, complement proteins, SLE-specific antibodies) domains, and weighted from 2 to 10. Patients accumulating ≥10 points are classified. In the validation cohort, the new criteria had a sensitivity of 96.1% and specificity of 93.4%, compared with 82.8% sensitivity and 93.4% specificity of the ACR 1997 and 96.7% sensitivity and 83.7% specificity of the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics 2012 criteria.

CONCLUSION

These new classification criteria were developed using rigorous methodology with multidisciplinary and international input, and have excellent sensitivity and specificity. Use of ANA entry criterion, hierarchically clustered and weighted criteria reflect current thinking about SLE and provide an improved foundation for SLE research.

Novel paradigms in systemic lupus erythematosus

The heterogeneity of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), long recognised by clinicians, is now challenging the entire lupus community, from geneticists to clinical investigators. Although the outlook for patients with SLE has greatly improved, many unmet needs remain, chief of which is the development of safer and more efficacious therapies. To develop innovative therapies, a far better understanding of SLE pathogenesis as it relates to the array of clinical phenotypes is needed. Additionally, to efficiently achieve these goals, the lupus community needs to refine existing clinical research tools and better adapt them to overcome the obstacles created by the heterogeneity of manifestations. Here, we review progress towards the ultimate goal of safely reducing disease activity and preventing damage accrual and death. We discuss the new classification criteria from the European League Against Rheumatism and American College of Rheumatology, novel definitions of remission and low lupus disease activity, and new proposals for the histological classification of lupus nephritis. Recommendations for the treatment of SLE and novel approaches to drug development hold much promise to further enhance SLE outcomes.

Comparison among ACR1997, SLICC and the new EULAR/ACR classification criteria in childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus

BACKGROUND

To date there are no specific classification criteria for childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (cSLE). This study aims to compare the performance among the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 1997, the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics criteria (SLICC) and the new European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/ACR criteria, in a cSLE cohort.

METHODS

We conducted a medical chart review study of cSLE cases and controls with defined rheumatic diseases, both ANA positive, to establish each ACR1997, SLICC and EULAR/ACR criterion fulfilled, at first visit and 1-year-follow-up.

RESULTS

Study population included 122 cSLE cases and 89 controls. At first visit, SLICC criteria had higher sensitivity than ACR 1997 (89.3% versus 70.5%, p <  0.001), but similar specificity (80.9% versus 83.2%, p = 0.791), however performance was not statistically different at 1-year-follow-up. SLICC better scored in specificity compared to EULAR/ACR score ≥ 10 at first visit (80.9% versus 67.4%, p = 0.008) and at 1-year (76.4% versus 58.4%, p = 0.001), although sensitivities were similar. EULAR/ACR criteria score ≥ 10 exhibited higher sensitivity than ACR 1997 (87.7% versus 70.5%, p <  0.001) at first visit, but comparable at 1-year, whereas specificity was lower at first visit (67.4% versus 83.2%, p = 0.004) and 1-year (58.4% versus 76.4%, p = 0.002). A EULAR/ACR score ≥ 13 against a score ≥ 10, resulted in higher specificity, positive predictive value, and cut-off point accuracy. Compared to SLICC, a EULAR/ACR score ≥ 13 resulted in lower sensitivity at first visit (76.2% versus 89.3%, p <  0.001) and 1-year (91% versus 97.5%, p = 0.008), but similar specificities at both assessments. When compared to ACR 1997, a EULAR/ACR total score ≥ 13, resulted in no differences in sensitivity and specificity at both observation periods.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cSLE population, SLICC criteria better scored at first visit and 1-year-follow-up. The adoption of a EULAR/ACR total score ≥ 13 in this study, against the initially proposed ≥10 score, was most appropriate to classify cSLE. Further studies are necessary to address if SLICC criteria might allow fulfillment of cSLE classification earlier in disease course and may be more inclusive of cSLE subjects for clinical studies.

Multicriteria decision analysis process to develop new classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus

European League Against Rheumatism and are jointly supporting multiphase development of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification criteria based on weighted criteria and a continuous probability scale. Prior steps included item generation, item reduction and hierarchical organisation of candidate criteria using an evidence-based approach. Our objectives were to determine relative weights using multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) and to set a provisional threshold score for SLE classification. An SLE Expert Panel (8 European, 9 North American) submitted 164 real, unique cases with a wide range of SLE probability in a standardised format. Using the candidate criteria, experts scored and rank-ordered 20 representative cases. At an in-person meeting, experts reviewed inter-rater reliability of scoring, further refined criteria definitions and participated in an MCDA exercise. Based on expert consensus decisions on pairwise comparisons of criteria, 1000minds software calculated criteria weights and rank-ordered the remaining 144 cases based on their additive scores. The score of the lowest-ranked case for which complete expert consensus was achieved defined the provisional threshold classification score. Inter-rater reliability of scoring cases with the candidate criteria was good. MCDA involved 74 pairwise decisions and was repeated for the arthritis and mucocutaneous domains when the initial ranking of some cases did not match expert opinion. After criteria weights and additive scores were recalculated once, experts reached consensus for SLE classification for all cases scoring>83. Using an iterative process, the candidate criteria definitions were refined, preliminary weights were calculated and a provisional threshold score for SLE classification was determined.

Generation of a Core Set of Items to Develop Classification Criteria for Scleroderma Renal Crisis Using Consensus Methodology

OBJECTIVE

To generate a core set of items to develop classification criteria for scleroderma renal crisis (SRC) using consensus methodology.

METHODS

An international, multidisciplinary panel of experts was invited to participate in a 3-round Delphi exercise developed using a survey based on items identified by a scoping review. In round 1, participants were asked to identify omissions and clarify ambiguities regarding the items in the survey. In round 2, participants were asked to rate the validity and feasibility of the items using Likert-type scales ranging from 1 to 9 (where 1 = very invalid/unfeasible, 5 = uncertain, and 9 = very valid/feasible). In round 3, participants reviewed the results and comments from round 2 and were asked to provide final ratings. Items rated as highly valid and feasible (median scores ≥7 for each) in round 3 were selected as the provisional core set of items. A consensus meeting using a nominal group technique was conducted to further reduce the core set of items.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine experts from 16 countries participated in the Delphi exercise. Of the 31 items in the survey, consensus was achieved on 13, in the categories hypertension, renal insufficiency, proteinuria, and hemolysis. Eleven experts took part in the nominal group technique discussion, where consensus was achieved in 5 domains: blood pressure, acute kidney injury, microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, target organ dysfunction, and renal histopathology.

CONCLUSION

A core set of items that characterize SRC was identified using consensus methodology. This core set will be used in future data-driven phases of this project to develop classification criteria for SRC.

Use of Consensus Methodology to Determine Candidate Items for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Classification Criteria

Objective.

Given the complexity and heterogeneity of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), high-performing classification criteria are critical to advancing research and clinical care. A collaborative effort by the European League Against Rheumatism and the American College of Rheumatology was undertaken to generate candidate criteria, and then to reduce them to a smaller set. The objective of the current study was to select a set of criteria that maximizes the likelihood of accurate classification of SLE, particularly early disease.

Methods.

An independent panel of international SLE experts and the SLE classification criteria steering committee (conducting SLE research in Canada, Mexico, United States, Austria, Germany, Greece, France, Italy, and Spain) ranked 43 candidate criteria. A consensus meeting using nominal group technique (NGT) was conducted to reduce the list of criteria for consideration.

Results.

The expert panel NGT exercise reduced the candidate criteria for SLE classification from 43 to 21. The panel distinguished potential “entry criteria,” which would be required for classification, from potential “additive criteria.” Potential entry criteria were antinuclear antibody (ANA) ≥ 1:80 (HEp-2 immunofluorescence), and low C3 and/or low C4. The use of low complement as an entry criterion was considered potentially useful in cases with negative ANA. Potential additive criteria included lupus nephritis by renal biopsy, autoantibodies, cytopenias, acute and chronic cutaneous lupus, alopecia, arthritis, serositis, oral mucosal lesions, central nervous system manifestations, and fever.

Conclusion.

The NGT exercise resulted in 21 candidate SLE classification criteria. The next phases of SLE classification criteria development will require refinement of criteria definitions, evaluation of the ability to cluster criteria into domains, and evaluation of weighting of criteria.

Systemic Lupus Erythematosus in Primary Care: An Update and Practical Messages for the General Practitioner

Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) is a complex chronic autoimmune disease that manifests a wide range of organ involvement. Traditionally, the diagnosis and management of SLE is provided at secondary and tertiary centers to ensure prompt initiation of treatment, adequate control of flares and prevention of irreversible organ damage. Notwithstanding, the role of primary care in SLE is also emerging as there are still significant unmet needs such as the diagnostic delay at the community level and the high burden of therapy- and disease-related comorbidities. In the present review, we summarize practical messages for primary care physicians and general practitioners (GPs) concerning early diagnosis and proper referral of patients with SLE. In addition, we discuss the main comorbidities complicating the disease course and the recommended preventative measures, and we also provide an update on the role and current educational needs of GPs regarding the disease.

Developing and Refining New Candidate Criteria for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Classification: An International Collaboration

OBJECTIVE

To define candidate criteria within multiphase development of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification criteria, jointly supported by the American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism. Prior steps included item generation and reduction by Delphi exercise, further narrowed to 21 items in a nominal group technique exercise. Our objectives were to apply an evidence-based approach to the 21 candidate criteria, and to develop hierarchical organization of criteria within domains.

METHODS

A literature review identified the sensitivity and specificity of the 21 candidate criteria. Data on the performance of antinuclear antibody (ANA) as an entry criterion and operating characteristics of the candidate criteria in early SLE patients were evaluated. Candidate criteria were hierarchically organized into clinical and immunologic domains, and definitions were refined in an iterative process.

RESULTS

Based on the data, consensus was reached to use a positive ANA of ≥1:80 titer (HEp-2 cells immunofluorescence) as an entry criterion and to have 7 clinical and 3 immunologic domains, with hierarchical organization of criteria within domains. Definitions of the candidate criteria were specified.

CONCLUSION

Using a data-driven process, consensus was reached on new, refined criteria definitions and organization based on operating characteristics. This work will be followed by a multicriteria decision analysis exercise to weight criteria and to identify a threshold score for classification on a continuous probability scale.