Associations Between Classification Criteria Items in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Issues in autoantibody tests used in the classification criteria for autoimmune rheumatic diseases: the laboratory autoimmunologist's perspective

Classification criteria of autoimmune rheumatic diseases are an important means to define homogenous groups of patients that can be compared across studies for clinical trials and research purposes. The measurement of autoantibodies is a relevant aspect in the definition of classification criteria, with a significant weight in the scores necessary to classify patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases. The impact of autoantibodies has gradually increased over the years, contributing to the evolution and improvement of the classification criteria. However, these criteria often do not take into consideration how autoantibodies are measured, i.e. differences in diagnostic accuracy of the methods. This is a critical point especially when obsolete analytical methods that are no longer used in many clinical laboratories are taken into consideration. In this review we have critically examined assays and methods for the determination of autoantibodies that are (or could be) included among the classification criteria of autoimmune rheumatic diseases in light of more recent evidence and technology evolution.

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.

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.

[Assessment tools for systemic lupus erythematosus]

A systematic assessment is critical for taking advantage of the current options for optimizing systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) management. Without regular SLE activity measurements, treat to target and remission are empty words, and the EULAR recommendations therefore insist on these assessments. They rely on activity scores, such as SLEDAI, ECLAM and BILAG or more recently, EasyBILAG and SLE-DAS. Assessment is completed by organ-specific measurement methods and the evaluation of damage. In the study setting the classification criteria and combined endpoints for clinical testing are crucial, as is measurement of the quality of life. This review article provides an overview of the current state of SLE assessments.

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.

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.

A glimpse into the future of systemic lupus erythematosus

This viewpoint article on a forecast of clinically meaningful changes in the management of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in the next 10 years is based on a review of the current state of the art. The groundwork has been laid by a robust series of classification criteria and treatment recommendations that have all been published since 2019. Building on this strong foundation, SLE management predictably will take significant steps forward. Assessment for lupus arthritis will presumably include musculoskeletal sonography. Large-scale polyomics studies are likely to unravel more of the central immune mechanisms of the disease. Biomarkers predictive of therapeutic success may enter the field; the type I interferon signature, as a companion for use of anifrolumab, an antibody against the common type I interferon receptor, is one serious candidate. Besides anifrolumab for nonrenal SLE and the new calcineurin inhibitor voclosporin in lupus nephritis, both of which are already approved in the United States and likely to become available in the European Union in 2022, several other approaches are in advanced clinical trials. These include advanced B cell depletion, inhibition of costimulation via CD40 and CD40 ligand (CD40L), and Janus kinase 1 (Jak1) and Tyrosine kinase 2 (Tyk2) inhibition. At the same time, essentially all of our conventional therapeutic armamentarium will continue to be used. The ability of patients to have successful SLE pregnancies, which has become much better in the last decades, should further improve, with approaches including tumor necrosis factor blockade and self-monitoring of fetal heart rates. While we hope that the COVID-19 pandemic will soon be controlled, it has highlighted the risk of severe viral infections in SLE, with increased risk tied to certain therapies. Although there are some data that a cure might be achievable, this likely will remain a challenge beyond 10 years from now.

Neuropsychiatric Systemic Lupus Erythematosus in Older Adults: Diagnosis and Management

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a multisystem chronic autoimmune disease with variable clinical manifestations. Neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus (NPSLE) includes the neurologic syndromes of the central, peripheral and autonomic nervous system and the psychiatric syndromes observed in patients with SLE. Neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus events may present as an initial manifestation of SLE or may be diagnosed later in the course of the disease. Older adults with NPLSE include those who are ageing with known SLE and those with late-onset SLE. The diagnosis of NPSLE across the lifespan continues to be hampered by the lack of sensitive and specific laboratory and imaging biomarkers. In this review, we discuss the particular complexity of NPSLE diagnosis and management in older adults. We first discuss the epidemiology of late-onset NPSLE, then review principles of diagnosis of NPSLE, highlighting issues that are pertinent to older adults and that make diagnosis and attribution more challenging, such as atypical disease presentation, higher medical comorbidity, and differences in neuroimaging and autoantibody investigations. We also discuss clinical issues that are of particular relevance to older adults that have a high degree of overlap with SLE, including drug-induced lupus, cerebrovascular disease and neurocognitive disorders. Finally, we review the management of NPSLE, mainly moderate to high- dose glucocorticoids and immunosuppressants, again highlighting considerations for older adults, such as increased medication (especially glucocorticoids) adverse effects, ageing-related pharmacokinetic changes that can affect SLE medication management, medication dosing and attention to medical comorbidities affecting brain health.

Phenotypic landscape of systemic lupus erythematosus: An analysis of the Kyoto Lupus Cohort

OBJECTIVES

The present study aimed to clarify comprehensive relationships among the clinical variables of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

METHODS

We retrospectively surveyed 32 clinical variables in 581 patients and conducted comprehensive association studies among SLE clinical phenotypes. A univariate analysis of all possible combinations was performed, and the results of phenotypic correlations were reduced into two dimensions. We also created a regression formula using L1 regularisation (LASSO) to calculate the probability of exhibiting each phenotype.

RESULTS

The univariate analysis identified 26 correlations, including multiple phenotypes with low complement. Some unpredicted correlations were identified, including fever and the anti-Sm antibody (odds ratio; OR = 2.3, p = 1.6 × 10-5) or thrombocytopenia and psychosis (OR = 3.7, p = 3.2 × 10-5). The multivariate analysis accurately estimated the probability of exhibiting each phenotype (area under the curve > 0.7) in 10 out of 20 phenotypes.

CONCLUSIONS

The present results show the phenotypic architecture of SLE and represent a model for estimating the probability of exhibiting each phenotype. They also offer insights into the pathology of SLE and estimating the probability of the onset of new phenotypes in clinical practice.

Mapping Salivary Proteases in Sjögren's Syndrome Patients Reveals Overexpression of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4/CD26

Sjögren's Syndrome (SS) is an autoimmune exocrinopathy characterized by the progressive damage of salivary and lacrimal glands associated with lymphocytic infiltration. Identifying new non-invasive biomarkers for SS diagnosis remains a challenge, and alterations in saliva composition reported in patients turn this fluid into a source of potential biomarkers. Among these, proteases are promising candidates since they are involved in several key physio-pathological processes. This study evaluated differentially expressed proteases in SS individuals' saliva using synthetic fluorogenic substrates, zymography, ELISA, and proteomic approaches. Here we reported, for the first time, increased activity of the serine protease dipeptidyl peptidase-4/CD26 (DPP4/CD26) in pSS saliva, the expression level of which was corroborated by ELISA assay. Gelatin zymograms showed that metalloproteinase proteolytic band profiles differed significantly in intensity between control and SS groups. Focusing on matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP9) expression, an increased tendency in pSS saliva (p = 0.0527) was observed compared to the control group. Samples of control, pSS, and sSS were analyzed by mass spectrometry to reveal a general panorama of proteases in saliva. Forty-eight protein groups of proteases were identified, among which were the serine proteases cathepsin G (CTSG), neutrophil elastase (ELANE), myeloblastin (PRTN3), MMP9 and several protease inhibitors. This work paves the way for proteases to be explored in the future as biomarkers, emphasizing DPP4 by its association in several autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Besides its proteolytic role, DPP4/CD26 acts as a cell surface receptor, signal transduction mediator, adhesion and costimulatory protein involved in T lymphocytes activation.

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.

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.

Systemic lupus erythematosus symptom clusters and their association with patient-reported outcomes and treatment: Analysis of real-world data

OBJECTIVE

To identify discrete clusters of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients based on symptoms and investigate differences across clusters.

METHODS

Data were collected in the United States of America and five European countries via the Adelphi Real World Lupus Disease Specific Programme™, a cross-sectional survey. Rheumatologists provided data for five consecutively consulting adult patients with SLE, who were invited to participate. Identified SLE symptoms were reduced to factors based on commonly concurrent symptoms, using principal-component factor analysis. Factors were used as covariates in a latent class cluster analysis to identify discrete patient clusters. Patient-reported outcomes and physician-reported data were compared across clusters.

RESULTS

Among 1,376 patients, 87% of patients were female and 74% of patients were white. We identified four patient clusters ("very mild", "mild", "moderate", "severe") based on 39 signs/symptoms. Physician-reported symptom burden, organ involvement, disease activity and number of flares increased with increasing cluster severity (p<0.0001). Patient-reported impact (health status, fatigue, work productivity impairment, anxiety/depression, emotional impact) increased with increasing cluster severity (p<0.0001). Glucocorticoid and immunosuppressant use increased, and anti-malarial use decreased, with increasing cluster severity. In all clusters, <20% of patients received biologics; >15% of patients not receiving biologics were considered eligible for treatment by their physician. The proportion of physicians and patients satisfied with treatment decreased with increasing cluster severity (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Our large, international real-world survey of SLE patients and physicians demonstrated strong associations between increased impairment, organ involvement and humanistic burden in SLE, highlighting unmet need for effective treatment options in high disease activity patients.

Autoimmunity and SLE: Factual and Semantic Evidence-Based Critical Analyses of Definitions, Etiology, and Pathogenesis

One cannot discuss anti-dsDNA antibodies and lupus nephritis without discussing the nature of Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). SLE is insistently described as a prototype autoimmune syndrome, with anti-dsDNA antibodies as a central biomarker and a pathogenic factor. The two entities, "SLE" and "The Anti-dsDNA Antibody," have been linked in previous and contemporary studies although serious criticism to this mutual linkage have been raised: Anti-dsDNA antibodies were first described in bacterial infections and not in SLE; later in SLE, viral and parasitic infections and in malignancies. An increasing number of studies on classification criteria for SLE have been published in the aftermath of the canonical 1982 American College of Rheumatology SLE classification sets of criteria. Considering these studies, it is surprising to observe a nearby complete absence of fundamental critical/theoretical discussions aimed to explain how and why the classification criteria are linked in context of etiology, pathogenicity, or biology. This study is an attempt to prioritize critical comments on the contemporary definition and classification of SLE and of anti-dsDNA antibodies in context of lupus nephritis. Epidemiology, etiology, pathogenesis, and measures of therapy efficacy are implemented as problems in the present discussion. In order to understand whether or not disparate clinical SLE phenotypes are useful to determine its basic biological processes accounting for the syndrome is problematic. A central problem is discussed on whether the clinical role of anti-dsDNA antibodies from principal reasons can be accepted as a biomarker for SLE without clarifying what we define as an anti-dsDNA antibody, and in which biologic contexts the antibodies appear. In sum, this study is an attempt to bring to the forum critical comments on the contemporary definition and classification of SLE, lupus nephritis and anti-dsDNA antibodies. Four concise hypotheses are suggested for future science at the end of this analytical study.

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.

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.

New Criteria for Lupus

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Classification criteria define the patient population for clinical trials and translational studies, but also influence current understanding of the disease. This review attempts to delineate the development from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 1982 to the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/ACR 2019 classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

RECENT FINDINGS

The new EULAR/ACR classification criteria use antinuclear antibodies (ANA) as an entry criterion. (Non-infectious) fever is the one new criterion. All criteria items now have individual weights (from 2 to 10) and are structured in domains, within which only the highest item is counted. There is one common attribution rule, counting criteria only if there is no more likely alternative explanation. Ten points are sufficient for classification. The new criteria have reached a sensitivity of 96.1% and a specificity of 93.4%. The new EULAR/ACR 2019 classification criteria for SLE build on the previous criteria sets, adding fever only as a new criteria item. The new structure is reflective of the current diagnostic approach and has led to improved statistical performance.

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.