Assessing the EULAR/ACR classification criteria for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus

A Clinical Picture of Unselected Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus in a Tertiary Hungarian Center-A Spectrum Ranging from Pure Lupus to Overlap Syndromes

Introduction: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a multidimensional disease; however, the association of another systemic autoimmune disease further complicates its clinical presentation. Aim: We decided to investigate whether the association of overlap syndromes is linked with a different clinical picture compared to pure lupus and whether this association changes the sensitivity of the following commonly used criteria: the 2019 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology (EULAR/ACR), the ACR-1997 and the 2012 Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) criteria. Method: We performed a retrospective observational study among 382 patients afflicted with lupus: we measured as much of the full clinical and laboratory picture as possible in an unselected cohort. The diagnosis of SLE and other systemic autoimmune diseases was established by the rheumatologist in routine care and then the authors compared the characteristics of patients with pure lupus and those with overlapping pathologies. The diagnosis rates were compared to those that were determined based on the three classification criteria in order to identify various sensitivities and whether the existence of an overlap affects their rates. The fulfillment of each set of criteria was calculated using an Excel-based automatic calculation. Results: Among the patients, the ACR 1997's sensitivity was 81.2% (310 patients), and the SLICC 2012 criteria achieved 94.5% sensitivity (361 patients). The 2019 EULAR/ACR classification criteria resulted in a slightly lower sensitivity (90.3%-345 patients) when compared to the original publication (96%) due to the lower sensitivity of our anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) test (measured via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)). Nearly all ANA-negative (21/22-95%) patients showed a positive lupus-associated antibody test. The proportion of ANA-negative cases showed no significant difference among pure and overlap patients. No significant difference was found between patients with overlap (138 patients-36%) and pure SLE (244 patients-64%) through the use of these criteria, with the exception of the SLICC criteria (ACR: 80.4% vs. 81.6%; SLICC: 97.4% vs. 92.6%, p = 0.035; EULAR/ACR 2019: 91.4% vs. 89.6%). Patients with an overlap syndrome were significantly older (55 vs. 50 years, p = 0.001), more likely to suffer from interstitial lung disease (ILD: 20% vs. 11%, p = 0.0343) and less frequently showed class III/IV lupus nephritis (7% vs. 14%, p = 0.029) when compared with their pure lupus counterparts. Conclusion: All investigated criteria regarding sensitivity were similar to the original publication's findings. The sensitivity of the EULAR/ACR 2019 classification criterion in cases with overlap syndrome proved excellent, with results very similar to patients afflicted with pure SLE. In the presence of an overlap syndrome, we found significantly fewer patients with lupus nephritis III/IV but no differences in other typical lupus organ manifestation beyond the kidney, whereas we found a higher proportion of ILD in patients with an overlap, indicating that the presence of an overlap syndrome significantly influences the observed clinical picture in real-world conditions.

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.

Cutaneous Manifestations and Neurological Diseases

Our skin and nervous system are tightly connected. Numerous dermatomes on our skin provide sensory information to the brain. Because skin changes can occasionally be the first sign of a neurological problem, understanding skin alterations is crucial as it can indicate early about the underlying condition, which can affect the prognosis of the disease. In these cases, the dermatologists' and neurologists' skills are complementary to each other. In this article, we have categorized diseases with neuro-cutaneous manifestations under different headings, such as infections, metabolic diseases, connective tissue disorders, genodermatoses, nutritional deficiency, and the diagnostic criteria of some commonly encountered diseases. Through tabulation, it has been observed that this categorization can serve as a useful reference for managing day-to-day patients who are either diagnosed with the diseases mentioned above or suspected to have the conditions.

[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.

Blood levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) in systemic lupus erythematous (SLE): a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

BDNF has been implicated in the pathophysiology of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), especially its neuropsychiatric symptoms. The purpose of this study was to investigate the profile of blood BDNF levels in patients with SLE.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for papers that compared BDNF levels in SLE patients and healthy controls (HCs). The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of the included publications, and statistical analyses were carried out using R 4.0.4.

RESULTS

The final analysis included eight studies totaling 323 healthy controls and 658 SLE patients. Meta-analysis did not show statistically significant differences in blood BDNF concentrations in SLE patients compared to HCs (SMD 0.08, 95% CI [ - 1.15; 1.32], P value = 0.89). After removing outliers, there was no significant change in the results: SMD -0.3868 (95% CI [ - 1.17; 0.39], P value = 0.33. Univariate meta-regression analysis revealed that sample size, number of males, NOS score, and mean age of the SLE participants accounted for the heterogeneity of the studies (R² were 26.89%, 16.53%, 18.8%, and 49.96%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, our meta-analysis found no significant association between blood BDNF levels and SLE. The potential role and relevance of BDNF in SLE need to be further examined in higher quality studies.

Panoramic view of clinical features of lupus erythematosus: a cross-sectional multicentre study from China

OBJECTIVE

Lupus erythematosus (LE) is a complicated disease with highly heterogeneous clinical manifestations. Previous studies have rarely included all subgroups of patients with lupus and have overlooked the importance of the cutaneous manifestations thereof. We aimed to compare the demographic and clinical differences among patients with different subtypes of lupus.

METHODS

This is the first real-world study with a relatively large sample size that simultaneously includes patients with isolated cutaneous lupus erythematosus (iCLE) and SLE. All samples were obtained from the Lupus Erythematosus Multicenter Case-control Study in Chinese populations (LEMCSC) (registration number: ChiCTR2100048939). Comparative analyses between different LE subgroups were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 2097 patients with lupus were included, with 1865 patients with SLE, 1648 with cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE), and 232 with iCLE. Among the patients with CLE, 1330 had acute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (ACLE); 160 had subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE); and 546 had chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CCLE). The study included a relatively large number of patients with CCLE subtypes, including 311 with discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE), 262 with chilblain lupus erythematosus (CHLE) and 45 with lupus erythematosus profundus (LEP). Demographic characteristics, systemic involvement, mucocutaneous manifestations and autoantibodies were significantly different among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

CLE and iCLE are two distinct disease states, and the selection of broad or narrow CLE definitions should be emphasised in scientific reports. LE-non-specific cutaneous lesions imply more severity, while self-reported photosensitivity and LE-specific cutaneous manifestations imply milder severity. Generalised ACLE appears to be a more severe state than localised ACLE, and CHLE appears to be more severe than DLE. Anti-Sjögren's syndrome-related antigen B (SSB) antibodies have higher specific directivity than anti-Sjögren's syndrome-related antigen A (SSA) antibodies for SCLE lesions. Anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies have a higher co-occurrence with ACLE and a lower co-occurrence with SCLE and CCLE. Compared with DLE, CHLE has significantly higher positive rates of anti-SSA/Ro60 (71%) and anti-SSA/Ro52 (42.4%) antibodies, whereas LEP is associated with a higher positive rate of antinucleosome antibodies (31.1%).

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.