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

RMD Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e001097 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guillermo J Pons-Estel ◽  
Manuel Francisco Ugarte-Gil ◽  
Guillermina B Harvey ◽  
Daniel Wojdyla ◽  
Rosana Quintana ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Latin America ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Systemic Lupus ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology ◽  
American Perspective ◽  
Acr Criteria ◽  
European League Against Rheumatism

ObjectiveTo 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 methodsPatients 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsThe 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.

scholarly journals New Classification Criteria for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

2020 ◽  
Vol 95 (3) ◽  
pp. 151-161
Author(s):  
Yeon-Ah Lee
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Clinical Findings ◽  
Classification Criteria ◽  
Systemic Lupus ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology ◽  
Acr Criteria ◽  
European League Against Rheumatism ◽  
Sum Score

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a prototypic autoimmune disease with highly variable clinical and immunological manifestations. Classification and diagnosis of SLE are complicated by the multi-organ nature of the disease and by our incomplete understanding of its pathophysiology. The 1997 update of the 1982 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria for SLE has been widely used for classification of SLE. In order to improve clinical relevance and early diagnosis, the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) group suggested the 2012 SLICC criteria. These sets of classification criteria have unweighted lists of various serological and clinical findings typical of SLE, can be fulfilled by reaching a sum score of points. The only exception is biopsy-proven lupus nephritis with autoantibodies in the 2012 SLICC criteria. In an attempt to overcome limitations of the previous sets of SLE classification criteria, the new 2019 SLE European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology (EULAR/ACR) classification criteria for SLE have been recently published. The 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria include positive ANA at least once as obligatory entry criterion; followed by additive hierarchically clustered and weighted criteria. The structure and weighting of criteria constitute a paradigm shift in the classification of SLE. In the validation cohort, the new criteria had a sensitivity of 96.1% and specificity of 93.4%. This review attempts to delineate the history, performance and limitations of the current sets of SLE criteria.

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

2021 ◽  
pp. annrheumdis-2020-219373
Author(s):  
Martin Aringer ◽  
Ralph Brinks ◽  
Thomas Dörner ◽  
David Daikh ◽  
Marta Mosca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Metabolic Diseases ◽  
Classification Criteria ◽  
Joint Involvement ◽  
Systemic Lupus ◽  
Entry Criterion ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology ◽  
European League Against Rheumatism ◽  
European League

Background/objectivesThe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsPositive 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.ConclusionsChanging 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.

A comparison and review of three sets of classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus for distinguishing systemic lupus erythematosus from pure mucocutaneous manifestations in the lupus disease spectrum

Lupus ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (14) ◽  
pp. 1854-1865
Author(s):  
Hui Jin ◽  
Tao Huang ◽  
Ruifang Wu ◽  
Ming Zhao ◽  
Haijing Wu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Diagnostic Criteria ◽  
Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Sample Selection ◽  
Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Classification Criteria ◽  
Systemic Lupus ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology ◽  
Disease Spectrum ◽  
European League Against Rheumatism

Although the original purpose of the systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification criteria was to distinguish SLE from other mimic diseases, and to facilitate sample selection in scientific research, they have become widely used as diagnostic criteria in clinical situations. It is not known yet if regarding classification criteria as diagnostic criteria, what problems might be encountered? This is the first study comparing the three sets of classification criteria for SLE, the 1997 American College of Rheumatology (ACR’97), 2012 Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC’12) and 2019 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology (EULAR/ACR’19), for their ability to distinguish patients with SLE from patients with pure mucocutaneous manifestations (isolated cutaneous lupus erythematosus without internal disease, i-CLE) in the lupus disease spectrum. 1,865 patients with SLE and 232 patients with i-CLE were recruited from a multicenter study. We found that, due to low specificity, none of the three criteria are adept at distinguishing patients with SLE from patients with i-CLE. SLICC’12 performed best among the original three criteria, but if a positive ANA was removed as an entry criterion, EULAR/ACR’19 would performed better. A review of previous studies that compared the three sets of criteria was presented in this work.

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

2019 ◽  
Vol 78 (9) ◽  
pp. 1151-1159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Aringer ◽  
Karen Costenbader ◽  
David Daikh ◽  
Ralph Brinks ◽  
Marta Mosca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Validation Cohort ◽  
Classification Criteria ◽  
Systemic Lupus ◽  
New Classification ◽  
Entry Criterion ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology ◽  
European League Against Rheumatism ◽  
European League

ObjectiveTo 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).MethodsThis 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionThese 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.

scholarly journals Variable presentations of systemic lupus erythematosus based on presence or absence of antidouble stranded DNA antibodies: A case series

2022 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 175-179
Author(s):  
Somnath Maitra ◽  
Swapan Sarkar ◽  
Biswaroop Mukherjee ◽  
Suprotim Ghosh
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Clinical Features ◽  
Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Renal Involvement ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Systemic Lupus ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology ◽  
European League Against Rheumatism ◽  
Dna Antibodies ◽  
European League

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) presents with diverse clinical features causing diagnostic challenges. Apart from the clinical features, autoantibodies are important for diagnosis along with certain laboratory parameters. Diagnosis is made with the European League against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology 2019 Criteria. The case series presented here signifies the correlation between anti ds DNA positivity and its association with poor prognosis and renal disease, whereas antidouble stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) negativity may lead to lack of renal involvement and may be associated with polyserositis. The importance lies in the fact that these patients with anti-dsDNA negativity should be followed up for assessing conversion to positivity of anti-dsDNA, thus altering the prognosis and leading to renal involvement. Moreover, anti-SSA positive SLE patients must be followed up for possible development of sicca symptoms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document