scholarly journals Comparative analysis of the sensitivity and specificity of the classification criteria and correlation with prognosis of disease in patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 232-235
Author(s):  
Christina damichou ◽  
Dionysios Nikolopoulos ◽  
Emmanouil Papastefanakis ◽  
Eleni Kalogiannaki ◽  
Irini Gergianaki ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (10) ◽  
pp. 1333-1339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sindhu R Johnson ◽  
Ralph Brinks ◽  
Karen H Costenbader ◽  
David Daikh ◽  
Marta Mosca ◽  
...  

ObjectivesThe 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.MethodsTwenty-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.ResultsThe 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%).ConclusionsThe 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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 877.2-877
Author(s):  
C. Vrancianu ◽  
I. Conea ◽  
A. Boca ◽  
M. Bolboceanu ◽  
C. Draganesscu ◽  
...  

Background:Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a heterogenous autoimmune disease, with increased morbidity and mortality, often diagnosed in advanced stages. The recently published 2019 American College Of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) classification criteria for SLE are weighted, hierarchically clustered criteria developed to increase reliability and the identification of early SLE.Objectives:To compare the sensitivity and specificity of the 2019 ACR/EULAR criteria with the 2012 SLICC criteria in a large single-centre cohort of patients with SLE, diagnosed according to expert oppinion.Methods:Data of SLE patients evaluated in our centre between 1996-2019 have been retrospectively analyzed. The control cohort included patients with positive antinuclear antibodies of other ethiology than SLE, evaluated between 2001-2019. The sensitivity and specificity of the 2019 ACR/EULAR and 2012 SLICC criteria were tested using the McNemar test for correlated proportions.Results:Four hundred and forty-six patients with SLE (413 women, mean±SD age 40.5±12.7 years, disease duration 10.1±9.2 years) and 67 controls (63 women, mean±SD age 50.4±12.6 years, disease duration 7.6±6.9 years; 29 systemic sclerosis (SSc), 18 mixed connective tissue dissease (MCTD), 15 undifferentiated CTD, 2 rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 2 SSc – RA overlaps and 1 dermatomyositis) were included. The sensitivity of the 2019 ACR/EULAR and 2012 SLICC criteria were similar 85.4% and 83.6 %, respectively (p=0.3). The specificity of the 2019 ACR/EULAR and 2012 SLICC criteria were 70.2 % and 86.6%, respectively (p=0.007). In the SLE group, patients missclassified according to the new 2019 ACR/EULAR criteria were 65, whereas according to the 2012 SLICC criteria were 73; of them, 44 patients did not fulfill any criteria. In the control group, patients misclassified had mainly MCTD (13/20 patients according to the new 2019 ACR/EULAR, and 8/9 according to the 2012 SLICC criteria).Conclusion:In this real-life cohort, the 2019 ACR/EULAR criteria have a similar sensitivity and lower specificity than the 2012 SLICC criteria, misclassifying especially MCTD patients. These results might be due to the long disease duration in our cohort.References:[1] Aringer M, Costenbader K, Daikh D, et al. 2019 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology Classification Criteria for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(9):1400–1412. doi:10.1002/art.40930Disclosure of Interests:None declared


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 602.1-603
Author(s):  
E. S. Torun ◽  
E. Bektaş ◽  
F. Kemik ◽  
M. Bektaş ◽  
C. Cetin ◽  
...  

Background:Recently developed EULAR/ACR classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have important differences compared to the 2012 Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) SLE classification criteria and the revised 1997 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria: The obligatory entry criterion of antinuclear antibody (ANA) positivity is introduced and a “weighted” approach is used1. Sensitivity and specificity of these three criteria have been debated and may vary in different populations and clinical settings.Objectives:We aim to compare the performances of three criteria sets/rules in a large cohort of patients and relevant diseased controls from a reference center with dedicated clinics for SLE and other autoimmune/inflammatory connective tissue diseases from Turkey.Methods:We reviewed the medical records of SLE patients and diseased controls for clinical and laboratory features relevant to all sets of criteria. Criteria sets/rules were analysed based on sensitivity, positive predictive value, specificity and negative predictive value, using clinical diagnosis with at least 6 months of follow-up as the gold standard. A subgroup analysis was performed in ANA positive patients for both SLE patients and diseased controls. SLE patients that did not fulfil 2012 SLICC criteria and 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria and diseased controls that fulfilled these criteria were evaluated.Results:A total of 392 SLE patients and 294 non-SLE diseased controls (48 undifferentiated connective tissue disease, 51 Sjögren’s syndrome, 43 idiopathic inflammatory myopathy, 50 systemic sclerosis, 52 primary antiphospholipid syndrome, 15 rheumatoid arthritis, 15 psoriatic arthritis and 20 ANCA associated vasculitis) were included into the study. Hundred and fourteen patients (16.6%) were ANA negative.Sensitivity was more than 90% for 2012 SLICC criteria and 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria and positive predictive value was more than 90% for all three criteria (Table 1). Specificity was the highest for 1997 ACR criteria. Negative predictive value was 76.9% for ACR criteria, 88.4% for SLICC criteria and 91.7% for EULAR/ACR criteria.In only ANA positive patients, sensitivity was 79.6% for 1997 ACR criteria, 92.2% for 2012 SLICC criteria and 96.1% for 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria. Specificity was 92.6% for ACR criteria, 87.8% for SLICC criteria 85.2% for EULAR/ACR criteria.Eleven clinically diagnosed SLE patients had insufficient number of items for both 2012 SLICC and 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria. Both criteria were fulfilled by 16 diseased controls: 9 with Sjögren’s syndrome, 5 with antiphospholipid syndrome, one with dermatomyositis and one with systemic sclerosis.Table 1.Sensitivity, positive predictive value, specificity and negative predictive value of 1997 ACR, 2012 SLICC and 2019 EULAR/ACR classification criteriaSLE (+)SLE (-)Sensitivity (%)Positive Predictive Value (%)Specificity (%)Negative Predictive Value (%)1997 ACR(+) 308(-) 841527978.695.494.976.92012 SLICC(+) 357(-) 352626891.193.291.288.42019 EULAR/ACR(+) 368(-) 242826693.892.990.591.7Conclusion:In this cohort, although all three criteria have sufficient specificity, sensitivity and negative predictive value of 1997 ACR criteria are the lowest. Overall, 2019 EULAR/ACR and 2012 SLICC criteria have a comparable performance, but if only ANA positive cases and controls are analysed, the specificity of both criteria decrease to less than 90%. Some SLE patients with a clinical diagnosis lacked sufficient number of criteria. Mostly, patients with Sjögren’s syndrome or antiphospholipid syndrome are prone to misclassification by both recent criteria.References:[1]Aringer M, Costenbader K, Daikh D, et al. 2019 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis 2019;78:1151-1159.Disclosure of Interests:None declared


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 623.2-624
Author(s):  
L. Zorn-Pauly ◽  
A. S. L. Von Stuckrad ◽  
J. Klotsche ◽  
T. Rose ◽  
T. Kallinich ◽  
...  

Background:While there have been advances in the therapy of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in recent years, there have been no major new findings in SLE biomarkers [1, 2]. Type I interferon (IFN) plays a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of SLE [3]. In 2008, we first described CD169 / SIGLEC-1 (sialic acid-binding immunoglobulin-like lectin-1), an interferon-induced adhesion molecule on monocytes in SLE patients [4]. For over five years SIGLEC-1 has been routinely assessed in our clinic.Objectives:To evaluate and compare the diagnostic utility of the type I IFN induced SIGLEC-1 with established biomarkers in the initial diagnosis of the disease.Methods:We analyzed retrospectively 232 patients who were on suspicion of SLE at Charité University Hospital Berlin between October 2015 and September 2020. Patients underwent full clinical characterization, and biomarkers were determined in the routine laboratory. Based on the final diagnosis, we divided patients into two groups: A) initial diagnosis of SLE and B) Non-SLE mimicking condition.Results:In 76 patients (32.3 %) SLE was confirmed by fulfilling the EULAR / ACR 2019 classification criteria [5]. SIGLEC-1 was dramatically increased in patients with an initial diagnosis of SLE compared to patients without SLE (p<0.0001). For a threshold of 2500 molecule per monocyte, a sensitivity of 98.7 %, a specificity of 82.1 %, a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.2 %, and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 72.8 % were calculated for SIGLEC-1. Adjusted to the prevalence of SLE in Germany (36.7 per 100,000 inhabitants [6]) NPV and PPV turned out to > 99.9 % and 0.2 %. We further aimed to compare not only the performance of the tests at a given cutoff but also across all possible measured values. Therefore, we conducted ROC curves analyses (see figure 1). The area under the curve (AUC) of SIGLEC-1 test was significantly higher than that of ANA test (AUC=0.88, p=0.031), C3 (AUC = 0.83, p=0.001), C4 (AUC=0.83, p=0.002), but not than that of the Anti-dsDNA ELISA (AUC=0.90, p=0.163).Conclusion:Our study shows that IFN activity is a hallmark at the onset of the disease and that the interferon biomarker SIGLEC-1 is valuable to rule out SLE in suspected cases.References:[1]Ostendorf L, Burns M, Durek P, Heinz GA, Heinrich F, Garantziotis P, Enghard P, Richter U, Biesen R, Schneider U et al: Targeting CD38 with Daratumumab in Refractory Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. N Engl J Med 2020, 383(12):1149-1155.[2]Furie R, Rovin BH, Houssiau F, Malvar A, Teng YKO, Contreras G, Amoura Z, Yu X, Mok CC, Santiago MB et al: Two-Year, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Belimumab in Lupus Nephritis. N Engl J Med 2020, 383(12):1117-1128.[3]Ronnblom L, Leonard D: Interferon pathway in SLE: one key to unlocking the mystery of the disease. Lupus Sci Med 2019, 6(1):e000270.[4]Biesen R, Demir C, Barkhudarova F, Grun JR, Steinbrich-Zollner M, Backhaus M, Haupl T, Rudwaleit M, Riemekasten G, Radbruch A et al: Sialic acid-binding Ig-like lectin 1 expression in inflammatory and resident monocytes is a potential biomarker for monitoring disease activity and success of therapy in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2008, 58(4):1136-1145.[5]Aringer M, Costenbader K, Daikh D, Brinks R, Mosca M, Ramsey-Goldman R, Smolen JS, Wofsy D, Boumpas DT, Kamen DL et al: 2019 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 2019, 78(9):1151-1159.[6]Brinks R, Fischer-Betz R, Sander O, Richter JG, Chehab G, Schneider M: Age-specific prevalence of diagnosed systemic lupus erythematosus in Germany 2002 and projection to 2030. Lupus 2014, 23(13):1407-1411.Disclosure of Interests:None declared


2018 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 943-948 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nahim Barron ◽  
Jesús Arenas-Osuna ◽  
Gabriela Medina ◽  
María Pilar Cruz-Dominguez ◽  
Fernando González-Romero ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. annrheumdis-2020-219373
Author(s):  
Martin Aringer ◽  
Ralph Brinks ◽  
Thomas Dörner ◽  
David Daikh ◽  
Marta Mosca ◽  
...  

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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (7) ◽  
pp. 721-726 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sindhu R. Johnson ◽  
Dinesh Khanna ◽  
David Daikh ◽  
Ricard Cervera ◽  
Nathalie Costedoat-Chalumeau ◽  
...  

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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-7
Author(s):  
Oana-Maria Farkas ◽  
◽  
Sigrid Covaci ◽  
Alexis-Virgil Cochino ◽  
◽  
...  

Pediatric Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (pSLE) is a complex autoimmune disease with onset of symptoms before 18 years of age, accounting for 18-20% of all SLE cases. Although the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) classification criteria and the SLICC (Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics) classification criteria for adults with SLE are commonly applied to pSLE, its clinical onset is different. Renal and neurological involvement tend to be more common and more severe in pediatric population as compared to adults, being therefore major determinants of prognosis and mortality. Renal biopsy should be performed as early as possible in every case of pSLE with signs and symptoms of renal impairment.


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1051-1052
Author(s):  
D. Lobo Prat ◽  
B. Magallares ◽  
I. Castellví ◽  
H. Park ◽  
P. Moya ◽  
...  

Background:Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is an autoimmune disease with variable clinical features and a complex physiopathology. In 2019, EULAR and ACR have jointly developed new classification criteria with both high sensitivity and specificity. These criteria have the particularity of including the presence of ANA as an obligatory entry criterion and the existence of clinical and immunological domains with weighted scores.Objectives:To evaluate the performance and characteristics of the ACR/EULAR 2019, SLICC 2012 and ACR 1997 classification criteria in a cohort of SLE patients with longstanding disease.Methods:Descriptive observational study that enrolled a cohort of SLE patients with longstanding disease followed in a tertiary level hospital. Demographic and clinical data were gathered along with the fulfillment of classification criteria. The sensitivity of each classification criteria and the statistically significant associations between criteria fulfillment and clinical and immunological data were calculated. Statistical analyses were performed using the Chi2, T-student and ANOVA tests. Statistical significance was assumed in p values <0.05.Results:A total of 79 patients (88.6% women) with a mean age of 51.8±14 years, disease duration of 15.2±11.5 years and SLEDAI of 2.65±2.1 were included. The sensitivity of the different classification criteria was 51.9% for ACR 1997, 87.3% for SLICC 2012 and 86.1% for ACR/EULAR 2019 (Table 1).Table 1.Sensitivity and average scores.ACR/EULAR 2019SLICC 2012ACR 1997Sensitivity (%)86.187.351.9Average score of patients classified as SLE(±SD)18.6±5.85.3±1.45±0.9Average score of patients NOT classified as SLE(±SD)6.1±2.52.8±0.42.8±0.851.9% of patients met all three classification criteria, 29.1% met SLICC 2012 and ACR/EULAR 2019, 5% only met SLICC 2012 and 3.7% exclusively met ACR/EULAR 2019. 11.4% of patients did not meet any classification criteria and were characterized by having a low SLEDAI (0.6±0.9) and fulfilling only skin domains (alopecia or oral ulcers), antiphospholipid antibodies or hypocomplementemia.Statistically significant associations were found between meeting ACR/EULAR 2019 classification criteria and the presence of low C3 and C4 (p<0.04), DNA (p<0.001), lupus nephritis III-IV (p<0.05) and arthritis (p<0.001), highlighting that all patients with arthritis met these criteria.In the SLICC 2012 evaluation, significant associations were found between meeting these criteria and the presence of arthritis (p<0.01), renal involvement (p<0.04), leukopenia/lymphopenia (p=0.05), DNA (p<0.03) and hypocomplementemia (p=0.02).Fullfilment of ACR 1997 was associated to the presence of malar rash (p<0.001), discoid lupus (p<0.05), photosensitivity (p<0.001) and oral ulcers (p<0.04), as well as arthritis (p<0.001), serositis (p=0.02), renal (p<0.05) and hematologic (p=0.05) involvement.The Kappa concordance coefficient among classification criteria is detailed in Table 2.Table 2.Kappa concordance coefficient.ACR/EULAR 2019 - SLICC 2012ACR/EULAR 2019 - ACR 1997SLICC 2012 - ACR 1997Kappa concordance coefficient0.610.270.30Conclusion:The ACR/EULAR 2019 classification criteria maintain a high sensitivity similar to the SLICC 2012 in SLE patients with longstanding disease, both of which are much higher than ACR 1997. Patients with serological, articular or renal involvement are more likely to meet SLICC 2012 or ACR/EULAR 2019 criteria. It is noteworthy the relevance of dermatological manifestations in ACR1997 classification criteria against the increased weight that a better understanding of SLE physiopathology has provided to analytic and immunological criteria in the subsequent classification criteria.Disclosure of Interests:David Lobo Prat: None declared, Berta Magallares: None declared, Ivan Castellví Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim, Actelion, Kern Pharma, Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Actelion, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, HyeSang Park: None declared, Patricia Moya: None declared, Ignasi Gich: None declared, Ana Laiz: None declared, Cesar Díaz-Torné: None declared, Ana Milena Millán Arciniegas: None declared, Susana P. Fernandez-Sanchez: None declared, Hector Corominas: None declared


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document