Search

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 1,001 subjects and validation compared with previous criteria in a new validation cohort of 1,270 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 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.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 reflects current thinking about SLE and provides an improved foundation for SLE research.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: IgG4‐related disease (IgG4‐RD) can cause fibroinflammatory lesions in nearly any organ. Correlation among clinical, serologic, radiologic, and pathologic data is required for diagnosis. This work was undertaken to develop and validate an international set of classification criteria for IgG4‐RD. Methods: An international multispecialty group of 86 physicians was assembled by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR). Investigators used consensus exercises, existing literature, derivation and validation cohorts of 1,879 subjects (1,086 cases, 793 mimickers), and multicriterion decision analysis to identify, weight, and test potential classification criteria. Two independent validation cohorts were included. Results: A 3‐step classification process was developed. First, it must be demonstrated that a potential IgG4‐RD case has involvement of at least 1 of 11 possible organs in a manner consistent with IgG4‐RD. Second, exclusion criteria consisting of a total of 32 clinical, serologic, radiologic, and pathologic items must be applied; the presence of any of these criteria eliminates the patient from IgG4‐RD classification. Third, 8 weighted inclusion criteria domains, addressing clinical findings, serologic results, radiology assessments, and pathology interpretations, are applied. In the first validation cohort, a threshold of 20 points had a specificity of 99.2% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 97.2–99.8%) and a sensitivity of 85.5% (95% CI 81.9–88.5%). In the second, the specificity was 97.8% (95% CI 93.7–99.2%) and the sensitivity was 82.0% (95% CI 77.0–86.1%). The criteria were shown to have robust test characteristics over a wide range of thresholds. Conclusion: ACR/EULAR classification criteria for IgG4‐RD have been developed and validated in a large cohort of patients. These criteria demonstrate excellent test performance and should contribute substantially to future clinical, epidemiologic, and basic science investigations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The 2023 American College of Rheumatology/EULAR antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria development, which aimed to identify patients with high likelihood of APS for research, employed a four-phase methodology. Phase I and II resulted in 27 proposed candidate criteria, which are organized into laboratory and clinical domains. Here, we summarize the last stage of phase III efforts, employing a consensus-based multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to weigh candidate criteria and identify an APS classification threshold score., Methods: We evaluated 192 unique, international real-world patients referred for "suspected APS" with a wide range of APS manifestations. Using proposed candidate criteria, subcommittee members rank ordered 20 representative patients from highly unlikely to highly likely to have APS. During an in-person meeting, the subcommittee refined definitions and participated in an MCDA exercise to identify relative weights of candidate criteria. Using consensus decisions and pairwise criteria comparisons, 1000Minds software assigned criteria weights, and we rank ordered 192 patients by their additive scores. A consensus-based threshold score for APS classification was set., Results: Premeeting evaluation of 20 representative patients demonstrated variability in APS assessment. MCDA resolved 81 pairwise decisions; relative weights identified domain item hierarchy. After assessing 192 patients by weights and additive scores, the Steering Committee reached consensus that APS classification should require separate clinical and laboratory scores, rather than a single-aggregate score, to ensure high specificity., Conclusion: Using MCDA, candidate criteria preliminary weights were determined. Unlike other disease classification systems using a single-aggregate threshold score, separate clinical and laboratory domain thresholds were incorporated into the new APS classification criteria., (© 2024 American College of Rheumatology.)

Objectives: To develop and validate classification criteria for axial disease in youth with juvenile spondyloarthritis (SpA; AxJSpA)., Methods: This international initiative consisted of four phases: 1) Item generation; 2) Item reduction; 3) Criteria development; and 4) Validation of the AxJSpA criteria by an independent team of experts in an internationally representative Validation cohort., Results: These criteria are intended to be used on youth with a physician diagnosis of juvenile SpA and for whom axial disease is suspected. Item generation consisted of a systematic literature review and a free-listing exercise using input from international physicians and collectively resulted in 108 items. After the item reduction exercise and expert panel input, 37 items remained for further consideration. The final AxJSpA criteria domains included: imaging: active inflammation, imaging: structural lesions, pain chronicity, pain pattern, pain location, stiffness, and genetics. The most heavily weighted domains were active inflammation and structural lesions on imaging. Imaging typical of sacroiliitis was deemed necessary, but not sufficient, to classify a youth with AxJSpA. The threshold for classification of AxJSpA was a score of ≥55 (out of 100). When tested in the validation data set, the final criteria had a specificity of 97.5% (95% CI: 91.4-99.7), sensitivity of 64.3% (95% CI: 54.9-73.1) and Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (AUROC) curve of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.76-0.86)., Conclusions: The new AxJSpA classification criteria require an entry criterion, physician diagnosis of juvenile SpA, and include seven weighted domains. The AxJSpA classification criteria are validated and designed to identify participants for research studies., (This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.)

IgG4-related disease (IgG4-RD) can cause fibroinflammatory lesions in nearly any organ. Correlation among clinical, serological, radiological and pathological data is required for diagnosis. This work was undertaken to develop and validate an international set of classification criteria for IgG4-RD. An international multispecialty group of 86 physicians was assembled by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR). Investigators used consensus exercises; existing literature; derivation and validation cohorts of 1879 subjects (1086 cases, 793 mimickers); and multicriterion decision analysis to identify, weight and test potential classification criteria. Two independent validation cohorts were included. A three-step classification process was developed. First, it must be demonstrated that a potential IgG4-RD case has involvement of at least one of 11 possible organs in a manner consistent with IgG4-RD. Second, exclusion criteria consisting of a total of 32 clinical, serological, radiological and pathological items must be applied; the presence of any of these criteria eliminates the patient from IgG4-RD classification. Third, eight weighted inclusion criteria domains, addressing clinical findings, serological results, radiological assessments and pathological interpretations, are applied. In the first validation cohort, a threshold of 20 points had a specificity of 99.2% (95% CI 97.2% to 99.8%) and a sensitivity of 85.5% (95% CI 81.9% to 88.5%). In the second, the specificity was 97.8% (95% CI 93.7% to 99.2%) and the sensitivity was 82.0% (95% CI 77.0% to 86.1%). The criteria were shown to have robust test characteristics over a wide range of thresholds. ACR/EULAR classification criteria for IgG4-RD have been developed and validated in a large cohort of patients. These criteria demonstrate excellent test performance and should contribute substantially to future clinical, epidemiological and basic science investigations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: In many countries, including New Zealand, the demand for rheumatology services exceeds their supply, resulting in some patients experiencing long delays or being denied access. The principal aim of this work was to create a validated, transparent, and fair system for determining access to rheumatology services., Methods: A panel of 5 rheumatologists, 6 primary care physicians, and 4 nurse specialists ranked a series of 25 clinical scenarios in order of priority to see a rheumatologist. Important determining factors were weighted in an iterative process to generate a multidimensional additive point score to determine access to rheumatology service., Results: The score comprises 6 domains of 2 to 4 items weighted to give a total score out of 100. The effect of the problem on the patient's life and role, the presence of an inflammatory rheumatic disease, appropriateness of current treatment, and the ability of the rheumatologist to influence the current symptoms and future prognosis were felt to be critical factors in determining access to the service. The score showed a strong correlation with the rankings agreed by the clinical panel, and the overall intraclass correlation coefficient for the rheumatologists was 0.698., Conclusions: Our score has face validity, is easy to perform, and has been assessed by an independent panel of rheumatologists as providing a fair system for determining access to rheumatology services. The system is acceptable to primary care physicians and has been adopted by our local primary care organizations.