Adriana Rodrigues Fonseca1, Marta Cristine Felix Rodrigues2, Flavio Roberto Sztajnbok2, Marcelo Gerardin Poirot Land3, Sheila Knupp Feitosa de Oliveira2. 1. Pediatric Rheumatology Unit, Instituto de Puericultura e Pediatria Martagão Gesteira, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rua Bruno Lobo, 50-Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. adrirfonseca@gmail.com. 2. Pediatric Rheumatology Unit, Instituto de Puericultura e Pediatria Martagão Gesteira, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rua Bruno Lobo, 50-Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 3. Internal Medicine Post-graduation Program, Faculty of Medicine, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To date there are no specific classification criteria for childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (cSLE). This study aims to compare the performance among the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 1997, the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics criteria (SLICC) and the new European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/ACR criteria, in a cSLE cohort. METHODS: We conducted a medical chart review study of cSLE cases and controls with defined rheumatic diseases, both ANA positive, to establish each ACR1997, SLICC and EULAR/ACR criterion fulfilled, at first visit and 1-year-follow-up. RESULTS: Study population included 122 cSLE cases and 89 controls. At first visit, SLICC criteria had higher sensitivity than ACR 1997 (89.3% versus 70.5%, p < 0.001), but similar specificity (80.9% versus 83.2%, p = 0.791), however performance was not statistically different at 1-year-follow-up. SLICC better scored in specificity compared to EULAR/ACR score ≥ 10 at first visit (80.9% versus 67.4%, p = 0.008) and at 1-year (76.4% versus 58.4%, p = 0.001), although sensitivities were similar. EULAR/ACR criteria score ≥ 10 exhibited higher sensitivity than ACR 1997 (87.7% versus 70.5%, p < 0.001) at first visit, but comparable at 1-year, whereas specificity was lower at first visit (67.4% versus 83.2%, p = 0.004) and 1-year (58.4% versus 76.4%, p = 0.002). A EULAR/ACR score ≥ 13 against a score ≥ 10, resulted in higher specificity, positive predictive value, and cut-off point accuracy. Compared to SLICC, a EULAR/ACR score ≥ 13 resulted in lower sensitivity at first visit (76.2% versus 89.3%, p < 0.001) and 1-year (91% versus 97.5%, p = 0.008), but similar specificities at both assessments. When compared to ACR 1997, a EULAR/ACR total score ≥ 13, resulted in no differences in sensitivity and specificity at both observation periods. CONCLUSIONS: In this cSLE population, SLICC criteria better scored at first visit and 1-year-follow-up. The adoption of a EULAR/ACR total score ≥ 13 in this study, against the initially proposed ≥10 score, was most appropriate to classify cSLE. Further studies are necessary to address if SLICC criteria might allow fulfillment of cSLE classification earlier in disease course and may be more inclusive of cSLE subjects for clinical studies.
BACKGROUND: To date there are no specific classification criteria for childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (cSLE). This study aims to compare the performance among the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 1997, the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics criteria (SLICC) and the new European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/ACR criteria, in a cSLE cohort. METHODS: We conducted a medical chart review study of cSLE cases and controls with defined rheumatic diseases, both ANA positive, to establish each ACR1997, SLICC and EULAR/ACR criterion fulfilled, at first visit and 1-year-follow-up. RESULTS: Study population included 122 cSLE cases and 89 controls. At first visit, SLICC criteria had higher sensitivity than ACR 1997 (89.3% versus 70.5%, p < 0.001), but similar specificity (80.9% versus 83.2%, p = 0.791), however performance was not statistically different at 1-year-follow-up. SLICC better scored in specificity compared to EULAR/ACR score ≥ 10 at first visit (80.9% versus 67.4%, p = 0.008) and at 1-year (76.4% versus 58.4%, p = 0.001), although sensitivities were similar. EULAR/ACR criteria score ≥ 10 exhibited higher sensitivity than ACR 1997 (87.7% versus 70.5%, p < 0.001) at first visit, but comparable at 1-year, whereas specificity was lower at first visit (67.4% versus 83.2%, p = 0.004) and 1-year (58.4% versus 76.4%, p = 0.002). A EULAR/ACR score ≥ 13 against a score ≥ 10, resulted in higher specificity, positive predictive value, and cut-off point accuracy. Compared to SLICC, a EULAR/ACR score ≥ 13 resulted in lower sensitivity at first visit (76.2% versus 89.3%, p < 0.001) and 1-year (91% versus 97.5%, p = 0.008), but similar specificities at both assessments. When compared to ACR 1997, a EULAR/ACR total score ≥ 13, resulted in no differences in sensitivity and specificity at both observation periods. CONCLUSIONS: In this cSLE population, SLICC criteria better scored at first visit and 1-year-follow-up. The adoption of a EULAR/ACR total score ≥ 13 in this study, against the initially proposed ≥10 score, was most appropriate to classify cSLE. Further studies are necessary to address if SLICC criteria might allow fulfillment of cSLE classification earlier in disease course and may be more inclusive of cSLE subjects for clinical studies.
Authors: Eve M D Smith; Sajida Rasul; Coziana Ciurtin; Eslam Al-Abadi; Kate Armon; Kathryn Bailey; Mary Brennan; Janet Gardner-Medwin; Kirsty Haslam; Daniel P Hawley; Steven Lane; Alice Leahy; Valentina Leone; Gulshan Malik; Devesh Mewar; Robert Moots; Clarissa Pilkington; Athimalaipet V Ramanan; Satyapal Rangaraj; Annie Ratcliffe; Phil Riley; Ethan Sen; Arani Sridhar; Nick Wilkinson; Michael W Beresford; Liza J McCann; Christian M Hedrich Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2021-11-03 Impact factor: 7.580