Scott A Elman1, Cara Joyce2, Kara Braudis3, Benjamin F Chong4, Anthony P Fernandez5, Fukumi Furukawa6, Minoru Hasegawa7, Hee Joo Kim8, Sara J Li1, Christine G Lian1, Jacek C Szepietowski9, Victoria P Werth10,11, Joseph F Merola1,12. 1. Department of Dermatology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Public Health Sciences, Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Department of Dermatology, University of Missouri, Columbia. 4. Department of Dermatology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. 5. Department of Dermatology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio. 6. Department of Dermatology, Takatsuki Red Cross Hospital, Takatsuki, Japan. 7. Division of Medicine, Department of Dermatology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Fukui, Fukui, Japan. 8. Department of Dermatology, Gachon Gil Medical Center, Gachon University College of Medicine, Incheon, South Korea. 9. Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, University of Medicine, Wroclaw, Poland. 10. Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 11. Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 12. Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
Importance: Classification criteria are the standardized definitions that are used to enroll uniform cohorts for research studies. They emphasize high specificity and are distinct from diagnostic criteria. No universally recognized classification criteria currently exist for discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE), which has led to problematic heterogeneity in observational and interventional clinical studies across the field. Objective: To create and validate classification criteria for DLE using 12 previously defined candidate criteria items. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this diagnostic study, candidate criteria items were prospectively applied by dermatologists and dermatopathologists at clinical visits of patients with DLE or a condition that could be confused for DLE, termed a DLE mimicker, at academic dermatology practices across the United States, Poland, Japan, and South Korea. Data were collected from December 1, 2017, to February 1, 2019, and analyzed from March 1 to September 19, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical features among these 2 groups were calculated and compared with χ2 or Fisher exact tests. Candidate models were identified using best subsets logistic regression analysis. Improvement tests, fit statistics, and discrimination were considered to choose a final model. Results: Nine sites contributed 215 patients, 15 of whom had missing or incomplete data. The final model for DLE classification criteria includes only clinical variables: atrophic scarring (3 points), location in the conchal bowl (2 points), preference for the head and neck (2 points), dyspigmentation (1 point), follicular hyperkeratosis and/or plugging (1 point), and erythematous to violaceous in color (1 point), with an area under the receiving operating characteristic curve of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.87-0.95). A score of at least 5 points yields a sensitivity of 84.1% and a specificity of 75.9% in the classification of DLE, with increasing scores yielding higher specificity. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings provide the initial validation of classification criteria for DLE for use in observational and clinical trials.
Importance: Classification criteria are the standardized definitions that are used to enroll uniform cohorts for research studies. They emphasize high specificity and are distinct from diagnostic criteria. No universally recognized classification criteria currently exist for discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE), which has led to problematic heterogeneity in observational and interventional clinical studies across the field. Objective: To create and validate classification criteria for DLE using 12 previously defined candidate criteria items. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this diagnostic study, candidate criteria items were prospectively applied by dermatologists and dermatopathologists at clinical visits of patients with DLE or a condition that could be confused for DLE, termed a DLE mimicker, at academic dermatology practices across the United States, Poland, Japan, and South Korea. Data were collected from December 1, 2017, to February 1, 2019, and analyzed from March 1 to September 19, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical features among these 2 groups were calculated and compared with χ2 or Fisher exact tests. Candidate models were identified using best subsets logistic regression analysis. Improvement tests, fit statistics, and discrimination were considered to choose a final model. Results: Nine sites contributed 215 patients, 15 of whom had missing or incomplete data. The final model for DLE classification criteria includes only clinical variables: atrophic scarring (3 points), location in the conchal bowl (2 points), preference for the head and neck (2 points), dyspigmentation (1 point), follicular hyperkeratosis and/or plugging (1 point), and erythematous to violaceous in color (1 point), with an area under the receiving operating characteristic curve of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.87-0.95). A score of at least 5 points yields a sensitivity of 84.1% and a specificity of 75.9% in the classification of DLE, with increasing scores yielding higher specificity. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings provide the initial validation of classification criteria for DLE for use in observational and clinical trials.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Scott A Elman; Cara Joyce; Filippa Nyberg; Fukumi Furukawa; Mark Goodfield; Minoru Hasegawa; Branka Marinovic; Jacek C Szepietowski; Jan Dutz; Victoria P Werth; Joseph F Merola Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2017-06-09 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Jaap Fransen; Sindhu R Johnson; Frank van den Hoogen; Murray Baron; Yannick Allanore; Patricia E Carreira; László Czirják; Christopher P Denton; Oliver Distler; Daniel E Furst; Armando Gabrielli; Ariane Herrick; Murat Inanc; Bashar Kahaleh; Otylia Kowal-Bielecka; Thomas A Medsger; Ulf Mueller-Ladner; Gabriela Riemekasten; Stanislaw Sierakowski; Gabriele Valentini; Doug Veale; Madelon C Vonk; Ulrich Walker; Lorinda Chung; Philip J Clements; David H Collier; Mary E Csuka; Sergio Jimenez; Peter A Merkel; James R Seibold; Richard Silver; Virginia Steen; Alan Tyndall; Marco Matucci-Cerinic; Janet E Pope; Dinesh Khanna Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Sindhu R Johnson; Oemer-Necmi Goek; Davinder Singh-Grewal; Steven C Vlad; Brian M Feldman; David T Felson; Gillian A Hawker; Jasvinder A Singh; Daniel H Solomon Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2007-10-15
Authors: J F Merola; F Nyberg; F Furukawa; M J Goodfield; M Hasegawa; B Marinovic; J Szepietowski; J Dutz; V P Werth Journal: Lupus Sci Med Date: 2015-03-26
Authors: Hideyuki Ujiie; David Rosmarin; Michael P Schön; Sonja Ständer; Katharina Boch; Martin Metz; Marcus Maurer; Diamant Thaci; Enno Schmidt; Connor Cole; Kyle T Amber; Dario Didona; Michael Hertl; Andreas Recke; Hanna Graßhoff; Alexander Hackel; Anja Schumann; Gabriela Riemekasten; Katja Bieber; Gant Sprow; Joshua Dan; Detlef Zillikens; Tanya Sezin; Angela M Christiano; Kerstin Wolk; Robert Sabat; Khalaf Kridin; Victoria P Werth; Ralf J Ludwig Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-06-09