Literature DB >> 34795031

Prevalence of systemic lupus erythematosus-related symptoms assessed by using the Connective Tissue Disease Screening Questionnaire in a large population-based cohort.

Wietske Lambers1, Suzanne Arends2, Caroline Roozendaal3, Elisabeth Brouwer2, Hendrika Bootsma2, Johanna Westra2, Karina de Leeuw2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To assess the prevalence of self-reported SLE-related symptoms associated with demographic and biochemical data and connective tissue disease (CTD)-related autoantibodies in a large population-based cohort.
METHODS: Participants of the Dutch Lifelines population cohort filled out the Connective Tissue Disease Screening Questionnaire (CSQ), including 11 questions focusing on SLE-related symptoms (SLE-CSQ) based on the American College of Rheumatology classification criteria. CTD autoantibody screen was performed in 25% of participants.
RESULTS: Of 85 295 participants with complete SLE-CSQ data, after excluding patients with SLE and other CTDs (n=126), 41 781 (49.1%) had no positively answered questions and 2210 (2.6% of total) had ≥4 positive answers. Participants with ≥4 answers on the SLE-CSQ were significantly younger, more frequently female, had lower body mass index (BMI) and were more often smokers than those with negative scores. Furthermore, counts of leucocytes, neutrophils and monocytes were significantly higher in these participants, while the levels of haemoglobin and creatinine were lower. CTD autoantibodies were present in 2.2% of participants with SLE-CSQ score of 0, compared with 3.5% with SLE-CSQ score ≥4 (p=0.001). Multivariate analysis showed, after adjusting for age, gender, BMI and smoking, that haemoglobin levels remained significantly lower in participants with SLE-CSQ score ≥4.
CONCLUSIONS: In this large population-based cohort, 2.6% of participants without diagnosed CTD reported ≥4 positive answers on the SLE-CSQ, indicating high suspicion for SLE. These individuals had demographic and haematological characteristics that differed from the remaining population. Potentially, this questionnaire, in combination with autoantibody determination, can be used as a starting point of a screening cascade in order to detect SLE at an early stage. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  autoantibodies; epidemiology; systemic lupus erythematosus

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34795031      PMCID: PMC8603264          DOI: 10.1136/lupus-2021-000555

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lupus Sci Med        ISSN: 2053-8790


The presenting symptoms of SLE are non-specific and diverse, hindering early recognition and resulting in frequent diagnostic delay. This study assesses the prevalence of self-reported SLE-related symptoms associated with demographic and biochemical data and connective tissue disease (CTD)-related autoantibodies in a large population-based cohort. The study shows that 2.6% of the general population have SLE suspicion based on the questionnaire. CTD autoantibodies were significantly more often detectable in patients with high SLE suspicion. Potentially, a screening questionnaire for SLE-related symptoms, in combination with autoantibody determination, can be used as a starting point of a screening cascade in order to detect SLE at an early stage.

Introduction

SLE is a systemic autoimmune disease characterised by the presence of ANA and multiorgan involvement. Prevalence rates range from 20 to 70 per 100 000.1 Women are more frequently affected than men, with an approximate ratio of 9:1. The presenting symptoms of the disease are non-specific and diverse, hindering early recognition and resulting in frequent diagnostic delay.2 3 It has been shown that many patients with SLE had visited the general practitioner prior to diagnosis with fatigue, arthralgia, arthritis, rash, alopecia, sicca symptoms, Raynaud’s phenomenon and/or serositis.2 3 Besides clinical symptoms, immunological changes take place before the disease is uncovered, as autoantibodies can be detected in serum many years before diagnosis.4 5 Hence, there is a window of opportunity for earlier diagnosis of SLE. Early identification of patients with SLE would allow timely diagnosis and treatment, probably preventing organ damage.6 7 The classification of SLE is historically based on the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) classification criteria, which were first published in 1982 and revised in 1997.8 9 A cumulative scoring system classifies SLE when 4 or more of 11 clinical and immunological symptoms are present. More recently, new classification criteria have been developed. First the 2012 Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics criteria were published and later the 2019 European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/ACR classification criteria.10 11 The Connective Tissue Disease Screening Questionnaire (CSQ) was developed to screen for various connective tissue diseases (CTD) in population studies.12 The questions that are included to detect SLE (SLE-CSQ) showed 96% sensitivity and 86% specificity for SLE in patients who were referred to a rheumatologist in the original study. Interestingly, in a population with first-degree relatives of patients with SLE, the ones who transitioned to classified SLE had significantly higher SLE-CSQ scores than the remaining relatives.13 Therefore, the SLE-CSQ might contribute to early recognition of SLE. To date, it is not clear what the potential use could be of a SLE-specific screening questionnaire in the general population. Also, it is not clear whether increased SLE suspicion based on such questionnaire will detect persons with specific demographic and biochemical characteristics similar to SLE, such as female predominance, mostly of reproductive age, and haematological features such as anaemia and leucopenia, as well as the presence of specific CTD autoantibodies. In this study, the aim was to investigate the prevalence of SLE-related symptoms, assessed with the SLE-CSQ, and relate the outcome to demographic and biochemical data, and the presence of CTD autoantibodies, in a large population-based cohort.

Materials and methods

Participants and data collection

Data were obtained from the Lifelines cohort, which is a large population-based cohort among inhabitants of the northern region of the Netherlands. Inclusion of this prospective multidisciplinary cohort started in 2006, and 167 729 persons participated. At baseline, participants were asked to fill out questionnaires about their health, nutritional behaviour, medical history and use of medication. Also, they underwent general clinical examination and blood withdrawal for general laboratory testing. All participants included in the current study were ≥18 years old. In a follow-up questionnaire taken approximately 2 years after inclusion, participants were asked to fill out questions that were derived from a validated CSQ.12 Only participants who completed this follow-up questionnaire were included in the current study. All participants provided written informed consent. Lifelines is open for all researchers and information is available at http://wwwLifeLinesnl.

Detection of patients with established SLE and other CTDs

Participants who had already been diagnosed with SLE or with another CTD, namely primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS), systemic sclerosis (SSc), mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), and polymyositis or dermatomyositis (PM/DM), at baseline were excluded. These patients were detected using the lists of self-reported diseases. The diagnosis was confirmed by self-reported use of medication and whether participants reported to have visited a medical specialist in the past 12 months.

Connective Tissue Disease Screening Questionnaire

Collection of CSQ data12 took place after a median of 25 months (IQR 23–30 months) from baseline. In total, 11 questions were selected to compose an ‘SLE-CSQ score’ (see table 1). These questions are aiming for SLE-specific symptoms and are based on the 11 components of the ACR classification criteria, with a score ≥4 suspicious for SLE.12 Arthritis was defined as joint swelling lasting more than 6 weeks in at least two joints. Raynaud’s phenomenon was considered positive when at least two colour changes were reported to be shown on exposure to cold.
Table 1

SLE-CSQ and determination of the SLE-CSQ score12

1. Have you ever had swelling in any of the following joints, lasting more than 6 weeks?

Left wrist

Right wrist

Left finger joints (but not the joints nearest the fingernails)

Right finger joints (but not the joints nearest the fingernails)

Left elbow

Right elbow

Left knee

Right knee

1 point in case of ≥2 affected joints
2. Have your fingers ever shown any unusual colour changes in the cold?

If yes, was the colour white?

If yes, was the colour blue?

If yes, was the colour purple?

If yes, was the colour red?

1 point if ≥2 colours were reported
3. Have you ever had sores in your mouth or nose for more than 2 weeks at a time?1 point
4. Have you ever had a red rash on your cheeks for more than a month?1 point
5. Have you ever had skin break out (rash) after being in the sun (not sunburn)?1 point
6. Have you ever had pleurisy or chest pain made worse with deep breaths for more than a few days (not caused by bruised rib or a cold)1 point
7. Have you ever had rapid loss of lots of hair?1 point
8. A. Have you ever been told by a doctor that you had anaemia?B. Have you ever been told by a doctor that you had low white cell count?C. Have you ever been told by a doctor that you had low platelet count?1 point if any of these questions were positive
9. Have you ever been told by a doctor that you had protein in your urine?1 point
10. Have you ever had a blood test for lupus/SLE? (eg, ANA or ENA) If yes, what was the result?1 point for positive result
11. Have you ever been told by a doctor that you had lupus/SLE of the skin?1 point
SLE-CSQ scoreCumulative score

ENA, extractable nuclear antibodies; SLE-CSQ, Connective Tissue Disease Screening Questionnaire focusing on SLE.

SLE-CSQ and determination of the SLE-CSQ score12 Left wrist Right wrist Left finger joints (but not the joints nearest the fingernails) Right finger joints (but not the joints nearest the fingernails) Left elbow Right elbow Left knee Right knee If yes, was the colour white? If yes, was the colour blue? If yes, was the colour purple? If yes, was the colour red? ENA, extractable nuclear antibodies; SLE-CSQ, Connective Tissue Disease Screening Questionnaire focusing on SLE. Sicca complaints of the eyes and mouth were separately documented in order to disclose any overlap between SLE and pSS.

EliA CTD screen

In a random selection of 21 389 participants at baseline, EliA CTD screen (ThermoFisher Scientific, Freiburg, Germany) was performed in a blood sample on a Phadia 250 analyser, in which the total reactivity to a mixture of the following antigens is measured: human recombinant U1RNP (RNP70, A, C), SS-A/Ro (60 kDa, 52 kDa), SS-B/La, centromere B, Scl-70, Jo-1, fibrillarin, RNA polymerase III, ribosomal P protein, PM-Scl, PCNA, Mi-2 proteins, Sm proteins and native purified DNA. The results are presented as a ratio, of which >1.0 was regarded positive, according to the manufacturer. Furthermore, in individuals with a positive CTD screen, levels of anti-dsDNA (double stranded DNA) and anti-SSA were measured using EliA on a Phadia 250 analyser. For both anti-dsDNA and anti-SSA, a cut-off of >10 U/mL was considered positive, according to the manufacturer.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive results were expressed as percentage or median (IQR) for categorical and continuous data, respectively. χ2 test and Kruskal-Wallis test were used as appropriate to compare demographic, clinical and blood parameters between the groups based on SLE-CSQ score (score 0, score 1, score 2–3, score ≥4). In case this overall p value was statistically significant, χ2 test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare the variables between two groups. Multivariate multinomial logistic regression was performed to correct for possible confounders (age, gender, body mass index (BMI) and smoking status). Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics V.23. P≤0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Study population

The SLE-CSQ was completed by 85 295 participants; 46 participants had SLE at the time of filling in the questionnaire and were excluded. This resulted in a prevalence of SLE of 54 per 100 000. Furthermore, 80 patients with other CTDs were excluded (46 pSS, 15 SSc, 5 MCTD, 14 PM/DM). Patients with SLE and other CTDs were significantly more often female, had lower haemoglobin level and lower lymphocyte count, and 66.7% of patients with SLE and other CTDs had detectable CTD autoantibodies. The baseline characteristics of the 85 169 included participants and the excluded patients with SLE and CTD are shown in table 2. The median age was 45 years and 59.6% were female. CTD autoantibody screen was assessed in 21 359 (25%) participants and was positive in 2.7%.
Table 2

Baseline characteristics of all participants

CharacteristicsAll (no SLE, no CTD) (n=85 169)SLE (n=46)P value*Other CTDs (n=80)P value*
Age (years)45 (36–53)45 (41–51)0.6650 (44–50)<0.0001
Gender (female)59.693.5<0.000182.5<0.0001
BMI (kg/m2)25 (23–28)25 (22–28)0.4425 (23–29)0.42
Smoking
 Current (yes)18.423.90.3613.80.26
 Never (yes)47.255.60.5345.00.76
Women only
 Nulliparity (yes)18.417.00.688.60.06
 Menopausal (yes)7.04.70.291.80.12
 OCP use
  Ever (yes)91.690.70.7792.40.23
  Current (yes)37.927.90.3115.20.006
Blood levels
 Haemoglobin (g/L)14.0 (13.2–15.0)13.2 (12.7–14.0)<0.000113.4 (12.6–13.9)<0.0001
 Leucocytes (×109/L)5.7 (4.9–6.8)5.6 (4.3–7.2)0.515.55 (4.40–7.00)0.14
 Lymphocytes (×109/L)1.9 (1.6–2.3)1.72 (1.41–2.22)0.031.58 (1.19–2.10)<0.0001
 Neutrophils (×109/L)3.1 (2.5–3.8)3.28 (2.29–4.57)0.613.21 (2.34–3.92)0.70
 Monocytes (×109/L)0.45 (0.37–0.55)0.54 (0.38–0.65)0.0230.51 (0.36–0.62)0.081
 Thrombocytes (×109/L)245 (212–283)260 (233–204)0.051256 (227–298)0.16
 Creatinine (µmol/L)72 (65–82)69 (63–80)0.2767 (61–74)<0.0001
 CTD screen positive (n=21 359, 25%) (%)580/21.359 (2.7)8/12 (66.7)<0.000112/18 (66.7)<0.0001
  Anti-doublestranded DNA" positive (%†)216/580 (37)3/8 (38)1/12 (8)
  Anti-SSA positive (%†)152/580 (26)5/8 (63)5/12 (42)

Data are presented as median (IQR) for continuous variables and as percentages for categorical variables.

*P values represent statistical differences between patients with SLE and other CTDs, and the remaining participants, using Mann-Whitney U test and χ2 test as appropriate.

†Percentage refers to the group of CTD screen-positive participants.

BMI, body mass index; CTD, connective tissue disease; OCP, oral contraceptive pills.

Baseline characteristics of all participants Data are presented as median (IQR) for continuous variables and as percentages for categorical variables. *P values represent statistical differences between patients with SLE and other CTDs, and the remaining participants, using Mann-Whitney U test and χ2 test as appropriate. †Percentage refers to the group of CTD screen-positive participants. BMI, body mass index; CTD, connective tissue disease; OCP, oral contraceptive pills.

SLE-CSQ questionnaire

The distribution of the number of positively answered SLE-CSQ questions among the population is shown in table 3. Almost half (49.1%) of the participants had an SLE-CSQ score of ‘zero’ and thus reported no SLE-related symptoms. A score of at least four positive questions, raising increased suspicion for SLE, was found in 2.6% of the participants. In comparison, 34 (73.9%) of (excluded) 46 patients with SLE and 27.8% of patients with other CTDs had at least four positive questions. The percentages of positively answered questions per CSQ item can be found in table 4. The most frequently occurring symptoms in the population-based cohort were symptoms compatible with photosensitivity (24%) and haematological features (22%).
Table 3

Distribution of SLE-CSQ scores among the population-based cohort after exclusion of SLE and other CTDs

SLE-CSQ scorenPercentage
041 78149.1
124 99429.3
211 71913.8
344645.2
415631.8
54800.6
61210.1
735<0.01
810<0.01
92<0.01
101<0.01
1100
≥422122.6

CTD, connective tissue disease; SLE-CSQ, Connective Tissue Disease Screening Questionnaire focusing on SLE.

Table 4

Percentages of positively answered questions for all (SLE and other CTDs excluded) participants, specified per subgroup based on the total number of positive answers, and patients with SLE and CTD

QuestionAlln=85 1691n=24 9942–3n=16 1834n=2212SLEn=46Other CTDsn=80
1. Joint swelling4.96.112.132.028.330.0
2. Finger discolouration5.75.915.439.641.345.0
3. Ulcers6.36.516.845.241.325.0
4. Red rash on cheeks2.11.65.819.541.312.5
5. Photosensitivity24.134.562.480.169.645.0
6. Pleurisy5.65.015.446.134.821.3
7. Alopecia6.55.019.950.034.815.0
8. Haematological features22.129.659.578.165.241.3
9. Proteinuria6.55.719.444.541.317.5
10. Skin lupus0.100.32.667.412.5
11. Positive lupus test0.100.22.093.510.0

CTD, connective tissue disease.

Distribution of SLE-CSQ scores among the population-based cohort after exclusion of SLE and other CTDs CTD, connective tissue disease; SLE-CSQ, Connective Tissue Disease Screening Questionnaire focusing on SLE. Percentages of positively answered questions for all (SLE and other CTDs excluded) participants, specified per subgroup based on the total number of positive answers, and patients with SLE and CTD CTD, connective tissue disease. For further analysis, four subgroups were formed, namely groups with SLE-CSQ scores of 0, 1, 2 or 3 and ≥4. The characteristics and comparison of these subgroups are shown in table 5. Participants with SLE-CSQ score ≥4 were younger (median age 43 years) than participants with a score of 0 and had a strong female predominance (91%) compared with all groups with lower scores. Also, participants with the highest SLE-CSQ scores were more frequently smokers than participants with no positive answers or with two to three positive answers. Among women, ever having used oral contraceptive pills (OCP) was reported more frequently, whereas current use of OCP was less frequent in the group with the highest SLE-CSQ scores. Furthermore, the percentage of participants with positive CTD autoantibody screen was higher in individuals with the highest SLE-CSQ scores, but only in comparison with the group with a score of 0. There was no difference regarding percentage of anti-dsDNA antibodies between the groups, but anti-SSA seemed more prevalent in the group with a score ≥4, although this was only statistically significant compared with score group 1. Regarding the remaining laboratory findings, the levels of leucocytes and neutrophils (but not lymphocytes) as well as thrombocytes were higher in the group with high SLE-CSQ scores, while the levels of haemoglobin, creatinine and monocyte counts were lower compared with an SLE-CSQ score of 0.
Table 5

Characteristics in the different groups based on the number of positive SLE-SCQ answers

Group number1234P value
SLE-CSQ score012–3≥4
Characteristics
Age (years) 46 45 44 43 <0.0001
Gender (female) 41.9 69.3 86.0 93.0 <0.0001
BMI (kg/m2) 25.7 25.124.824.8 <0.0001
Smoking
 Current (yes) 18.4 19.0 18.8 20.5 0.04
 Never (yes)49.648.948.547.3 0.03
Women only
 Nulliparity (yes)17.719.417.918.7 0.001
 Menopausal (yes) 8.7 6.96.76.4 <0.0001
 OCP
  Current (yes) 37.6 39.036.935.3 <0.0001
  Ever (yes) 89.5 91.1 93.793.4 <0.0001
Blood levels
 Haemoglobin (g/L) 14.5 13.9 13.5 13.9 <0.0001
 Leucocytes (×109/L) 5.7 5.8 5.7 5.9 0.004
 Lymphocytes (×109/L)1.911.931.931.940.08
 Neutrophils (×109/L) 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.2 <0.0001
 Monocytes (×109/L) 0.46 0.45 0.440.44 <0.0001
 Thrombocytes (×109/L) 239 249 255258 <0.0001
 Creatinine (µmol/L) 76 71 68 67 <0.0001
 CTD screen-positive (%)** 235 (2.2) 199 (3.2)127 (3.1)19 (3.5) 0.001
  Anti-dsDNA (%††)89 (38)77 (39)42 (33)8 (42)0.09
  Anti-SSA (%††)58 (25) 53 (27) 35 (28)6 (32) 0.007

The outcomes in bold appoint the values that are significantly different from group 4 (p<0.05).

Data are presented as medians for continuous variables and as percentages for categorical variables.

Kruskal-Wallis analysis was performed for comparison of the four groups. Mann-Whitney was used to compare two groups.

P values ≤0.05 are considered significant.

*CTD screen was tested in 25% of the whole group.

†This percentage refers to the group of CTD screen-positive participants.

BMI, body mass index; CTD, connective tissue disease; OPC, oral conceptive pills; SLE-CSQ, Connective Tissue Disease Screening Questionnaire focusing on SLE.

Characteristics in the different groups based on the number of positive SLE-SCQ answers The outcomes in bold appoint the values that are significantly different from group 4 (p<0.05). Data are presented as medians for continuous variables and as percentages for categorical variables. Kruskal-Wallis analysis was performed for comparison of the four groups. Mann-Whitney was used to compare two groups. P values ≤0.05 are considered significant. *CTD screen was tested in 25% of the whole group. †This percentage refers to the group of CTD screen-positive participants. BMI, body mass index; CTD, connective tissue disease; OPC, oral conceptive pills; SLE-CSQ, Connective Tissue Disease Screening Questionnaire focusing on SLE.

Independent predictors of SLE-CSQ score ≥4

When adjusting for gender, age, BMI and smoking status in all participants, those with an SLE-CSQ score of ≥4 had significantly lower haemoglobin levels than groups with scores of 0 and 1, whereas neutrophil counts were higher compared with groups with lower scores, and the number of leucocytes was higher only than the group with scores of 2–3 (see table 6). For women, when adjusting for potential confounders (age, BMI and smoking status), those with SLE-CSQ score ≥4 were more often nulliparous, less often menopausal, less often currently used OCP and more frequently had ever used OCP than participants who answered negatively to all SLE-CSQ questions.
Table 6

Multivariate multinomial logistic analysis, adjusted for age, gender, BMI and smoking status, comparing the different groups based on SLE-CSQ score

VariableSLE-CSQ scoreOR95% intervalP value
Haemoglobin (g/L)01.581.47 to 1.72 <0.0001
11.201.10 to 1.31 <0.0001
2–31.060.97 to 1.160.19
≥4Ref
Leucocytes (×109/L), log-transformed00.720.45 to 1.150.17
10.660.41 to 1.070.09
2–30.510.32 to 0.84 0.007
≥4Ref
Neutrophils (×109/L), log-transformed00.690.48 to 0.98 0.04
10.650.46 to 0.93 0.02
2–30.560.39 to 0.80 0.002
≥4Ref
Monocytes (×109/L), log-transformed00.830.55 to 1.250.38
10.820.55 to 1.240.35
2–30.710.47 to 1.070.10
≥4Ref
Thrombocytes (×109/L), log-transformed00.850.49 to 1.470.56
10.950.55 to 1.650.86
2–31.030.59 to 1.800.93
≥4Ref
Creatinine (nmol/L), square root-transformed01.040.95 to 1.140.35
11.040.95 to 1.140.39
2–30.970.91 to 1.090.97
≥4Ref
CTD screen-positive00.770.48 to 1.250.29
10.950.61 to 1.590.95
2–30.700.56 to 1.490.70
≥4Ref
Women only
Nulliparous (yes)00.750.65 to 0.87 <0.001
10.800.80 to 0.69 0.003
2–31.000.86 to 1.150.96
≥4Ref
Menopausal (yes)01.311.07 to 1.59 0.009
11.010.87 to 1.310.52
2–31.020.83 to 1.250.88
≥4Ref
Current OCP use (yes)01.261.12 to 1.42 <0.001
11.241.10 to 1.14 <0.001
2–31.131.00 to 1.27 0.04
≥4Ref
OCP use, ever (yes)00.660.55 to 0.80 <0.001
10.830.69 to 1.000.05
2–31.090.90 to 1.310.40
≥4Ref

P values ≤0.05 are considered significant.

BMI, body mass index; CTD, connective tissue disease; OCP, oral anticonceptive pills; Ref, reference; SLE-CSQ, Connective Tissue Disease Screening Questionnaire focusing on SLE.

Multivariate multinomial logistic analysis, adjusted for age, gender, BMI and smoking status, comparing the different groups based on SLE-CSQ score P values ≤0.05 are considered significant. BMI, body mass index; CTD, connective tissue disease; OCP, oral anticonceptive pills; Ref, reference; SLE-CSQ, Connective Tissue Disease Screening Questionnaire focusing on SLE.

Sicca complaints

SLE and pSS have overlapping symptomatology and patients with SLE can have secondary Sjögren’s syndrome. Therefore, sicca complaints were separately evaluated in order to estimate the potential overlap. Overall, 5.8% had both sicca complaints of the eyes and mouth. The incidence of sicca complaints per SLE-CSQ group is shown in online supplemental table 1. With increase of SLE-CSQ score, simultaneously the proportion of participants with sicca complaints increased. Regarding the group with a score ≥4, 24.2% had sicca complaints of both eyes and mouth compared with 3.1% in the group with a score of 0. Patients with sicca complaints of both eyes and mouth were more often women and more frequently smokers than those without sicca complaints. The frequency of detectable CTD antibodies was not different for individuals with sicca complaints (data not shown).

Discussion

This study investigated the prevalence of SLE-specific complaints formulated on the CTD-CSQ in the general population. The original CSQ, including SLE-specific questions (SLE-CSQ), was developed as the first diagnostic step for a specific population with suspected rheumatological disease. However, it is known that lupus symptoms can be present many years before referral to a rheumatologist, and in hindsight patients with SLE often have visited general practitioners before the referral to a rheumatologist.2 3 14 Majority of the patients have experienced fatigue, joint pain, fever, photosensitivity and myalgia in the year before diagnosis. Therefore, it is of interest to test the prevalence of SLE-specific complaints in the general population, by using the SLE-SCQ, in relation to other characteristics including biochemical values. Based on the ACR criteria for SLE, answering four or more questions on the SLE-CSQ confirmatively was regarded as an increased suspicion for SLE.8 9 In this northern European population 2.6% of the participants have ≥4 SLE-related complaints. These individuals were—like patients with SLE—younger and more frequently female than those with none or less positive answers. After correction for age, gender, BMI and smoking status as potential confounders, haemoglobin levels were lower in the group with SLE-CSQ ≥4, whereas neutrophil counts were higher. In accordance, haematological disorders are reported in the literature to be present in 53.5% of patients with newly diagnosed SLE.3 However, increased neutrophils are not typical of SLE. It has been stipulated that oestrogens might increase the risk of developing SLE.15 In the current study, more women in the highest SLE-CSQ scores had ever used OCP. In contrary, the current use of OCP was lower in this group. However, probably the cumulative dose or duration of OCP use is higher and these data are needed in order to correctly interpret the results. Among individuals with a reported established diagnosis of SLE, 73.9% had at least four positive SLE-CSQ questions, reflecting good sensitivity of this questionnaire as demonstrated before.12 The fact that sensitivity is not as high as the 96% that was reported previously could be explained by the fact that patients in the current study did not have newly diagnosed disease. Sicca complaints were tested to check for potential overlap with pSS. Of the participants with a high-risk profile based on SLE-CSQ, 24.2% reported sicca complaints of the mouth as well as the eyes. This is comparable with the known prevalence of secondary Sjögren’s syndrome in SLE, as it was reported to be 23%.16 Notably, participants with ≥4 positive answers on the SLE-CSQ more frequently expressed CTD-related autoantibodies than the group without any positive answer. The CTD screen detects antibodies against dsDNA and against specific extractable nuclear antibodies (ENA), which are more specific for SLE than the ANA test. Whereas all classifiable patients with SLE express ANA as detected by indirect immunofluorescence, as it is nowadays an entrance criterion for SLE,11 not all patients with SLE do express these more specific anti-dsDNA or anti-ENA. Of note, not all individuals with anti-ENA and anti-dsDNA will develop autoimmune diseases.17 However, participants in this longitudinal cohort with both high SLE-CSQ scores and positive CTD screen are still at particular interest for further research as they might have the highest risk to progress to SLE. Whether the SLE-CSQ is of predictive value cannot be interpreted from our results. Therefore, long-term follow-up of this cohort is needed. Young et al18 followed a group of 364 family members of patients with SLE for a mean of 6.3 years. Of the 22 participants who transitioned to classified SLE, 16 (73%) had an SLE-CSQ score of ≥4 compared with 72 of 353 (20%) individuals who did not develop SLE. In family members with a score ≥3, the positive predictive value for developing SLE was 15% and the negative predictive value was 99% in the study referred to. It would be interesting to further test the SLE-CSQ as a screening instrument in the population. This questionnaire could be used in first-line medical care, preferably as part of a stepwise design. The next step would then be to test ANA in individuals with high suspicion for SLE based on the questionnaire. Those individuals with a positive ANA could be referred to a medical specialist for further assessment and follow-up to evaluate which percentage develop a CTD. Although this is a large population cohort, there are some limitations. Most importantly, the diagnosis of SLE and CTD was self-reported by participants. There was no access to medical files, so it could not be checked if the classification criteria were met, although the use of immunosuppressive medication was confirmed. Second, the population is mainly Caucasian, while the prevalence of SLE is higher in other ethnicities. Therefore, it would be interesting to repeat this research in a more diverse population. One other limitation is the fact that blood samples were not retrieved at the same time as the questionnaire. The median time between these testing moments was 25 months. It is possible that in the mean time CTD autoantibodies have developed or other blood tests have changed. Not all but 85 295 (51%) of 167 729 subjects have filled in the follow-up questionnaire, which could have resulted in a selection bias. Unfortunately, ANA was not tested in this population cohort. As ANA is more prevalent and more commonly tested than anti-dsDNA and anti-ENA, it would have been of interest. The SLE-CSQ score used in this study was retrieved from but not exactly the same as in the original publication. Hence the validity and applicability may have been slightly changed. Lastly, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have not been excluded from this study. Potentially, as RA is a systemic disease, these patients could have higher SLE-CSQ scores, which could influence the data. However, a specificity of 85% for SLE has been reported for this questionnaire. In conclusion, the prevalence of ≥4 SLE-related symptoms as tested by the SLE-CSQ is 2.6% in the northern Dutch population. These individuals are younger and have a female predominance (90%). Persons suspicious for SLE based on this questionnaire have, when corrected for potential confounders, higher neutrophil counts and lower levels of haemoglobin. This study supports the usefulness of further research on screening for SLE in the general population by providing insight into the prevalence of SLE symptoms. This might help in developing a stepwise approach in order to diagnose SLE earlier. However, longer follow-up of this cohort is necessary to show the predictive value of the SLE-CSQ score in combination with other promising variables like autoantibodies in a population-based cohort.
  18 in total

1.  Early Clinical Features in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Can They Be Used to Achieve Earlier Diagnosis? A Risk Prediction Model.

Authors:  Frances Rees; Michael Doherty; Peter Lanyon; Graham Davenport; Richard D Riley; Weiya Zhang; Matthew J Grainge
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2017-05-08       Impact factor: 4.794

2.  Screening characteristics for enrichment of individuals at higher risk for transitioning to classified SLE.

Authors:  K A Young; M E Munroe; J M Guthridge; D L Kamen; G S Gilkensen; J B Harley; M H Weisman; D R Karp; D J Wallace; J A James; J M Norris
Journal:  Lupus       Date:  2019-03-07       Impact factor: 2.911

3.  A connective tissue disease screening questionnaire for population studies.

Authors:  E W Karlson; J Sanchez-Guerrero; E A Wright; R A Lew; L H Daltroy; J N Katz; M H Liang
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 3.797

4.  Derivation and validation of the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus.

Authors:  Michelle Petri; Ana-Maria Orbai; Graciela S Alarcón; Caroline Gordon; Joan T Merrill; Paul R Fortin; Ian N Bruce; David Isenberg; Daniel J Wallace; Ola Nived; Gunnar Sturfelt; Rosalind Ramsey-Goldman; Sang-Cheol Bae; John G Hanly; Jorge Sánchez-Guerrero; Ann Clarke; Cynthia Aranow; Susan Manzi; Murray Urowitz; Dafna Gladman; Kenneth Kalunian; Melissa Costner; Victoria P Werth; Asad Zoma; Sasha Bernatsky; Guillermo Ruiz-Irastorza; Munther A Khamashta; Soren Jacobsen; Jill P Buyon; Peter Maddison; Mary Anne Dooley; Ronald F van Vollenhoven; Ellen Ginzler; Thomas Stoll; Christine Peschken; Joseph L Jorizzo; Jeffrey P Callen; S Sam Lim; Barri J Fessler; Murat Inanc; Diane L Kamen; Anisur Rahman; Kristjan Steinsson; Andrew G Franks; Lisa Sigler; Suhail Hameed; Hong Fang; Ngoc Pham; Robin Brey; Michael H Weisman; Gerald McGwin; Laurence S Magder
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2012-08

5.  Discerning Risk of Disease Transition in Relatives of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Patients Utilizing Soluble Mediators and Clinical Features.

Authors:  Melissa E Munroe; Kendra A Young; Diane L Kamen; Joel M Guthridge; Timothy B Niewold; Karen H Costenbader; Michael H Weisman; Mariko L Ishimori; Daniel J Wallace; Gary S Gilkeson; David R Karp; John B Harley; Jill M Norris; Judith A James
Journal:  Arthritis Rheumatol       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 10.995

Review 6.  Understanding the epidemiology and progression of systemic lupus erythematosus.

Authors:  Guillermo J Pons-Estel; Graciela S Alarcón; Lacie Scofield; Leslie Reinlib; Glinda S Cooper
Journal:  Semin Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2009-01-10       Impact factor: 5.532

7.  Early Lupus Project: one-year follow-up of an Italian cohort of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus of recent onset.

Authors:  G D Sebastiani; I Prevete; A Iuliano; M Piga; F Iannone; L Coladonato; M Govoni; A Bortoluzzi; M Mosca; C Tani; A Doria; L Iaccarino; A Tincani; M Fredi; F Conti; F R Spinelli; M Galeazzi; F Bellisai; A Zanetti; G Carrara; C A Scirè; A Mathieu
Journal:  Lupus       Date:  2018-05-19       Impact factor: 2.911

8.  Early symptoms of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) recalled by 339 SLE patients.

Authors:  N Leuchten; B Milke; B Winkler-Rohlfing; D Daikh; T Dörner; S R Johnson; M Aringer
Journal:  Lupus       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 2.911

9.  Sjögren Syndrome in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Subset Characterized by a Systemic Inflammatory State.

Authors:  Guillermo Ruacho; Marika Kvarnström; Agneta Zickert; Vilija Oke; Johan Rönnelid; Susanna Eketjäll; Kerstin Elvin; Iva Gunnarsson; Elisabet Svenungsson
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2019-09-15       Impact factor: 4.666

10.  Autoantibodies predate the onset of systemic lupus erythematosus in northern Sweden.

Authors:  Catharina Eriksson; Heidi Kokkonen; Martin Johansson; Göran Hallmans; Göran Wadell; Solbritt Rantapää-Dahlqvist
Journal:  Arthritis Res Ther       Date:  2011-02-22       Impact factor: 5.156

View more
  1 in total

1.  Pre-Clinical Autoimmunity in Lupus Relatives: Self-Reported Questionnaires and Immune Dysregulation Distinguish Relatives Who Develop Incomplete or Classified Lupus From Clinically Unaffected Relatives and Unaffected, Unrelated Individuals.

Authors:  Melissa E Munroe; Kendra A Young; Joel M Guthridge; Diane L Kamen; Gary S Gilkeson; Michael H Weisman; Mariko L Ishimori; Daniel J Wallace; David R Karp; John B Harley; Jill M Norris; Judith A James
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2022-06-03       Impact factor: 8.786

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.