Naomi Rothfield, MD, MACR: A Giant Gift in a Small Package.

Naomi Rothfield was truly a pied piper of lupus. She had an abiding interest in the characterization and clinical significance of antinuclear antibodies and anti-DNA antibodies in the serum of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients. She described the use of serum complement in SLE diagnosis and the association of inherited complement deficiencies with SLE. Under her leadership, numerous professionals focused their clinical and research activities to benefit lupus patients. Naomi was also instrumental in establishing a lupus group to assist lupus patients, which became one of the founding chapters of the Lupus Foundation of America.

A multianalyte assay panel with cell-bound complement activation products demonstrates clinical utility in systemic lupus erythematosus.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical utility of the multianalyte assay panel (MAP), commercially known as AVISE Lupus test (Exagen Inc.), in patients suspected of SLE. METHODS: A systematic review of medical records of ANA-positive patients with a positive (>0.1) or negative (<-0.1) MAP score was conducted when the MAP was ordered (T0), when the test results were reviewed (T1) and at a later time (T2, ≥8 months after T1). Confidence in the diagnosis of SLE and initiation of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 161 patient records from 12 centres were reviewed at T0 and T1. T2 occurred for 90 patients. At T0, low, moderate and high confidence in SLE diagnosis was reported for 58%, 30% and 12% patients, respectively. Confidence in SLE diagnosis increased for the MAP positive, while MAP negative made SLE less likely. Odds of higher confidence in SLE diagnosis increased by 1.74-fold for every unit of increase of the MAP score (p<0.001). Using the MAP-negative/anti-double-stranded DNA-negative patients as reference, the HR of assigning an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision lupus code was 7.02-fold, 11.2-fold and 14.8-fold higher in the low tier-2, high tier-2 and tier-1 positive, respectively (p<0.001). The HR of initiating HCQ therapy after T0 was 2.90-fold, 4.22-fold and 3.98-fold higher, respectively (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The MAP helps increase the confidence in ruling-in and ruling-out SLE in patients suspected of the disease and informs on appropriate treatment decisions.

A Review of Complement Activation in SLE.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Complement activation is a key event in the pathogenesis of tissue inflammation and injury in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). This review is aimed at comparing the usefulness of measurement of complement proteins in serum/plasma (C3, C4) to complement activation (split) products in plasma and on circulating blood cells for SLE diagnosis, disease monitoring, and prognosis. RECENT FINDINGS: Complement split products, C3dg, iC3b, and C4d, are elevated in SLE, and C3dg/C3 and iC3b/C3 ratios correlate with active SLE. C4d also is higher in patients with lupus nephritis. An elevated level of the alternative pathway split product, Bb, in early lupus pregnancy is a predictor of adverse outcomes in SLE patients with antiphospholipid antibodies. Elevated levels of cell-bound complement activation products (CB-CAPs), namely, B cell-bound C4d (BC4d) and erythrocyte-bound C4d (EC4d), within a multiparameter assay panel, may predict transition to SLE more than other lupus biomarkers. EC4d better correlates with lupus disease activity than low plasma complement levels. Elevated platelet-bound C4d (PC4d) correlates with thrombosis in SLE. Both EC4d and PC4d are increased in primary and secondary anti-phospholipid syndrome, and anti-beta2glycoproteinI antibodies may directly activate the complement system. Abnormal levels of plasma complement split products and CB-CAPs support complement activation as an important pathogenetic mechanism in SLE and the antiphospholipid syndromes. These tests show promise for the diagnosis of SLE and monitoring of disease activity.

A Multianalyte Assay Panel With Cell-Bound Complement Activation Products Predicts Transition of Probable Lupus to American College of Rheumatology-Classified Lupus.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the usefulness of biomarkers to predict the evolution of patients suspected of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), designated as probable SLE (pSLE), into classifiable SLE according to the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) classification criteria. METHODS: Patients suspected of SLE were enrolled by lupus experts if they fulfilled three ACR criteria for SLE and were followed for approximately 1-3 years to evaluate transition into ACR-classifiable SLE. Individual cell-bound complement activation products (CB-CAPs), serum complement proteins (C3 and C4), and autoantibodies were measured by flow cytometry, turbidimetry, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, respectively. Blood levels of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) were measured by mass spectrometry. A multianalyte assay panel (MAP), which includes CB-CAPs, was also evaluated. A MAP of greater than 0.8 reflected the optimal cutoff for transition to SLE. Time to fulfillment of ACR criteria was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Of the 92 patients with pSLE enrolled, 74 had one or two follow-up visits 9-35 months after enrollment for a total of 128 follow-up visits. Overall, 28 patients with pSLE (30.4%) transitioned to ACR-classifiable SLE, including 16 (57%) in the first year and 12 (43%) afterwards. A MAP score of greater than 0.8 at enrollment predicted transition to classifiable SLE during the follow-up period (hazard ratio = 2.72; P = 0.012), whereas individual biomarkers or fulfillment of Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics criteria did not. HCQ therapy was not associated with the prevention of transition to SLE. CONCLUSION: Approximately one-third of patients with pSLE transitioned within the study period. MAP of greater than 0.8 predicted disease evolution into classifiable SLE.

Evaluation of the Economic Benefit of Earlier Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Diagnosis Using a Multivariate Assay Panel (MAP).

OBJECTIVE: Diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) made by standard diagnostic laboratory tests (SDLTs) has sensitivity and specificity of 83% and 76%, respectively. A multivariate assay panel (MAP) combining complement C4d activation products on erythrocytes and B cells with SDLTs yields a sensitivity and specificity of 80% and 86%, respectively, presumably enabling earlier SLE diagnosis at lower severity, with associated lower health care costs compared with SDLT diagnoses. We compared the payer budget impact of diagnosing SLE using MAP (incremental cost of $108) versus SDLTs. METHODS: We modeled a health plan of 1 million enrollees. SLE diagnosis among suspected patients was 9.2%. The MAP arm assumed 80%/20% of patients were tested with MAP/SDLTs, versus 100% tested with SDLTs in the SDLT arm. Prediagnosis direct costs were estimated from claims data, and postdiagnosis costs were obtained from the literature. Based on improved MAP performance, the assumed hazard ratio for diagnosis rate compared with SDLTs was 1.74 (71%, 87%, 90%, and 91% of patients who develop SLE are diagnosed in years 1 to 4 compared with 53%, 75%, 84%, and 88% of patients diagnosed with SDLTs). RESULTS: Total 4-year pre- and postdiagnosis direct costs for patients with suspected SLE tested with MAP were $59 183 666 compared with $61 174 818 tested by SDLTs, with lower costs in the MAP arm due primarily to prediagnosis savings related to reduced hospital admissions. CONCLUSION: Incorporating MAP into SLE diagnosis results in estimated 4-year direct cost savings of $1 991 152 ($0.04 per member per month). By facilitating earlier diagnosis of SLE, MAP may enhance patient outcomes.

Cell-bound complement activation products associate with lupus severity in SLE.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association between lupus severity and cell-bound complement activation products (CB-CAPs) or low complement proteins C3 and C4. METHODS: All subjects (n=495) fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) classification criteria for SLE. Abnormal CB-CAPs (erythrocyte-bound C4d or B-lymphocyte-bound C4d levels >99th percentile of healthy) and complement proteins C3 and C4 were determined using flow cytometry and turbidimetry, respectively. Lupus severity was estimated using the Lupus Severity Index (LSI). Statistical analysis consisted of multivariable linear regression and groups comparisons. RESULTS: Abnormal CB-CAPs were more prevalent than low complement values irrespective of LSI levels (62% vs 38%, respectively, p<0.0001). LSI was low (median 5.44, IQR: 4.77-6.93) in patients with no complement abnormality, intermediate in patients with abnormal CB-CAPs (median 6.09, IQR: 5.31-8.20) and high in the group presenting with both abnormal CB-CAPs and low C3 and/or C4 (median 7.85, IQR: 5.51-8.37). Odds of immunosuppressant use was higher in subjects with LSI ≥5.95 compared with subjects with LSI <5.95 (1.60 vs 0.53, p<0.0001 for both). Multivariable regression analysis revealed that higher LSI scores associated with abnormal CB-CAPs-but not low C3/C4-after adjusting for younger age, race and longer disease duration (p=0.0001), which were also independent predictors of disease severity (global R2=0.145). CONCLUSION: Abnormalities in complement activation as measured by CB-CAPs are associated with increased LSI.

Complement Activation in Patients With Probable Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Ability to Predict Progression to American College of Rheumatology-Classified Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequency of cell-bound complement activation products (CB-CAPs) as a marker of complement activation in patients with suspected systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and the usefulness of this biomarker as a predictor of the evolution of probable SLE into SLE as classified by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria. METHODS: Patients in whom SLE was suspected by lupus experts and who fulfilled 3 ACR classification criteria for SLE (probable SLE) were enrolled, along with patients with established SLE as classified by both the ACR and the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) criteria, patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome (SS), and patients with other rheumatic diseases. Individual CB-CAPs were measured by flow cytometry, and positivity rates were compared to those of commonly assessed biomarkers, including serum complement proteins (C3 and C4) and autoantibodies. The frequency of a positive multianalyte assay panel (MAP), which includes CB-CAPs, was also evaluated. Probable SLE cases were followed up prospectively. RESULTS: The 92 patients with probable SLE were diagnosed more recently than the 53 patients with established SLE, and their use of antirheumatic medications was lower. At the enrollment visit, more patients with probable SLE were positive for CB-CAPs (28%) or MAP (40%) than had low complement levels (9%) (P = 0.0001 for each). In probable SLE, MAP scores of >0.8 at enrollment predicted fulfillment of a fourth ACR criterion within 18 months (hazard ratio 3.11, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Complement activation occurs in some patients with probable SLE and can be detected with higher frequency by evaluating CB-CAPs and MAP than by assessing traditional serum complement protein levels. A MAP score above 0.8 predicts transition to classifiable SLE according to ACR criteria.

Randomised prospective trial to assess the clinical utility of multianalyte assay panel with complement activation products for the diagnosis of SLE.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the physician-assessed diagnostic likelihood of SLE resulting from standard diagnosis laboratory testing (SDLT) to that resulting from multianalyte assay panel (MAP) with cell-bound complement activation products (MAP/CB-CAPs), which reports a two-tiered index test result having 80% sensitivity and 86% specificity for SLE. METHODS: Patients (n=145) with a history of positive antinuclear antibody status were evaluated clinically by rheumatologists and randomised to SDLT arm (tests ordered at the discretion of the rheumatologists) or to MAP/CB-CAPs testing arm. The primary endpoint was based on the change in the physician likelihood of SLE on a five-point Likert scale collected before and after testing. Changes in pharmacological treatment based on laboratory results were assessed in both arms. Statistical analysis consisted of Wilcoxon and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: At enrolment, patients randomised to SDLT (n=73, age=48±2 years, 94% females) and MAP/CB-CAPs testing arms (n=72, 50±2 years, 93% females) presented with similar pretest likelihood of SLE (1.42±0.06 vs 1.46±0.06 points, respectively; p=0.68). Post-test likelihood of SLE resulting from randomisation in the MAP/CB-CAPs testing arm was significantly lower than that resulting from randomisation to SDLT arm on review of test results (-0.44±0.10 points vs -0.19±0.07 points) and at the 12-week follow-up visit (-0.61±0.10 points vs -0.31±0.10 points) (p<0.05). Among patients randomised to the MAP/CB-CAPs testing arm, two-tiered positive test results associated significantly with initiation of prednisone (p=0.034). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that MAP/CB-CAPs testing has clinical utility in facilitating SLE diagnosis and treatment decisions.