Comparison of patients with isolated cutaneous lupus erythematosus versus systemic lupus erythematosus with cutaneous lupus erythematosus as the sole clinical feature: A monocentric study of 149 patients.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) may present as an isolated entity or be classified as Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) by the presence of laboratory abnormalities, including cytopenia, low complement levels, and/or autoantibodies (CLE with laboratory SLE). OBJECTIVE: To compare isolated CLE and CLE with laboratory SLE and to validate an existing 3-item score with age < 25 years (1 point), phototypes V to VI (1 point), antinuclear antibodies ≥ 1:320 (5 points) to predict the risk of progression from CLE to severe SLE (sSLE). METHODS: Monocentric cohort study including consecutive patients with CLE. CLE with laboratory SLE was defined by 2019 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for SLE score of ≥10 points at baseline with CLE as the sole clinical feature. RESULTS: Of the 149 patients with CLE, 20 had CLE with laboratory SLE. The median follow-up duration was 11.3 years (IQR: 5.1-20.5). Ten patients (7%) had sSLE developed. In survival analysis, the risk of progression to sSLE was higher among CLE with laboratory SLE (hazard ratio = 6.69; 95% CI: 1.93-23.14, P < .001) compared to isolated CLE. In both groups, none of the patients with a risk score ≤ 2 had sSLE developed. LIMITATIONS: Monocentric study with a limited number of patients. CONCLUSIONS: CLE with laboratory patients with SLE have a higher risk of progression to sSLE than isolated CLE.

Development of the 2023 ACR/EULAR Antiphospholipid Syndrome Classification Criteria, Phase III-D Report: Multi Criteria Decision Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The 2023 ACR/EULAR Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS) Classification Criteria development, aiming 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, organized into laboratory and clinical domains. Here, we summarize the last stage of Phase III efforts employing a consensus-based multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to weigh candidate criteria and identify an APS classification threshold score. METHODS: We evaluated 192 unique, international real-world cases referred for "suspected APS" with a wide range of APS manifestations. Using proposed candidate criteria, subcommittee members rank-ordered 20 representative cases from highly unlikely to highly likely 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 cases by their additive scores. A consensus-based threshold score for APS classification was set. RESULTS: Pre-meeting evaluation of 20 representative cases demonstrated variability in APS assessment. MCDA resolved 81 pairwise decisions; relative weights identified domain item hierarchy. After assessing 192 cases 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.