Identifying antinuclear antibody positive individuals at risk for developing systemic autoimmune disease: development and validation of a real-time risk model.

Objective: Positive antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) cause diagnostic dilemmas for clinicians. Currently, no tools exist to help clinicians interpret the significance of a positive ANA in individuals without diagnosed autoimmune diseases. We developed and validated a risk model to predict risk of developing autoimmune disease in positive ANA individuals. Methods: Using a de-identified electronic health record (EHR), we randomly chart reviewed 2,000 positive ANA individuals to determine if a systemic autoimmune disease was diagnosed by a rheumatologist. A priori, we considered demographics, billing codes for autoimmune disease-related symptoms, and laboratory values as variables for the risk model. We performed logistic regression and machine learning models using training and validation samples. Results: We assembled training (n = 1030) and validation (n = 449) sets. Positive ANA individuals who were younger, female, had a higher titer ANA, higher platelet count, disease-specific autoantibodies, and more billing codes related to symptoms of autoimmune diseases were all more likely to develop autoimmune diseases. The most important variables included having a disease-specific autoantibody, number of billing codes for autoimmune disease-related symptoms, and platelet count. In the logistic regression model, AUC was 0.83 (95% CI 0.79-0.86) in the training set and 0.75 (95% CI 0.68-0.81) in the validation set. Conclusion: We developed and validated a risk model that predicts risk for developing systemic autoimmune diseases and can be deployed easily within the EHR. The model can risk stratify positive ANA individuals to ensure high-risk individuals receive urgent rheumatology referrals while reassuring low-risk individuals and reducing unnecessary referrals.

Phenotype Risk Score but Not Genetic Risk Score Aids in Identifying Individuals With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus in the Electronic Health Record.

OBJECTIVE: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) poses diagnostic challenges. We undertook this study to evaluate the utility of a phenotype risk score (PheRS) and a genetic risk score (GRS) to identify SLE individuals in a real-world setting. METHODS: Using a de-identified electronic health record (EHR) database with an associated DNA biobank, we identified 789 SLE cases and 2,261 controls with available MEGAEX genotyping. A PheRS for SLE was developed using billing codes that captured American College of Rheumatology SLE criteria. We developed a GRS with 58 SLE risk single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). RESULTS: SLE cases had a significantly higher PheRS (mean ± SD 7.7 ± 8.0 versus 0.8 ± 2.0 in controls; P < 0.001) and GRS (mean ± SD 12.2 ± 2.3 versus 11.0 ± 2.0 in controls; P < 0.001). Black individuals with SLE had a higher PheRS compared to White individuals (mean ± SD 10.0 ± 10.1 versus 7.1 ± 7.2, respectively; P = 0.002) but a lower GRS (mean ± SD 9.0 ± 1.4 versus 12.3 ± 1.7, respectively; P < 0.001). Models predicting SLE that used only the PheRS had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.87. Adding the GRS to the PheRS resulted in a minimal difference with an AUC of 0.89. On chart review, controls with the highest PheRS and GRS had undiagnosed SLE. CONCLUSION: We developed a SLE PheRS to identify established and undiagnosed SLE individuals. A SLE GRS using known risk SNPs did not add value beyond the PheRS and was of limited utility in Black individuals with SLE. More work is needed to understand the genetic risks of SLE in diverse populations.