Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Risk Probability Index: ready for routine use? Results from a Chinese cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Risk Probability Index (SLERPI) in patients with SLE using a Chinese cohort. METHODS: The Chinese cohort included 352 patients with and 385 without SLE (control group). The clinical data of patients, including demographic data, clinical findings and serological profiles, were collected. Patients with an SLERPI score >7 were classified as SLE. The performance of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR)-1997, Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC)-2012 and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/ACR-2019 criteria were used as references. RESULTS: Of these four classification criteria, SLERPI has the highest sensitivity (98.3% (95% CI 96.3% to 99.4%)), but lowest specificity (89.4% (95% CI 85.8% to 92.2%)). In the control group, patients eligible for the classification criteria for SLE were mainly those with primary Sjogren's syndrome (pSS) and undifferentiated connective tissue disease (UCTD), which adversely affected the specificity of the classification criteria. Moreover, significantly more patients with pSS and UCTD met SLERPI than those who met other classification criteria. After excluding patients with pSS and UCTD from the control group, the specificity and accuracy of SLERPI improved to 94.3% (95% CI 91.0% to 96.6%) and 96.5% (95% CI 95.0% to 97.9%), respectively, and both outperformed the EULAR/ACR-2019 criteria. The time to SLERPI classification was the same as their clinical time to diagnosis in 261 patients, earlier than the clinical diagnosis in 23 patients and later than the clinical diagnosis in 9 patients. A total of 280 patients had the same time to SLERPI classification as EULAR/ACR-2019, 8 patients had earlier than EULAR/ACR-2019 and 1 patient had later than EULAR/ACR-2019. CONCLUSION: SLERPI performed well in patients with SLE, particularly for the earlier diagnosis of SLE.

What can we learn from DNA methylation studies in lupus?

During the past twenty years, a wide range of studies have established the existence of epigenetic alterations, particularly DNA methylation changes, in lupus. Epigenetic changes might have different contributions in children-onset versus adult-onset lupus. DNA methylation alterations have been identified and characterized in relation to disease activity and damage, different lupus subtypes and responses to drugs. However, to date there has been no practical application of these findings in the clinical milieu. In this article, we provide a review of key studies showing the relationship between DNA methylation and the many clinical aspects related to lupus. We also propose several options, in relation to the range of methodological developments and experimental design, that could optimize these findings and make them amenable for use in clinical practice.

Performance of the 2019 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus in a multiethnic Malaysian cohort.

AIM: To evaluate the performance of the 2019 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology (EULAR/ACR) classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in a multi-ethnic Malaysian cohort and to compare it against the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) 2012 and ACR 1997 criteria. METHOD: We conducted a retrospective observational study of 205 patients with a diagnosis of SLE and 100 controls who formed the validation cohort. The sensitivity and specificity of the three classification criteria were evaluated and a further sub-analysis was performed in patients with early disease and among the various ethnicities. RESULTS: The sensitivities and specificities of the three classification criteria are as follows: EULAR/ACR (90.8%; 94%), SLICC 2012 (96.1%; 94%), and ACR 1997 (82%; 96%). Among patients with early disease, the sensitivity of the SLICC 2012 was higher than that of EULAR/ACR and ACR 1997 (98% vs 94% and 86%); however, the specificity of EULAR/ACR and ACR 1997 were similar (95.2%) and higher than the SLICC 2012 (93.5%). The SLICC 2012 had higher sensitivity than that of the EULAR/ACR among the Malays (94% vs 90%), Chinese (98% vs 90%), and Indians (100% vs 95%). The specificity of the EULAR/ACR and SLICC 2012 were similar in the Malay and Chinese (93.3% each, and 92% vs 94.6%). CONCLUSION: The EULAR/ACR performed well in our cohort. The EULAR/ACR and SLICC 2012 showed higher sensitivity than the ACR 1997, and the EULAR/ACR showed similar specificity to the ACR 1997 and SLICC 2012 overall, in early disease, and across the different ethnicities.

Systemic lupus erythematosus - Are children miniature adults?

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a systemic autoimmune/inflammatory disease that can affect any organ system and cause significant damage and organ failure. Disease-onset during childhood (juvenile-onset SLE) is associated with less typical autoantibody patterns, diffuse organ involvement, more damage already at diagnoses, and a higher need of immunomodulating treatment, including corticosteroids, when compared to adult-onset SLE. Differences in the molecular pathophysiology within SLE, and over-representation of patients with "genetic SLE" contribute to differences in clinical presentation and treatment responses between children and adults. This manuscript summarizes currently available literature focusing on parallels and differences between clinical pictures, known pathomechanisms, and available treatment options in juvenile- versus adult-onset SLE.

First Diagnosis of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus in Hospitalized Patients: Clinical Phenotypes and Pitfalls for the Non-Specialist.

BACKGROUND: Prompt recognition of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in hospitalized patients presenting with severe disease is essential to initiate treatment. We sought to characterize the phenotype of hospitalized patients with new-onset SLE and estimate potential diagnostic delays. METHODS: An observational study of 855 patients ("Attikon" SLE cohort). Clinical phenotype was categorized according to the leading manifestation that led to hospitalization. Disease features, time to diagnosis, classification criteria, and the SLE Risk Probability Index (SLERPI) were recorded for each patient. RESULTS: There were 191 patients (22.3% of the total cohort) hospitalized due to manifestations eventually attributed to SLE. Main causes of admission were neuropsychiatric syndromes (21.4%), cytopenias (17.8%), nephritis (17.2%), and thrombotic events (16.2%). Although 79.5% of patients were diagnosed within 3 months from hospitalization, in 39 patients diagnosis was delayed, particularly in those with hematological manifestations. At hospitalization, a SLERPI >7 (indicating high probability for SLE) was found in 87.4% of patients. Patients missed by the SLERPI had fever, thrombotic or neuropsychiatric manifestations not included in the algorithm. Lowering the SLERPI threshold to 5 in patients with fever or thrombotic events increased the diagnostic rate from 88.8% to 97.9% in this subgroup, while inclusion of all neuropsychiatric events yielded no additional diagnostic value. CONCLUSION: One in five patients with new-onset SLE manifest disease presentations required hospitalization. Although early diagnosis was achieved in the majority of cases, in approximately 20%, diagnosis was delayed. A lower SLERPI cut-off (≥5) in patients with fever or thrombosis could enhance early diagnosis.

Classification of systemic lupus erythematosus in children and adults.

Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) is an autoimmune multisystem disease with a variable clinical phenotype and no single clinical, laboratory or pathological feature that can be used as a gold standard for disease classification or diagnosis. Classification criteria have been developed in an attempt to define homogenous groups of SLE patients for clinical research. They have been mainly validated in adult cohorts, given the much lower prevalence of SLE before puberty. The three commonly used sets of current classification criteria and their validation studies to date are described in this review. Challenges relating to classification of SLE patients, including important differences across age-groups and ethnicities, are explored along with future directions in the classification of SLE.

Evaluating the performance of ACR, SLICC and EULAR/ACR classification criteria in childhood onset systemic lupus erythematosus.

BACKGROUND: The ACR 1997, SLICC 2012 and EULAR/ACR 2019 classification criteria were validated based on adult patients. To date, there are no classification criteria specific for children with SLE. The aim of the study is to compare the performance characteristics among the three SLE classification criteria (ACR-1997, SLICC-2012 and EULAR/ACR-2019) in childhood onset SLE (cSLE) cohort of Arab ethnicity from Oman. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective multicenter study in Oman of cSLE patients as cases and patients with other rheumatic disease with a positive ANA titer as controls. The cSLE cases recruited were children diagnosed with SLE before 13 years of age. Data was retrospectively collected to establish the ACR-1997, SLICC-2012 and EULAR/ACR-2019 criteria fulfilled at first visit, first year follow up and last follow up. RESULTS: Study population included 113 cSLE cases (mean age at diagnosis of 7.3 ± 3.4 years with disease duration of 6.1 ± 4.6 years) and 51 controls (mean age at diagnosis 5.0 ± 3.4 with disease duration 5.7 ± 3.9). The cSLE cases had higher frequency of familial SLE than controls (38% vs 7.8%; p < 0.001). The performance measures demonstrated that EULAR/ACR-2019 criteria had the highest sensitivity (81, 88, 89%) compared to ACR 1997 (49, 57, 66%) and SLICC 2012 (76, 84,86%); while the ACR 1997 had the highest specificity (96%) compared to SLICC 2012 (94%) and EULAR/ACR 2019 (90%) at first visit, first year and last assessment. When we increased the threshold score to ≥13 rather than the traditional score ≥ 10 for ACR/EULAR 2019, there was increased specificity (96%) at the expense of lower sensitivity (76, 83, and 84%) at first visit, first year and last assessment. CONCLUSION: In this cSLE population, EULAR/ACR 2019 scored better at initial presentation, first year and last assessment follow up. Further multinational studies are needed to validate the appropriate cut off score for the newly proposed ACR/EULAR 2019 classification criteria in cSLE to increase early sensitivity and specificity for cSLE classification.

Association of elevated serum soluble CD226 levels with the disease activity and flares of systemic lupus erythematosus.

CD226 is an activating receptor expressed on the cell surface of natural killer cells and T cells. Although CD226 polymorphism is known to be involved in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), the involvement of soluble CD226 (sCD226) in SLE is still unknown. In the present study, we measured serum sCD226 levels using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in 58 SLE patients and 33 healthy controls (HCs) and evaluated their associations with SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K), clinical manifestations, laboratory data, and the cumulative probability of flare. Serum sCD226 levels showed no significant differences between SLE patients and HCs. However, sCD226 levels were significantly elevated in active SLE patients with a SLEDAI-2K score of ≥ 20 compared with HCs. In SLE patients, sCD226 levels were significantly correlated with SLEDAI-2K scores and anti-dsDNA antibody titers. Moreover, the cumulative probability of flare was markedly higher in patients with high sCD226 than in those with low sCD226. In patients with neuropsychiatric involvement, sCD226 levels were elevated and reflected neuropsychiatric disease activity. These findings indicate that serum sCD226 levels are associated with disease activity and flares of SLE. Thus, it may be a useful biomarker for SLE, and its monitoring allows for more precise SLE management.

Avoiding misclassification of thrombotic primary antiphospholipid syndrome as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE): What are the best-performing SLE classification criteria?

BACKGROUND: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and Primary Antiphospholipid Syndrome (PAPS) overlap clinical and immunological features. Therefore, misclassification of PAPS patients as SLE is a concern. The ACR/EULAR 2019 SLE classification has never been studied in PAPS. OBJECTIVE: To verify if the ACR/EULAR 2019 SLE classification can correctly classify a PAPS patient as not having SLE and compare its performance with the SLICC 2012 SLE classification. Methods: One-hundred thrombotic PAPS patients who fulfilled the Sidney criteria were consecutively screened and those who attended the inclusion criteria were submitted to ACR/EULAR 2019 and SLICC 2012 classifications. RESULTS: Sixty-seven PAPS patients were included in this study. The majority was female (89.6%) with median age at study inclusion of 45 years (35-53) and median PAPS disease duration of 13 years (8-19). PAPS correct classification was observed more often with ACR/EULAR 2019 than SLICC 2021 criteria (94.0% vs. 64.2%; p < 0.001). The 4 misclassified patients in ACR/EULAR 2019 were also misclassified in SLICC 2012. The comparison of misclassified patients to those correctly not classified as SLE resulted, for both criteria, in higher frequencies of hematological domain [ACR/EULAR 2019 (100% vs. 28.6%, p = 0.010) and SLICC 2012 (95.8% vs. 11.6%, p < 0.001)]. Further analysis of hematological manifestations revealed that for the ACR/EULAR 2019 leukopenia (100% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.004) and for the SLICC 2012 leukopenia/lymphopenia (91.7% vs. 7%, p < 0.001) were more frequent in misclassified group. Proteinuria (20.8% vs. 0%, p = 0.004) and low complement (45.8% vs. 20.9%, p = 0.033) were also more often observed in the incorrectly SLICC 2012 classified patients. CONCLUSION: ACR/EULAR 2019 had high accuracy for distinguishing PAPS from SLE, whereas the SLICC 2012 incorrectly classified more than one third of the PAPS patients as having SLE.

Interventions for cutaneous disease in systemic lupus erythematosus.

BACKGROUND: Lupus erythematosus is an autoimmune disease with significant morbidity and mortality. Cutaneous disease in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is common. Many interventions are used to treat SLE with varying efficacy, risks, and benefits. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for cutaneous disease in SLE. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to June 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Wiley Interscience Online Library, and Biblioteca Virtual em Saude (Virtual Health Library). We updated our search in September 2020, but these results have not yet been fully incorporated. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for cutaneous disease in SLE compared with placebo, another intervention, no treatment, or different doses of the same intervention. We did not evaluate trials of cutaneous lupus in people without a diagnosis of SLE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were complete and partial clinical response. Secondary outcomes included reduction (or change) in number of clinical flares; and severe and minor adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-one RCTs, involving 11,232 participants, reported 43 different interventions. Trials predominantly included women from outpatient clinics; the mean age range of participants was 20 to 40 years. Twenty-five studies reported baseline severity, and 22 studies included participants with moderate to severe cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE); duration of CLE was not well reported. Studies were conducted mainly in multi-centre settings. Most often treatment duration was 12 months. Risk of bias was highest for the domain of reporting bias, followed by performance/detection bias. We identified too few studies for meta-analysis for most comparisons. We limited this abstract to main comparisons (all administered orally) and outcomes. We did not identify clinical trials of other commonly used treatments, such as topical corticosteroids, that reported complete or partial clinical response or numbers of clinical flares. Complete clinical response Studies comparing oral hydroxychloroquine against placebo did not report complete clinical response. Chloroquine may increase complete clinical response at 12 months' follow-up compared with placebo (absence of skin lesions) (risk ratio (RR) 1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 2.61; 1 study, 24 participants; low-quality evidence). There may be little to no difference between methotrexate and chloroquine in complete clinical response (skin rash resolution) at 6 months' follow-up (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.50; 1 study, 25 participants; low-quality evidence). Methotrexate may be superior to placebo with regard to complete clinical response (absence of malar/discoid rash) at 6 months' follow-up (RR 3.57, 95% CI 1.63 to 7.84; 1 study, 41 participants; low-quality evidence). At 12 months' follow-up, there may be little to no difference between azathioprine and ciclosporin in complete clinical response (malar rash resolution) (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.52; 1 study, 89 participants; low-quality evidence). Partial clinical response Partial clinical response was reported for only one key comparison: hydroxychloroquine may increase partial clinical response at 12 months compared to placebo, but the 95% CI indicates that hydroxychloroquine may make no difference or may decrease response (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.41 to 120.16; 20 pregnant participants, 1 trial; low-quality evidence). Clinical flares Clinical flares were reported for only two key comparisons: hydroxychloroquine is probably superior to placebo at 6 months' follow-up for reducing clinical flares (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.89; 1 study, 47 participants; moderate-quality evidence). At 12 months' follow-up, there may be no difference between methotrexate and placebo, but the 95% CI indicates there may be more or fewer flares with methotrexate (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.83; 1 study, 86 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Adverse events Data for adverse events were limited and were inconsistently reported, but hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and methotrexate have well-documented adverse effects including gastrointestinal symptoms, liver problems, and retinopathy for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine and teratogenicity during pregnancy for methotrexate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence supports the commonly-used treatment hydroxychloroquine, and there is also evidence supporting chloroquine and methotrexate for treating cutaneous disease in SLE. Evidence is limited due to the small number of studies reporting key outcomes. Evidence for most key outcomes was low or moderate quality, meaning findings should be interpreted with caution. Head-to-head intervention trials designed to detect differences in efficacy between treatments for specific CLE subtypes are needed. Thirteen further trials are awaiting classification and have not yet been incorporated in this review; they may alter the review conclusions.

Limited sensitivity and specificity of the ACR/EULAR-2019 classification criteria for SLE in JSLE?-observations from the UK JSLE Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to test the performance of the new ACR and EULAR criteria, that include ANA positivity as entry criterion, in JSLE. METHODS: Performance of the ACR/EULAR-2019 criteria were compared with Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC-2012), using data from children and young people (CYP) in the UK JSLE Cohort Study (n = 482), with the ACR-1997 criteria used as reference standard. An unselected cohort of CYP positive for ANA (n = 129) was used to calculate positive/negative predictive values of the criteria. RESULTS: At both first and last visits, the number of patients fulfilling the different classification criteria varied significantly (P < 0.001). The sensitivity of the SLICC-2012 criteria was higher when compared with that of the ACR/EULAR-2019 criteria at first and last visits (98% vs 94% for first visit, and 98% vs 96% for last visit; P < 0.001), when all available CYP were considered. The ACR/EULAR-2019 criteria were more specific when compared with the SLICC-2012 criteria (77% vs 67% for first visit, and 81% vs 71% for last visit; P < 0.001). Significant differences between the classification criteria were mainly caused by the variation in ANA positivity across ages. In the unselected cohort of ANA-positive CYP, the ACR/EULAR-2019 criteria produced the highest false-positive classification (6/129, 5%). CONCLUSION: In CYP, the ACR/EULAR-2019 criteria are not superior to those of the SLICC-2012 or ACR-1997 criteria. If classification criteria are designed to include CYP and adult populations, paediatric rheumatologists should be included in the consensus and evaluation process, as seemingly minor changes can significantly affect outcomes.

Using Clinical Characteristics and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures to Categorize Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Subtypes.

OBJECTIVE: The type 1 and type 2 systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) categorization system was recently proposed to validate the patients' perspective of disease and to capture a more comprehensive spectrum of symptoms. The objective of this study was to characterize the clinical manifestations of SLE subtypes and to determine the correlation between the patient- and physician-reported measures used in the model. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of patients with SLE in a university clinic. Patients completed the Systemic Lupus Activity Questionnaire (SLAQ) and 2011 American College of Rheumatology fibromyalgia (FM) criteria. Active SLE was defined as Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) score ≥6, clinical SLEDAI score ≥4, or active lupus nephritis. We identified 4 groups: type 1 SLE (active SLE without FM), type 2 SLE (inactive SLE with FM), mixed SLE (active SLE with FM), and minimal SLE (inactive SLE without FM). RESULTS: In this cohort of 212 patients (92% female, mean age 45 years), 30% had type 1 SLE, 8% had type 2 SLE, 13% had mixed SLE, and 49% had minimal SLE. Regardless of SLE disease activity, patients with FM (21%), reported higher SLAQ scores, patient global assessment scores, and self-reported lupus flare that resulted in discordance between patient- and physician-reported measures. CONCLUSION: Fatigue, widespread pain, sleep dysfunction, and mood disorders are common symptoms in SLE. Identifying these symptoms as type 2 SLE may be a method to improve patient communication and understanding. The level of type 2 SLE impacts patients' perception of disease and self-reported symptoms. The SLAQ may need to be reinterpreted based on the FM severity scale.

Impact of the 2019 European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology/American College of Rheumatology Classification Criteria for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus in a Multicenter Cohort Study of 133 Women With Undifferentiated Connective Tissue Disease.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the impact of applying the 2019 European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR)/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in a previously described cohort of women with undifferentiated connective tissue disease (UCTD). METHODS: This study included 133 women with UCTD. At the time of inclusion into the study, none of the patients met any classification criteria for other defined systemic connective tissue disease. RESULTS: When applying the 2019 EULAR/ACR classification criteria to the cohort, 22 patients (17%) fulfilled the classification criteria for SLE. Patients classified as having SLE had significantly higher frequencies of mucocutaneous manifestations (23% versus 5%; P = 0.007), arthritis (59% versus 17%; P < 0.001), isolated urine abnormalities (18% versus 1%; P < 0.001), and highly specific antibodies (50% versus 15%; P < 0.001) compared to the other patients with UCTD. At follow-up, these patients were statistically significantly more likely to also meet the 1997 ACR revised SLE criteria and the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) criteria (18.2% versus 1.8%; P < 0.001) compared to the other UCTD patients. Patients who were diagnosed as having SLE according to the ACR 1997 update of the SLE revised criteria and the SLICC criteria during the follow-up scored higher on outcome measures when classified as having SLE according to the new 2019 EULAR/ACR classification criteria when compared to the other patients with UCTD (mean ± SD score 8.3 ± 3.7 versus 4.5 ± 4; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: When applying the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria for SLE in a cohort of patients with UCTD, we observed that in up to 17% of cases the original classification could be challenged. New implementation will help to identify earlier patients at higher risk of developing more severe CTD manifestations.

Comparison of the 2019 European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology/American College of Rheumatology Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Classification Criteria With Two Sets of Earlier Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Classification Criteria.

OBJECTIVE: The Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) 2012 systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification criteria and the revised American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 1997 criteria are list based, counting each SLE manifestation equally. We derived a classification rule based on giving variable weights to the SLICC criteria and compared its performance to the revised ACR 1997, the unweighted SLICC 2012, and the newly reported European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR)/ACR 2019 criteria sets. METHODS: The physician-rated patient scenarios used to develop the SLICC 2012 classification criteria were reemployed to devise a new weighted classification rule using multiple linear regression. The performance of the rule was evaluated on an independent set of expert-diagnosed patient scenarios and compared to the performance of the previously reported classification rules. RESULTS: The weighted SLICC criteria and the EULAR/ACR 2019 criteria had less sensitivity but better specificity compared to the list-based revised ACR 1997 and SLICC 2012 classification criteria. There were no statistically significant differences between any pair of rules with respect to overall agreement with the physician diagnosis. CONCLUSION: The 2 new weighted classification rules did not perform better than the existing list-based rules in terms of overall agreement on a data set originally generated to assess the SLICC criteria. Given the added complexity of summing weights, researchers may prefer the unweighted SLICC criteria. However, the performance of a classification rule will always depend on the populations from which the cases and non-cases are derived and whether the goal is to prioritize sensitivity or specificity.

Applying the 2019 European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology/American College of Rheumatology Lupus Criteria to Patients From the LUMINA Cohort: Results From the Multiethnic, Multicenter US Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of the 2019 European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR)/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in terms of earlier SLE classification in comparison to the ACR or the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) criteria. METHODS: Patients from a multiethnic, multicenter cohort, the Lupus in Minorities: Nature versus Nurture cohort, where SLE was defined using the 1982/1997 ACR criteria were included. Demographic, clinical, and immunologic criteria were compared among the 2019 EULAR/ACR and the 1982/1997 ACR and the 2012 SLICC timing categories. RESULTS: The 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria allowed an earlier SLE classification in 13.3% of patients (mean 0.66 years) and 15.3% of patients (mean 0.63 years) compared to the 1982/1997 ACR and the 2012 SLICC criteria, respectively. Patients accruing the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria later than the 1982/1997 ACR criteria had a lower disease activity, were less likely to have positivity to anti-double-stranded DNA and anti-Sm, as well as lupus nephritis classes II or V; they were more likely to have mucocutaneous manifestations, serositis, leukopenia, and antiphospholipid antibodies positivity. These differences were less pronounced when compared to the 2012 SLICC criteria CONCLUSION: The 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria classified SLE patients earlier than the 2 other criteria sets in real-life clinical practice scenarios in a relatively small proportion of the patients. However, these criteria could allow earlier classification of a subset of patients with a more severe disease.

Classifying and diagnosing systemic lupus erythematosus in the 21st century.

The EULAR/ACR 2019 classification criteria for SLE constitute a current and optimized clinical approach to SLE classification. Classification is still not based on molecular approaches and the results from large studies using polyomics may be interpreted as demonstrating the relevance of the genetic and environmental background rather than splitting SLE into several entities. In fact, an association study within the EULAR/ACR classification criteria project found associations between manifestations only within organ domains. This independency of various organ manifestations argues for SLE as one disease entity. The current review article will therefore concentrate on the clinical and immunological manifestations of SLE and on what we have already learned in this century. Moreover, the structure and essential rules of the EULAR/ACR 2019 classification criteria will be discussed. While classification and diagnosis are distinct concepts, which have to remain clearly separated, information derived from the process towards the classification criteria is also useful for diagnostic purposes. Therefore this article also tries to delineate what classification can teach us for diagnosis, covering a wide variety of SLE manifestations.

New classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To compare the recently published European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) classification criteria for SLE with the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Centers (SLICC) criteria and the earlier ACR criteria, focusing on their key concepts. RECENT FINDINGS: Although the SLICC criteria introduced numbers of new criteria items, the new EULAR/ACR criteria added only noninfectious fever, based on an early SLE cohort study and an SLE patient survey, and condensed hematological, mucocutaneous and neurological items. Whereas the SLICC criteria maintained the overall structure familiar from the ACR criteria, the EULAR /ACR criteria use antinuclear antibodies (ANA) as an obligatory entry criterion, have weighted criteria and group these in domains. Where the SLICC criteria greatly increased sensitivity, losing some specificity, the EULAR/ACR criteria increased specificity again, for excellent classification criteria performance. SUMMARY: Despite differences in structure and statistical performance, the EULAR/ACR and SLICC criteria agree on the importance of both immunological and clinical findings, on the high impact of lupus nephritis by histology, and on most clinical items.

Patient ancestry significantly contributes to molecular heterogeneity of systemic lupus erythematosus.

Gene expression signatures can stratify patients with heterogeneous diseases, such as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), yet understanding the contributions of ancestral background to this heterogeneity is not well understood. We hypothesized that ancestry would significantly influence gene expression signatures and measured 34 gene modules in 1566 SLE patients of African ancestry (AA), European ancestry (EA), or Native American ancestry (NAA). Healthy subject ancestry-specific gene expression provided the transcriptomic background upon which the SLE patient signatures were built. Although standard therapy affected every gene signature and significantly increased myeloid cell signatures, logistic regression analysis determined that ancestral background significantly changed 23 of 34 gene signatures. Additionally, the strongest association to gene expression changes was found with autoantibodies, and this also had etiology in ancestry: the AA predisposition to have both RNP and dsDNA autoantibodies compared with EA predisposition to have only anti-dsDNA. A machine learning approach was used to determine a gene signature characteristic to distinguish AA SLE and was most influenced by genes characteristic of the perturbed B cell axis in AA SLE patients.