A comparison of the performance of the 2019 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology criteria and the 2012 Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics criteria with the 1997 American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematous in new-onset Chinese patients
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2020
A comparison of the performance of the 2019 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology criteria and the 2012 Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics criteria with the 1997 American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematous in new-onset Chinese patients
New criteria published by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) use a point system that gives varying weight to each of 22 criteria. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria and the 2012 Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) criteria with the 1997 ACR criteria in a Chinese cohort.
Methods
A cross-sectional observation study of patients with a clinical diagnosis of SLE was performed. We collected 199 new-onset SLE patients and 175 control subjects. The data were retrospectively collected to establish the patients who fulfilled the 1997 ACR, 2012 SLICC and 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria. The sensitivity and specificity of the three classification criteria were compared using McNemar’s test.
Results
The sensitivity and specificity of the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria were 96.5% and 90.3%, respectively. For the 2012 SLICC criteria, the sensitivity and specificity were 92.0% and 84.0%, respectively, while for the 1997 ACR criteria, these two values were 75.4% and 96.0%. Leucopaenia (62%), arthritis (54%) and autoimmune haemolysis (45%) were the most frequently observed clinical manifestations in the group that fulfilled the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria. Fever was reported by 39% of participants.
Conclusion
Compared with the 1997 ACR and 2012 SLICC criteria, the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria performed best in terms of sensitivity but less well in terms of specificity in Chinese new-onset lupus patients.
CanosoJJCohenAS.A review of the use, evaluations, and criticisms of the preliminary criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum1979;
22: 917–921.
3.
DahlstromOSjowallC.The diagnostic accuracies of the 2012 SLICC criteria and the proposed EULAR/ACR criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus classification are comparable. Lupus2019;
28: 778–782.
4.
InesLSilvaCGalindoM, et al.
Classification of systemic lupus erythematosus: Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics versus American College of Rheumatology Criteria. A comparative study of 2,055 patients from a real-life, international systemic lupus erythematosus cohort. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)2015;
67: 1180–1185.
5.
OglesbyAKorvesCLalibertéF, et al.
Impact of early versus late systemic lupus erythematosus diagnosis on clinical and economic outcomes.Appl Health Econ Health Policy2014;
12: 179–190.
6.
PetriMOrbaiAMAlarcónGS, et al.
Derivation and validation of the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum2012;
64: 2677–2686.
7.
IgheADahlströmOSkoghTSjöwallC.Application of the 2012 Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics classification criteria to patients in a regional Swedish systemic lupus erythematosus register. Arthritis Res Ther2015;
17: 3.
8.
AringerMDörnerTLeuchtenNJohnsonSR.Toward new criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus – a standpoint. Lupus2016;
25: 805–811.
9.
TedeschiSKJohnsonSRBoumpasDT, et al.
Multicriteria decision analysis process to develop new classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis2019;
78: 634–640.
10.
AringerMCostenbaderKDaikhD, et al.
2019 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology Classification Criteria for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Arthritis Rheumatol2019;
71: 1400–1412.
11.
PengoVTripodiAReberG, et al.
Update of the guidelines for lupus anticoagulant detection. Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibody of the Scientific and Standardisation Committee of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.J Thromb Haemost2009;
7: 1737–1740.
12.
SchmajukGHoyerBFAringerM, et al.
Multicenter Delphi exercise to identify important key items for classifying systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)2018;
70: 1488–1494.
13.
Rua-FigueroaIRichiPLopez-LongoFJ, et al.
Comprehensive description of clinical characteristics of a large systemic lupus erythematosus cohort from the Spanish Rheumatology Society Lupus Registry (RELESSER) with emphasis on complete versus incomplete lupus differences. Medicine (Baltimore)2015;
94: e267.
14.
MoscaMCostenbaderKHJohnsonSR, et al.
Brief report: how do patients with newly diagnosed systemic lupus erythematosus present? A multicenter cohort of early systemic lupus erythematosus to inform the development of new classification criteria. Arthritis Rheumatol2019;
71: 91–98.
15.
AdamichouCNikolopoulosDGenitsaridiI, et al.
In an early SLE cohort the ACR-1997, SLICC-2012 and EULAR/ACR-2019 criteria classify non-overlapping groups of patients: use of all three criteria ensures optimal capture for clinical studies while their modification earlier classification and treatment. Ann Rheum Dis2020;
79: 232–241.
16.
BertsiasGKPamfilCFanouriakisABoumpasDT.Diagnostic criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus: has the time come?Nat Rev Rheumatol2013;
9: 687–694.
17.
DanieliMGFraticelliPSalviAGabrielliADanieliG.Undifferentiated connective tissue disease: natural history and evolution into definite CTD assessed in 84 patients initially diagnosed as early UCTD. Clin Rheumatol1998;
17: 195–201.
18.
MoscaMTaniCBombardieriS.Defining undifferentiated connective tissue diseases: a challenge for rheumatologists. Lupus2008;
17: 278–280.
19.
BortoluzziAFuriniFCampanaroFGovoniM.Application of SLICC classification criteria in undifferentiated connective tissue disease and evolution in systemic lupus erythematosus: analysis of a large monocentric cohort with a long-term follow-up. Lupus2017;
26: 616–622.
20.
SanchezMLAlarcónGSMcGwinGJrFesslerBJKimberlyRP.Can the weighted criteria improve our ability to capture a larger number of lupus patients into observational and interventional studies? A comparison with the American College of Rheumatology criteria. Lupus2003;
12: 468–470.
21.
EmlenWO’NeillL.Clinical significance of antinuclear antibodies: comparison of detection with immunofluorescence and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. Arthritis Rheum1997;
40: 1612–1618.
22.
LeuchtenNHoyerABrinksR, et al.
Performance of antinuclear antibodies for classifying systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic literature review and meta-regression of diagnostic data. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)2018;
70: 428–438.
23.
TimlinHSyedAHaqueU, et al.
Fevers in adult lupus patients.Cureus2018;
10: e2098.
24.
LalaniSPopeJDe LeonFPeschkenC; Members of CaNIOS/1000 Faces of Lupus. Clinical features and prognosis of late-onset systemic lupus erythematosus: results from the 1000 faces of lupus study. J Rheumatol2010;
37: 38–44.
25.
CerveraRKhamashtaMAFontJ, et al.
Systemic lupus erythematosus: clinical and immunologic patterns of disease expression in a cohort of 1,000 patients. The European Working Party on Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Medicine (Baltimore)1993;
72: 113–124.
26.
LowESHKrishnaswamyGThumbooJ.Comparing the 1997 update of the 1982 American College of Rheumatology (ACR-97) and the 2012 Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC-12) criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification: which enables earlier classification of SLE in an urban Asian population?Lupus2019;
28: 11–18.
27.
HanlyJGUrowitzMBSanchez-GuerreroJ, et al.
Neuropsychiatric events at the time of diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus: an international inception cohort study. Arthritis Rheum2007;
56: 265–273.
28.
HanlyJGUrowitzMBJacksonD, et al.
SF-36 summary and subscale scores are reliable outcomes of neuropsychiatric events in systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis2011;
70: 961–967.
29.
HanlyJG.ACR classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus: limitations and revisions to neuropsychiatric variables. Lupus2004;
13: 861–864.
30.
AinialaHHietaharjuALoukkolaJ, et al.
Validity of the new American College of Rheumatology criteria for neuropsychiatric lupus syndromes: a population-based evaluation. Arthritis Rheum2001;
45: 419–423.
31.
The American College of Rheumatology nomenclature and case definitions for neuropsychiatric lupus syndromes. Arthritis Rheum1999;
42: 599–608.
32.
BhatANaguwaSCheemaGGershwinME.The epidemiology of transverse myelitis. Autoimmun Rev2010;
9: A395–399.
33.
KatsumataYHarigaiMKawaguchiY, et al.
Diagnostic reliability of magnetic resonance imaging for central nervous system syndromes in systemic lupus erythematosus: a prospective cohort study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2010;
11: 13.
34.
LiHLinSYangSChenLZhengX.Diagnostic value of serum complement C3 and C4 levels in Chinese patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Clin Rheumatol2015;
34: 471–477.
35.
Pons-EstelGJWojdylaDMcGwinG, et al.
The American College of Rheumatology and the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus in two multiethnic cohorts: a commentary. Lupus2014;
23: 3–9.
