Sensitivity and specificity of SLE classification criteria may vary in different populations and clinical settings. In this study, we aimed to compare the performances of three criteria sets/rules (1997, 2012, and 2019) in a large cohort of patients and relevant diseased controls.
Methods
The medical records of consecutive SLE patients and diseased controls were reviewed for clinical and laboratory features relevant to all sets of criteria. Criteria sets/rules were analyzed based on sensitivity, positive predictive value, specificity, and negative predictive value, using clinical diagnosis with at least 6 months of follow-up as the gold standard. A subgroup analysis was performed in ANA positive patients.
Results
A total of 393 SLE patients and 308 non-SLE diseased controls were included. Sensitivity was 78.4% for 1997 criteria and was more than 90% for both 2012 (91.9%) and 2019 (94.4%) criteria. Specificity was the highest (95.1%) for 1997 ACR criteria, 91.5% for 2012 SLICC criteria and 91.2% for 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria. When only ANA positive patients were analyzed, sensitivity of each criteria increased by 1%, 0.8%, and 2.2%, respectively. Specificity of 1997 criteria decreased by 2% and specificity of 2012 and 2019 criteria both decreased to less than 90%.
Conclusion
EULAR/ACR criteria were more sensitive than 1997 criteria and had a comparable performance with SLICC criteria. When only ANA positive patients were analyzed, the presence of false positive results (originated from patients with Sjögren’s disease and antiphospholipid syndrome mainly) decreased the specificity of both SLICC and EULAR/ACR criteria.
TengJYeJZhouZ, et al.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. Lupus2020; 0(0): 1–8. DOI: 10.1177/0961203320947356.
2.
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. DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216155.
3.
TanEMCohenASFriesJF, et al.The 1982 revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheumatol1982; 25(11): 1271–1277. DOI: 10.1002/art.1780251101.
4.
HochbergMC. Updating the American college of rheumatology revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus [letter]. Arthritis Rheumatol1997; 40(9): 1725. DOI: 10.1002/art.1780400928.
5.
AringerMLeuchtenNJohnsonSR. New criteria for lupus. Curr Rheumatol Rep2020; 22(6): 18. DOI: 10.1007/s11926-020-00896-6.
6.
PetriMOrbaiAMAlarconGS, et al.Derivation and validation of the systemic lupus international collaborating clinics classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheumatol2012; 64(8): 2677–2686.
7.
AringerMDornerTLeuchtenN, et al.Toward new criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus: a standpoint. Lupus2016; 25(8): 805–811. DOI: 10.1177/0961203316644338.
8.
AringerMCostenbaderKDaikhD, et al.European league against rheumatism/American college of rheumatology classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis2019; 78(9): 1151–1159. DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-214819.
PisetskyDSBossuytXMeroniPL. ANA as an entry criterion for the classification of SLE. Autoimmun Rev2019; 18(12): 102400. DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2019.102400. Epub 2019 Oct 19. PMID: 31639513.
11.
PetriMGoldmanDWAlarcønGS, et al.A comparison of 2019 EULAR/ACR SLE classification criteria with two sets of earlier SLE classification criteria. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)2020. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1002/acr.24263.
12.
AringerMJohnsonSR. New lupus criteria: a critical view. Curr Opin Rheumatol2021; 33(2): 205–210. DOI: 10.1097/bor.0000000000000771.
13.
Pons-EstelGJAlarcønGS. How well do the new classification criteria for SLE perform?Nat Rev Rheumatol2021; 17(1): 7–8. DOI: 10.1038/s41584-020-00545-3.
14.
BatuEDKaya AkcaUPac KısaarslanA, et al.The performances of the ACRR 1997 SLICC 2012, and the EULAR/ACR 2019 classification criteria in pediatric systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatolo2020; 48: 907. DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.200871.
Rodrigues FonsecaAFelix RodriguesMCSztajnbokFR, et al.Comparison among ACR 1997, SLICC and the new EULAR/ACR classification criteria in childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus. Adv Rheumatol2019; 59(19): 20. DOI: 10.1186/s42358-019-0062-z.
17.
DahlströmÖSjöwallC. The diagnostic accuracies of the 2012 SLICC Criteria and the proposed EULAR/ACR criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus classification are comparable. Lupus2019; 28(6): 778–782. DOI: 10.1177/0961203319846388
18.
AljaberiNNguyenKStrahleC, et al.The performance of the new 2019-EULAR/ACR classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus in children and young adults. Arthritis Care Res2020; 73: 580. DOI: 10.1002/acr.24430.
19.
GegenavaMBeaartHJLMonahanRC, et al.Performance of the proposed ACR–EULAR classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in a cohort of patients with SLE with neuropsychiatric symptoms. Rheum Musculoskelet Dis (RMD) Open2019; 5: e000895. DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2019-000895.
20.
JinHHuangTWuR, et al.A comparison and review of three sets of classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus for distinguishing systemic lupus erythematosus from pure mucocutaneous manifestations in the lupus disease spectrum. Lupus2020; 0(0): 1–12. DOI: 10.1177/0961203320959716.
21.
JohnsonSRBrinksRCostenbaderKH, et al.Performance of the 2019 EULAR/ACR classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus in early disease, across sexes and ethnicities. Ann Rheum Dis2020; 0: 1–7. DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217162.
22.
LeeEELeeEBParkJK, et al.Performance of the 2019 European league against rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus in Asian patients: a single-center retrospective cohort study in Korea. Clin Exp Rheumatol2020; 38(6): 1075–1079.
23.
MaMHui-YuenJSCeriseJE, et al.Validation of the 2019 European league against rheumatism/American College of rheumatology criteria compared to the 1997 American College of rheumatology criteria and the 2012 systemic lupus international collaborating clinics criteria in pediatric systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)2020; 72(11): 1597–1601. DOI: 10.1002/acr.24057.
24.
Pons-EstelGJUgarte-GilMFHarveyGB, et al.Applying the 2019 EULAR/ACR lupus criteria to patients from an established cohort: a Latin American perspective. Rheum Musculoskelet Dis (RMD) Open2020; 6: e001097. DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2019-001097.
25.
RubioJKrishfieldSKyttarisVC. Application of the 2019 European League against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology systemic lupus erythematosus classification criteria in clinical practice: a single center experience. Lupus2020; 0: 1–5. DOI: 10.1177/0961203320908939.
26.
SudaMKishimotoMOhdeS, et al.Validation of the 2019 ACR/EULAR classification criteria of systemic lupus erythematosus in 100 Japanese patients: a real-world setting analysis. Clin Rheumatol2020; 39(9): 1823–1827. DOI: 10.1007/s10067-019-04848-z.
27.
AringerMBrinksRDörnerT, et al.European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) SLE classification criteria item performance. Ann Rheum Dis2021; 80: 775–781.
28.
GuttmannADenvirBAringerM, et al.Evaluation of the European League against rheumatism/American College of rheumatology classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus in a population based registry. Arthritis Care Res2022. DOI: 10.1002/acr.24960.
29.
AssanFSerorRMarietteX, et al.New 2019 SLE EULAR/ACR classification criteria are valuable for distinguishing patients with SLE from patients with pSS. Ann Rheum Dis2019; 0: 1–2. DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216222.
