Advertisement

Clinical Rheumatology

, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 955–962 | Cite as

Sensitivity analyses of four systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity indices in predicting the treatment changes in consecutive visits: a longitudinal study

  • Alimohammad Fatemi
  • Ahmad Raeisi
  • Zahra Sayedbonakdar
  • Abbas Smiley
Original Article

Abstract

This study was conducted to assess the ability of the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-2004 (BILAG-2004), the SLE Disease Activity Index-2K (SLEDAI-2K), the European Consensus Lupus Activity Measurement (ECLAM), and the Revised Systemic Lupus Activity Measure (SLAM-R) to detect the need to treatment change in daily clinical practice. One hundred and two patients with SLE were enrolled and followed up for 2 to 8 months and visited at least 3 times. Physician Global Assessment, BILAG-2004, SLEDAI-2K, SLAM-R, and ECLAM, were calculated in every visit. Treatment change, dependent variable, was categorized as decrease/no change vs. increase. The aforementioned indices, independent variables, were compared to learn their ability in predicting the treatment change. The probability of treatment change was measured by generalized linear-mixed effect model (GLMM) and generalized estimating equations (GEE). Adjusted odds ratios were calculated. Predictive power of indices was compared by area under the curve (AUC) in plots of sensitivity vs. 1-specificity and application of receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC). BILAG-2004 and SLEDAI-2K had substantial correlation with treatment change. Among different GLMM models, BILAG-2004 followed by SLEDAI-2K showed the highest associations with treatment change. Among various GEE models, similar findings were observed. Also, these 2 indices had the highest sensitivity (the largest AUC) towards treatment change; BILAG-2004 (AUC = 0.779, 95% CI = 0.710–0.848, p = 0.001) and SLEDAI-2K (AUC = 0.771, 95% CI = 0.698–0.843, p = 0.001). BILAG-2004 followed by SLEDAI-2K had the highest predictability of treatment change.

Keywords

BILAG-2004 ECLAM SLAM-R SLEDAI Systemic lupus erythematosus 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

The regional Ethical Committee approved the study design. Informed consent was obtained from all patients.

Disclosures

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Griffiths B, Mosca M, Gordon C (2005) Assessment of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and the use of lupus disease activity indices. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 19(5):685–708.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2005.03.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Romero-Diaz J, Isenberg D, Ramsey-Goldman R (2011) Measures of adult systemic lupus erythematosus: updated version of British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG 2004), European Consensus Lupus Activity Measurements (ECLAM), Systemic Lupus Activity Measure, Revised (SLAM-R), Systemic Lupus Activity Questionnaire for Population Studies (SLAQ), Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K), and Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index (SDI). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 63(Suppl 11):S37–S46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ceccarelli F, Perricone C, Massaro L, Cipriano E, Alessandri C, Spinelli FR, Valesini G, Conti F (2015) Assessment of disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus: lights and shadows. Autoimmun Rev 14(7):601–608.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autrev.2015.02.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rao V, Gordon C (2014) Advances in the assessment of lupus disease activity and damage. Curr Opin Rheumatol 26(5):510–519.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BOR.0000000000000085 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mikdashi J, Nived O (2015) Measuring disease activity in adults with systemic lupus erythematosus: the challenges of administrative burden and responsiveness to patient concerns in clinical research. Arthritis Res Ther 17(1):183.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13075-015-0702-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haq I, Isenberg DA (2002) How does one assess and monitor patients with systemic lupus erythematosus in daily clinical practice? Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 16:181–194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Petri M, Hellmann D, Hochberg M (1992) Validity and reliability of lupus activity measures in the routine clinic setting. J Rheumatol 19(1):53–59PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ward MM, Marx AS, Barry NN (2000) Comparison of the validity and sensitivity to change of 5 activity indices in systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol 27(3):664–670PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aranow C (2014) Optimal determination of physician global assessment of lupus disease activity: a pilot study (abstract). Arthritis Res Ther 16(Suppl 1):A42CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yee CS, Farewell V, Isenberg DA, Rahman A, Teh LS, Griffiths B et al (2014) British Isles Lupus Assessment Group 2004 index is valid for assessment of disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 56:4113–4119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Isenberg DA, Rahman A, Allen E, Farewell V, Akil M, Bruce IN, D’Cruz D, Griffiths B, Khamashta M, Maddison P, McHugh N, Snaith M, Teh LS, Yee CS, Zoma A, Gordon C (2005) BILAG 2004. Development and initial validation of an updated version of the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group’s disease activity index for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheumatology (Oxford) 44(7):902–906.  https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keh624 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bae SC, Koh HK, Chang DK, Kim MH, Park JK, Kim SY (2001) Reliability and validity of systemic lupus activity measure-revised (SLAM-R) for measuring clinical disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus 10(6):405–409.  https://doi.org/10.1191/096120301678646146 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bencivelli W, Vitali C, Isenberg DA, Smolen JS, Snaith ML, Sciuto M, Bombardieri S (1992) Disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus: report of the Consensus Study Group of the European Workshop for Rheumatology Research. III. Development of a computerised clinical chart and its application to the comparison of different indices of disease activity. The European Consensus Study Group for Disease Activity in SLE. Clin Exp Rheumatol 10(5):549–554PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gladman DD, Ibanez D, Urowitz MB (2002) Systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity index 2000. J Rheumatol 29(2):288–291PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yee CS, Isenberg DA, Prabu A, Sokoll K, Teh LS, Rahman A, Bruce IN, Griffiths B, Akil M, McHugh N, D’Cruz D, Khamashta MA, Maddison P, Zoma A, Gordon C (2008) BILAG-2004 index captures systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity better than SLEDAI-2000. Ann Rheum Dis 67(6):873–876.  https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2007.070847 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gladman DD, Goldsmith CH, Urowitz MB, Bacon P, Bombardier C, Isenberg D, Kalunian K, Liang MH, Maddison P, Nived O (1994) Sensitivity to change of 3 Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Indices: international validation. J Rheumatol 21(8):1468–1471PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chang E, Abrahamowicz M, Ferland D, Fortin PR (2002) Comparison of the responsiveness of lupus disease activity measures to changes in systemic lupus erythematosus activity relevant to patients and physicians. J Clin Epidemiol 55(5):488–497.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00509-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hochberg MC (1997) Updating the American College of Rheumatology revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 40:1725CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Petri M, Genovese M, Engle E, Hochberg M (1991) Definition, incidence, and clinical description of flare in systemic lupus erythematosus. A prospective cohort study. Arthritis Rheum 34(8):937–944.  https://doi.org/10.1002/art.1780340802 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vitali C, Bencivelli W, Isenberg DA, Smolen JS, Snaith ML, Sciuto M, Neri R, Bombardieri S (1992) Disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus: report of the Consensus Study Group of the European Workshop for Rheumatology Research. II. Identification of the variables indicative of disease activity and their use in the development of an activity score. The European Consensus Study Group for Disease Activity in SLE. Clin Exp Rheumatol 10(5):541–547PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liang MH, Socher SA, Roberts WN, Esdaile JM (1988) Measurement of systemic lupus erythematosus activity in clinical research. Arthritis Rheum 31(7):817–825.  https://doi.org/10.1002/art.1780310701 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Uribe AG, Vila LM, McGwin G Jr, Sanchez ML, Reveille JD, Alarcon GS (2004) The Systemic Lupus Activity Measure-revised, the Mexican Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI), and a modified SLEDAI-2K are adequate instruments to measure disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol 31(10):1934–1940PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fortin PR, Abrahamowicz M, Clarke AE, Neville C, Du Berger R, Fraenkel L, Liang MH (2000) Do lupus disease activity measures detect clinically important change? J Rheumatol 27(6):1421–1428PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bombardieri S, Vitali C, Caponi L, Manca L, Bencivelli W (1994) Activity criteria in systemic lupus erythematosus. Clin Exp Rheumatol 12(Suppl 11):S45–S48PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International League of Associations for Rheumatology (ILAR) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Rheumatology, Alzahra HospitalIsfahan University of Medical SciencesIsfahanIran
  2. 2.Department of Internal Medicine, Alzahra HospitalIsfahan University of Medical SciencesIsfahanIran
  3. 3.Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public HealthIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations