Ellen M. Ginzler

OBJECTIVE: The Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) group revised and validated the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification criteria in order to improve clinical relevance, meet stringent methodology requirements, and incorporate new knowledge regarding the immunology of SLE. METHODS: The classification criteria were derived from a set of 702 expert-rated patient scenarios. Recursive partitioning was used to derive an initial rule that was simplified and refined based on SLICC physician consensus. The SLICC group validated the classification criteria in a new validation sample of 690 new expert-rated patient scenarios. RESULTS: Seventeen criteria were identified. In the derivation set, the SLICC classification criteria resulted in fewer misclassifications compared with the current ACR classification criteria (49 versus 70; P = 0.0082) and had greater sensitivity (94% versus 86%; P < 0.0001) and equal specificity (92% versus 93%; P = 0.39). In the validation set, the SLICC classification criteria resulted in fewer misclassifications compared with the current ACR classification criteria (62 versus 74; P = 0.24) and had greater sensitivity (97% versus 83%; P < 0.0001) but lower specificity (84% versus 96%; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The new SLICC classification criteria performed well in a large set of patient scenarios rated by experts. According to the SLICC rule for the classification of SLE, the patient must satisfy at least 4 criteria, including at least one clinical criterion and one immunologic criterion OR the patient must have biopsy-proven lupus nephritis in the presence of antinuclear antibodies or anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies.

OBJECTIVE: To standardize outcome measures in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Three indices were identified which could adequately describe outcome (disease activity, damage from disease, and health status); we describe here the development of the Disease Activity Index. METHODS: Twenty-four variables were identified as important factors in a disease activity index. These were used to generate 574 patient profiles, which were rated on a disease activity scale of 0-10 by 14 rheumatologists. A second rating of 10 of the profiles yielded scores that were not significantly different from the first, indicating that experienced clinicians can reliably make global estimates of disease activity. Multiple regression models were used to estimate the relative importance of the 24 clinical variables in the physicians' global rating of disease activity. These were estimated on a "training set" of 75% of physicians' ratings, and then validated on a "testing set," consisting of the remaining 25% of physicians' ratings. RESULTS: The explanatory power of the models in the training set was high (R2 = 0.93). The models' regression coefficients for the organ systems were simplified for easier use in clinical practice. This generated a "weighted" index of 9 organ systems for disease activity in SLE, the SLEDAI, as follows: 8 for central nervous system and vascular, 4 for renal and musculoskeletal, 2 for serosal, dermal, immunologic, and 1 for constitutional and hematologic. The maximum theoretical score is 105, but in practice, few patients have scores greater than 45. The SLEDAI predicted well the physicians' ratings in the testing set (Pearson's correlation coefficients = 0.64-0.79). CONCLUSION: The SLEDAI is a validated model of experienced clinicians' global assessments of disease activity in lupus. It represents the consensus of a group of experts in the field of lupus research.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and perform an initial validation of a damage index for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS: A list of items considered to reflect damage in SLE was generated through a nominal group process. A consensus as to which items to be included in an index was reached, together with rules for ascertainment. Each center submitted 2 assessments, 5 years apart, on 2 patients with active and 2 with inactive disease, of whom 1 had increased damage and the other had stable disease. Analysis of variance was used to test the factors physician, time, amount of damage, and activity status. RESULTS: Nineteen physicians completed the damage index on 42 case scenarios. The analysis revealed that the damage index could identify changes in damage seen in patients with both active and inactive disease. Patients who had active disease at both time points had a higher increase in damage. There was good agreement among the physicians on the assessment of damage in these patients. CONCLUSION: This damage index for SLE records damage occurring in patients with SLE regardless of its cause. The index was demonstrated to have content, face, criterion, and discriminant validity.

The currently used classification reflects our understanding of the pathogenesis of the various forms of lupus nephritis, but clinicopathologic studies have revealed the need for improved categorization and terminology. Based on the 1982 classification published under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) and subsequent clinicopathologic data, we propose that class I and II be used for purely mesangial involvement (I, mesangial immune deposits without mesangial hypercellularity; II, mesangial immune deposits with mesangial hypercellularity); class III for focal glomerulonephritis (involving <50% of total number of glomeruli) with subdivisions for active and sclerotic lesions; class IV for diffuse glomerulonephritis (involving > or = 50% of total number of glomeruli) either with segmental (class IV-S) or global (class IV-G) involvement, and also with subdivisions for active and sclerotic lesions; class V for membranous lupus nephritis; and class VI for advanced sclerosing lesions]. Combinations of membranous and proliferative glomerulonephritis (i.e., class III and V or class IV and V) should be reported individually in the diagnostic line. The diagnosis should also include entries for any concomitant vascular or tubulointerstitial lesions. One of the main advantages of the current revised classification is that it provides a clear and unequivocal description of the various lesions and classes of lupus nephritis, allowing a better standardization and lending a basis for further clinicopathologic studies. We hope that this revision, which evolved under the auspices of the International Society of Nephrology and the Renal Pathology Society, will contribute to further advancement of the WHO classification.