Kimberly Legault

Objective To develop new antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria with high specificity for use in observational studies and trials, jointly supported by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and EULAR. Methods This international multidisciplinary initiative included 4 phases: 1) Phase I, criteria generation by surveys and literature review; 2) Phase II, criteria reduction by modified Delphi and nominal group technique exercises; 3) Phase III, criteria definition, further reduction with the guidance of real‐world patient scenarios, and weighting via consensus‐based multicriteria decision analysis, and threshold identification; and 4) Phase IV, validation using independent adjudicators’ consensus as the gold standard. Results The 2023 ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria include an entry criterion of at least one positive antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) test within 3 years of identification of an aPL‐associated clinical criterion, followed by additive weighted criteria (score range 1–7 points each) clustered into 6 clinical domains (macrovascular venous thromboembolism, macrovascular arterial thrombosis, microvascular, obstetric, cardiac valve, and hematologic) and 2 laboratory domains (lupus anticoagulant functional coagulation assays, and solid‐phase enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays for IgG/IgM anticardiolipin and/or IgG/IgM anti–β 2 ‐glycoprotein I antibodies). Patients accumulating at least 3 points each from the clinical and laboratory domains are classified as having APS. In the validation cohort, the new APS criteria versus the 2006 revised Sapporo classification criteria had a specificity of 99% versu s 86%, and a sensitivity of 84% versus 99%. Conclusion These new ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria were developed using rigorous methodology with multidisciplinary international input. Hierarchically clustered, weighted, and risk‐stratified criteria reflect the current thinking about APS, providing high specificity and a strong foundation for future APS research.

BACKGROUND: Rare diseases are a global public health priority. Though each disease is rare, when taken together the thousands of known rare diseases cause significant morbidity and mortality, impact quality of life, and confer a social and economic burden on families and communities. These conditions are, by their nature, encountered very infrequently by individual clinicians, who may feel unprepared to address their diagnosis and treatment. Clinical practice guidelines are necessary to support clinical and policy decisions. However, creating guidelines for rare diseases presents specific challenges, including a paucity of high certainty evidence to inform panel recommendations. METHODS: This paper draws from the authors' experience in the development of clinical practice guidelines for three rare diseases: hemophilia, sickle cell disease, and catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome. RESULTS: We have summarized a number of strategies for eliciting and synthesizing evidence that are compatible with the rigorous, internationally accepted standards for guideline development set out by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. These strategies include: use of pre-existing and ad hoc qualitative research, use of systematic observation forms, use of registry data, and thoughtful use of indirect evidence. Their use in three real guideline development efforts, as well as their theoretical underpinnings, are discussed. Avenues for future research to improve clinical practice guideline creation for rare diseases - and any disease affected by a relative lack of evidence - are also identified. CONCLUSIONS: Rigorous clinical practice guidelines are needed to improve the care of the millions of people worldwide who suffer from rare diseases. Innovative evidence elicitation and synthesis methods will benefit not only the rare disease community, but also individuals with common diseases who have rare presentations, suffer rare complications, or require nascent therapies. Further refinement and improved uptake of these innovative methods should lead to higher quality clinical practice guidelines in rare diseases.

OBJECTIVE: To develop recommendations for the assessment of people with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in Canada. METHODS: Recommendations were developed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. The Canadian SLE Working Group (panel of Canadian rheumatologists and a patient representative from Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance) was created. Questions for recommendation development were identified based on the results of a previous survey of SLE practice patterns of members of the Canadian Rheumatology Association. Systematic literature reviews of randomized trials and observational studies were conducted. Evidence to Decision tables were prepared and presented to the panel at 2 face-to-face meetings and online. RESULTS: There are 15 recommendations for assessing and monitoring SLE, with varying applicability to adult and pediatric patients. Three recommendations focus on diagnosis, disease activity, and damage assessment, suggesting the use of a validated disease activity score per visit and annual damage score. Strong recommendations were made for cardiovascular risk assessment and measuring anti-Ro and anti-La antibodies in the peripartum period and conditional recommendations for osteoporosis and osteonecrosis. Two conditional recommendations were made for peripartum assessments, 1 for cervical cancer screening and 2 for hepatitis B and C screening. A strong recommendation was made for annual influenza vaccination. CONCLUSION: These are considered the first guidelines using the GRADE method for the monitoring of SLE. Existing evidence is largely of low to moderate quality, resulting in more conditional than strong recommendations. Additional rigorous studies and special attention to pediatric SLE populations and patient preferences are needed.