Using genetics to prioritize diagnoses for rheumatology outpatients with inflammatory arthritis

It is challenging to quickly diagnose slowly progressing diseases. To prioritize multiple related diagnoses, we developed G-PROB (Genetic Probability tool) to calculate the probability of different diseases for a patient using genetic risk scores. We tested G-PROB for inflammatory arthritis-causing diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, spondyloarthropathy, psoriatic arthritis, and gout). After validating on simulated data, we tested G-PROB in three cohorts: 1211 patients identified by International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes within the eMERGE database, 245 patients identified through ICD codes and medical record review within the Partners Biobank, and 243 patients first presenting with unexplained inflammatory arthritis and with final diagnoses by record review within the Partners Biobank. Calibration of G-probabilities with disease status was high, with regression coefficients from 0.90 to 1.08 (1.00 is ideal). G-probabilities discriminated true diagnoses across the three cohorts with pooled areas under the curve (95% CI) of 0.69 (0.67 to 0.71), 0.81 (0.76 to 0.84), and 0.84 (0.81 to 0.86), respectively. For all patients, at least one disease could be ruled out, and in 45% of patients, a likely diagnosis was identified with a 64% positive predictive value. In 35% of cases, the clinician's initial diagnosis was incorrect. Initial clinical diagnosis explained 39% of the variance in final disease, which improved to 51% (P < 0.0001) after adding G-probabilities. Converting genotype information before a clinical visit into an interpretable probability value for five different inflammatory arthritides could potentially be used to improve the diagnostic efficiency of rheumatic diseases in clinical practice.Clinical epidemiolog

Interactions between genome-wide genetic factors and smoking influencing risk of systemic lupus erythematosus

Objective To identify interactions between genetic factors and current or recent smoking in relation to risk of developing systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Methods For the study, 673 patients with SLE (diagnosed according to the American College of Rheumatology 1997 updated classification criteria) were matched by age, sex, and race (first 3 genetic principal components) to 3,272 control subjects without a history of connective tissue disease. Smoking status was classified as current smoking/having recently quit smoking within 4 years before diagnosis (or matched index date for controls) versus distant past/never smoking. In total, 86 single-nucleotide polymorphisms and 10 classicHLAalleles previously associated with SLE were included in a weighted genetic risk score (wGRS), with scores dichotomized as either low or high based on the median value in control subjects (low wGRS being defined as less than or equal to the control median; high wGRS being defined as greater than the control median). Conditional logistic regression models were used to estimate both the risk of SLE and risk of anti-double-stranded DNA autoantibody-positive (dsDNA+) SLE. Additive interactions were assessed using the attributable proportion (AP) due to interaction, and multiplicative interactions were assessed using a chi-square test (with 1 degree of freedom) for the wGRS and for individual risk alleles. Separate repeated analyses were carried out among subjects of European ancestry only. Results The mean +/- SD age of the SLE patients at the time of diagnosis was 36.4 +/- 15.3 years. Among the 673 SLE patients included, 92.3% were female and 59.3% were dsDNA+. Ethnic distributions were as follows: 75.6% of European ancestry, 4.5% of Asian ancestry, 11.7% of African ancestry, and 8.2% classified as other ancestry. A high wGRS (odds ratio [OR] 2.0,P= 1.0 x 10(-51)versus low wGRS) and a status of current/recent smoking (OR 1.5,P= 0.0003 versus distant past/never smoking) were strongly associated with SLE risk, with significant additive interaction (AP 0.33,P= 0.0012), and associations with the risk of anti-dsDNA+ SLE were even stronger. No significant multiplicative interactions with the total wGRS (P= 0.58) or with theHLA-only wGRS (P= 0.06) were found. Findings were similar in analyses restricted to only subjects of European ancestry. Conclusion The strong additive interaction between an updated SLE genetic risk score and current/recent smoking suggests that smoking may influence specific genes in the pathogenesis of SLE.Pathophysiology and treatment of rheumatic disease

Use of consensus methodology to determine candidate items for systemic lupus erythematosus classification criteria

Objective. Given the complexity and heterogeneity of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), high-performing classification criteria are critical to advancing research and clinical care. A collaborative effort by the European League Against Rheumatism and the American College of Rheumatology was undertaken to generate candidate criteria, and then to reduce them to a smaller set. The objective of the current study was to select a set of criteria that maximizes the likelihood of accurate classification of SLE, particularly early disease. Methods. An independent panel of international SLE experts and the SLE classification criteria steering committee (conducting SLE research in Canada, Mexico, United States, Austria, Germany, Greece, France, Italy, and Spain) ranked 43 candidate criteria. A consensus meeting using nominal group technique (NGT) was conducted to reduce the list of criteria for consideration. Results. The expert panel NGT exercise reduced the candidate criteria for SLE classification from 43 to 21. The panel distinguished potential &quot;entry criteria,&quot; which would be required for classification, from potential &quot;additive criteria.&quot; Potential entry criteria were antinuclear antibody (ANA) = 1:80 (HEp-2 immunofluorescence), and low C3 and/or low C4. The use of low complement as an entry criterion was considered potentially useful in cases with negative ANA. Potential additive criteria included lupus nephritis by renal biopsy, autoantibodies, cytopenias, acute and chronic cutaneous lupus, alopecia, arthritis, serositis, oral mucosal lesions, central nervous system manifestations, and fever. Conclusion. The NGT exercise resulted in 21 candidate SLE classification criteria. The next phases of SLE classification criteria development will require refinement of criteria definitions, evaluation of the ability to cluster criteria into domains, and evaluation of weighting of criteria. Copyright © 2019. All rights reserved

2010 Rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative

Objective The 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR; formerly the American Rheumatism Association) classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been criticised for their lack of sensitivity in early disease. This work was undertaken to develop new classification criteria for RA. Methods A joint working group from the ACR and the European League Against Rheumatism developed, in three phases, a new approach to classifying RA. The work focused on identifying, among patients newly presenting with undifferentiated inflammatory synovitis, factors that best discriminated between those who were and those who were not at high risk for persistent and/or erosive disease-this being the appropriate current paradigm underlying the disease construct 'RA'. Results In the new criteria set, classification as 'definite RA' is based on the confirmed presence of synovitis in at least one joint, absence of an alternative diagnosis better explaining the synovitis, and achievement of a total score of 6 or greater (of a possible 10) from the individual scores in four domains: number and site of involved joints (range 0-5), serological abnormality (range 0-3), elevated acute-phase response (range 0-1) and symptom duration (two levels; range 0-1). Conclusion This new classification system redefines the current paradigm of RA by focusing on features at earlier stages of disease that are associated with persistent and/or erosive disease, rather than defining the disease by its late-stage features. This will refocus attention on the important need for earlier diagnosis and institution of effective disease-suppressing therapy to prevent or minimise the occurrence of the undesirable sequelae that currently comprise the paradigm underlying the disease construct 'RA'.Pathophysiology and treatment of rheumatic disease

Performance of the 2019 EULAR/ACR classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus in early disease, across sexes and ethnicities

Objectives The European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2019 Classification Criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have been validated with high sensitivity and specificity. We evaluated the performance of the new criteria with regard to disease duration, sex and race/ethnicity, and compared its performance against the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) 2012 and ACR 1982/1997 criteria. Methods Twenty-one SLE centres from 16 countries submitted SLE cases and mimicking controls to form the validation cohort. The sensitivity and specificity of the EULAR/ACR 2019, SLICC 2012 and ACR 1982/1997 criteria were evaluated. Results The cohort consisted of female (n=1098), male (n=172), Asian (n=118), black (n=68), Hispanic (n=124) and white (n=941) patients; with an SLE duration of 1 to &lt;3 years (n=196) and ≥5 years (n=879). Among patients with 1 to &lt;3 years disease duration, the EULAR/ACR criteria had better sensitivity than the ACR criteria (97% vs 81%). The EULAR/ACR criteria performed well in men (sensitivity 93%, specificity 96%) and women (sensitivity 97%, specificity 94%). Among women, the EULAR/ACR criteria had better sensitivity than the ACR criteria (97% vs 83%) and better specificity than the SLICC criteria (94% vs 82%). Among white patients, the EULAR/ACR criteria had better sensitivity than the ACR criteria (95% vs 83%) and better specificity than the SLICC criteria (94% vs 83%). The EULAR/ACR criteria performed well among black patients (sensitivity of 98%, specificity 100%), and had better sensitivity than the ACR criteria among Hispanic patients (100% vs 86%) and Asian patients (97% vs 77%). Conclusions The EULAR/ACR 2019 criteria perform well among patients with early disease, men, women, white, black, Hispanic and Asian patients. These criteria have superior sensitivity than the ACR criteria and/or superior specificity than the SLICC criteria across many subgroups.