Top 10 Things to Know About Lupus Activity Measures

Overview

Journal Curr Rheumatol Rep

Publisher Current Science

Specialty Rheumatology

Date 2013 Apr 23

PMID 23606072

Citations 9

Authors

Aikaterini Thanou

Joan T Merrill

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Accurately measuring lupus disease activity has been a demanding and still unresolved task, considering the complex multisystem nature of the disease and its variability over time and between patients. Various available tools for measurement of lupus disease activity may detect clinical improvement and/or deterioration and can be global or organ-focused. Several measures have demonstrated validity, reliability, and sensitivity to change in observational studies, and some were found useful in randomized controlled trials. Evaluation of their content and metric properties and critical review of their strengths and weaknesses facilitates selection of the appropriate tool according to the outcome of interest, and forms the basis for their optimization. In this review, we highlight recent progress in lupus disease activity measures and point to future directions in this field, with a focus on novel composite measurements derived by combining outcome measures in ways that might compensate for their individual deficiencies.

Citing Articles

Protocol for virtual physical examination in an observational, longitudinal study evaluating virtual outcome measures in SLE.

Askanase A, Aranow C, Kim M, Kamen D, Arriens C, Khalili L Lupus Sci Med. 2023; 10(2).

PMID: 37429672 PMC: 10335468. DOI: 10.1136/lupus-2023-000952.

Evaluation of the LFA-REAL clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO) and patient-reported outcome (PRO): prespecified analysis of the phase III ustekinumab trial in patients with SLE.

Askanase A, Tang W, Zuraw Q, Gordon R, Brotherton B, Merrill J Lupus Sci Med. 2023; 10(1).

PMID: 37012059 PMC: 10083883. DOI: 10.1136/lupus-2022-000875.

Telerheumatology: A Narrative Review.

Tang W, Khalili L, Askanase A Rheumatol Immunol Res. 2022; 2(3):139-145.

PMID: 36465071 PMC: 9524794. DOI: 10.2478/rir-2021-0020.

Clinical disease activity and flare in SLE: Current concepts and novel biomarkers.

Thanou A, Jupe E, Purushothaman M, Niewold T, Munroe M J Autoimmun. 2021; 119:102615.

PMID: 33631651 PMC: 8044029. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaut.2021.102615.

Scoring systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) disease activity with simple, rapid outcome measures.

Thanou A, James J, Arriens C, Aberle T, Chakravarty E, Rawdon J Lupus Sci Med. 2020; 6(1):e000365.

PMID: 31921432 PMC: 6937422. DOI: 10.1136/lupus-2019-000365.

References

Appel G, Contreras G, Dooley M, Ginzler E, Isenberg D, Jayne D . Mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclophosphamide for induction treatment of lupus nephritis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009; 20(5):1103-12. PMC: 2678035. DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2008101028. View

Bombardier C, Gladman D, Urowitz M, Caron D, Chang C . Derivation of the SLEDAI. A disease activity index for lupus patients. The Committee on Prognosis Studies in SLE. Arthritis Rheum. 1992; 35(6):630-40. DOI: 10.1002/art.1780350606. View

Gordon C, Sutcliffe N, Skan J, Stoll T, Isenberg D . Definition and treatment of lupus flares measured by the BILAG index. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2003; 42(11):1372-9. DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keg382. View

Touma Z, Urowitz M, Ibanez D, Gladman D . SLEDAI-2K 10 days versus SLEDAI-2K 30 days in a longitudinal evaluation. Lupus. 2011; 20(1):67-70. DOI: 10.1177/0961203310385163. View

Yee C, Farewell V, Isenberg D, Prabu A, Sokoll K, Teh L . Revised British Isles Lupus Assessment Group 2004 index: a reliable tool for assessment of systemic lupus erythematosus activity. Arthritis Rheum. 2006; 54(10):3300-5. DOI: 10.1002/art.22162. View

Bonilla-Martinez Z, Albrecht J, Troxel A, Taylor L, Okawa J, Dulay S . The cutaneous lupus erythematosus disease area and severity index: a responsive instrument to measure activity and damage in patients with cutaneous lupus erythematosus. Arch Dermatol. 2008; 144(2):173-80. PMC: 2829653. DOI: 10.1001/archderm.144.2.173. View

Gladman D, Ibanez D, Urowitz M . Systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity index 2000. J Rheumatol. 2002; 29(2):288-91. View

Stoll T, Stucki G, Malik J, Pyke S, Isenberg D . Further validation of the BILAG disease activity index in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis. 1996; 55(10):756-60. PMC: 1010295. DOI: 10.1136/ard.55.10.756. View

Ward M, Marx A, Barry N . Comparison of the validity and sensitivity to change of 5 activity indices in systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol. 2000; 27(3):664-70. View

10.

Rovin B, Furie R, Latinis K, Looney R, Fervenza F, Sanchez-Guerrero J . Efficacy and safety of rituximab in patients with active proliferative lupus nephritis: the Lupus Nephritis Assessment with Rituximab study. Arthritis Rheum. 2012; 64(4):1215-26. DOI: 10.1002/art.34359. View

11.

Touma Z, Gladman D, Ibanez D, Urowitz M . Development and initial validation of the systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity index 2000 responder index 50. J Rheumatol. 2010; 38(2):275-84. DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.100724. View

12.

Yee C, Farewell V, Isenberg D, Griffiths B, Teh L, Bruce I . The BILAG-2004 index is sensitive to change for assessment of SLE disease activity. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2009; 48(6):691-5. PMC: 2681285. DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kep064. View

13.

Yee C, Farewell V, Isenberg D, Griffiths B, Teh L, Bruce I . The use of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index-2000 to define active disease and minimal clinically meaningful change based on data from a large cohort of systemic lupus erythematosus patients. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2011; 50(5):982-8. PMC: 3077910. DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keq376. View

14.

Isenberg D, Allen E, Farewell V, DCruz D, Alarcon G, Aranow C . An assessment of disease flare in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a comparison of BILAG 2004 and the flare version of SELENA. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010; 70(1):54-9. DOI: 10.1136/ard.2010.132068. View

15.

Gordon C, Bertsias G, Ioannidis J, Boletis J, Bombardieri S, Cervera R . EULAR points to consider for conducting clinical trials in systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008; 68(4):470-6. DOI: 10.1136/ard.2007.083022. View

16.

Furie R, Petri M, Wallace D, Ginzler E, Merrill J, Stohl W . Novel evidence-based systemic lupus erythematosus responder index. Arthritis Rheum. 2009; 61(9):1143-51. PMC: 2748175. DOI: 10.1002/art.24698. View

17.

Yee C, Farewell V, Isenberg D, Rahman A, Teh L, Griffiths B . British Isles Lupus Assessment Group 2004 index is valid for assessment of disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum. 2007; 56(12):4113-9. PMC: 2659367. DOI: 10.1002/art.23130. View

18.

. The American College of Rheumatology response criteria for proliferative and membranous renal disease in systemic lupus erythematosus clinical trials. Arthritis Rheum. 2006; 54(2):421-32. DOI: 10.1002/art.21625. View

19.

Buyon J, Petri M, Kim M, Kalunian K, Grossman J, Hahn B . The effect of combined estrogen and progesterone hormone replacement therapy on disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2005; 142(12 Pt 1):953-62. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-142-12_part_1-200506210-00004. View

20.

Touma Z, Urowitz M, Taghavi-Zadeh S, Ibanez D, Gladman D . Systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity Index 2000 Responder Index 50: sensitivity to response at 6 and 12 months. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2012; 51(10):1814-9. DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kes146. View