4.7 Article

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

Journal

RHEUMATOLOGY
Volume 50, Issue 5, Pages 982-988

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keq376

Keywords

SLEDAI-2000; SLE; Sensitivity to change; Disease activity; Minimal clinically meaningful change

Categories

Funding

  1. Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Facility (Birmingham), Lupus UK
  2. Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Manchester NIHR Biomedical Research Centre and Arthritis Research Campaign
  3. Arthritis Research Campaign [16081]
  4. Arthritis Research UK
  5. Vifor Pharma/Aspreva
  6. Roche Pharmaceuticals
  7. Merck Serono
  8. Genentech
  9. Amgen
  10. Bristol Myers Squibb
  11. Vifor Pharma/Aspreva Pharmaceuticals
  12. MRC [MC_U105261167] Funding Source: UKRI
  13. Medical Research Council [MC_U105261167] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Methods. Data from two multi-centre studies were used in the analysis: in a cross-sectional and a longitudinal fashion. At every assessment, data were collected on SLEDAI-2000 and treatment. The cross-sectional analysis with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves was used to examine the appropriate SLEDAI-2000 score to define active disease and increase in therapy was the reference standard. In the longitudinal analysis, sensitivity to change of SLEDAI-2000 was assessed with multinomial logistic regression. ROC curves analysis was used to examine possible cut-points in score changes associated with change in therapy, and mean changes were estimated. Results. In the cross-sectional analysis, the most appropriate cut-off scores for active disease were 3 or 4. In the longitudinal analysis, the best model for predicting treatment increase was with the change in SLEDAI-2000 score and the score from the previous visit as continuous variables. The use of cut-points was less predictive of treatment change than the use of continuous score. The mean difference in the change in SLEDAI-2000 scores, adjusted for prior score, between patients with treatment increase and those without was 2.64 (95% CI 2.16, 3.14). Conclusions. An appropriate SLEDAI-2000 score to define active disease is 3 or 4. SLEDAI-2000 index is sensitive to change. The use of SLEDAI-2000 as a continuous outcome is recommended for comparative purposes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available