Search

Several diagnostic criteria have been developed to effectively diagnose systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Three criteria are most common, namely the American College of Rheumatology (ACR)-1997, the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC)-2012, and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR/ACR)-2019. Whether they also apply to juvenile SLE is unclear. To examine the diagnostic accuracy of ACR-1997, SLICC-2012, and EULAR/ACR-2019 for juvenile SLE. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase was conducted up to 26 March 2022. We included all study designs in which patients had any index tests for ACR-1997, SLICC-2012, or EULAR/ACR-2019; both full-text papers and conference abstracts published in English were used. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) case reports; (2) adult subjects; or (3) did not report sufficient information to acquire true positive, false positive, true negative, and false negative values of diagnostic criteria. Two authors independently screened studies, extracted relevant data, and assessed the risk of bias. First, a meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of EULAR/ACR-2019 and a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model was performed to estimate sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We then carried out a network meta-analysis to compare the performances of these three diagnostic criteria. In total, 17 relevant studies that included 2339 juvenile SLE patients were eligible to analyze pooled accuracy. In the meta-analysis, 10 studies (1613 cases) reported the diagnostic performance of EULAR/ACR-2019, showing a pooled sensitivity of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89–0.95), pooled specificity of 0.89 (0.77–0.95), and area under HSROC of 0.96 (0.94–0.97). In the network meta-analysis, the SLICC-2012 (0.94, 0.92–0.96) had the highest sensitivity, followed by EULAR/ACR-2019 (0.93, 0.90–0.95), and ACR-1997 (0.78, 0.72–0.82); the ACR-1997 (0.96, 0.92–0.98) demonstrated the highest specificity. EULAR/ACR-2019 (0.92, 0.87–0.96) and SLICC-2012 (0.92, 0.86–0.96) had the similar specificity. We found that the applicability of the new EULAR/ACR-2019 criteria in juvenile SLE is not yet the best diagnostic tool. PROSPERO CRD42022321514. • This study represents the first network meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy to compare the performance of ACR-1997, SLICC-2012, and EULAR/ACR-2019 criteria for juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus. • For EULAR/ACR-2019, we determined the performance of the new EULAR/ACR-2019 criteria to have an area under the curve value of 0.96. • Among all of the included studies, we found EULAR/ACR-2019 not to be the best tool for diagnosing juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus; SLICC-2012 has better sensitivity, and ACR-1997 has better specificity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anti-dsDNA autoantibodies are listed as one of the classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and are relatively effective indicators for monitoring disease activity and treatment response. Therefore, clinicians rely on them to diagnose and adjust medication and treatment strategies for SLE patients. However, the use of anti-dsDNA antibodies is not free from controversy. Part of this controversy stems from the fact that anti-dsDNA antibodies are found in several disorders, besides SLE. In addition to this, anti-dsDNA antibodies are a heterogeneous group of antibodies, and their determination still lacks proper standardization. Moreover, anti-dsDNA testing specificity and diagnostic performance change depending on the population under study. These and other issues result in inconsistency and encumber the clinical use of anti-dsDNA antibodies. A panel of medical laboratory and clinical experts on SLE discussed such issues based on their clinical experience in a first meeting, establishing a series of recommendations. The proceedings of this first meeting, plus an exhaustive review of the literature, were used to compose a paper draft. The panel subsequently discussed and refined this draft in a second meeting, the result of which is this paper. This document is relevant to clinical laboratories as it guides to improving diagnosis and monitoring of SLE. Simultaneously, it will help laboratories compile more informative reports, not limited to a mere number. It is also relevant to clinical doctors who wish to better understand laboratory methods so that they can do a more efficient, better-aimed laboratory test ordering. [Display omitted] • The use of laboratory tests for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) diagnosis and monitoring needs to be optimized. • 9 independent experts from first-order Spanish institutions have drawn up recommendations for SLE diagnosis and monitoring. • Interventions to improve SLE diagnosis and monitoring must be adapted to the level of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rasmussen Encephalitis (RE) is classically described as a childhood encephalopathy due to a unilateral inflammation of the cerebral cortex with a presumed immune-mediated pathophysiological basis. Unusual variant forms, including adolescent and adult-onset RE have been described but there is still a doubt whether these atypical cases correspond to classical RE patients. To review evidence, a systematic PubMed search was conducted to retrieve papers addressing late onset RE to assess (i) the positivity rate of classical childhood-onset diagnostic criteria for RE in late-onset RE, (ii) the specific clinical and radiological features that could help earlier diagnosis and therapeutic interventions, (iii) the arguments for an autoimmune pathophysiology including (iiia) the association with autoimmune markers or diseases and (iiib) the effects of immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive treatments. A total of 50 papers were considered. We identified 102 late-onset RE patients with a sex ratio of 8 women for 2 men. 67% fulfilled the consensus diagnostic criteria for RE. As compared to classical RE, the late-onset RE patients exhibited: i) more frequent focal complex partial seizures, ii) less frequent epilepsia partialis continua throughout evolution, iii) a slower evolution with a delayed occurrence of cortical deficit, iv) less cognitive deterioration and v) a better outcome. A specific association with autoimmune markers or diseases was not found. Immunomodulatory therapies, even performed in a late stage, improved late-onset RE patients in 61% of cases. This review proves that late-onset RE is a reality with specific clinical and radiological features. The good response to immunomodulatory treatments brings further arguments for an immune-regulated process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The management of patients with chronic pain is a nearly daily challenge to rheumatologists, neurologists, orthopedic surgeons, pain specialists and indeed a issue in nearly every clinical practice. Among the myriad of causes of pain are often included a unique syndrome, generally referred to as complex regional pain syndrome type I (CRPS). Unfortunately CRPS I has become a catch all phase and there are serious questions on whether it exists at all; this has led to an extraordinary number of poorly defined diagnostic criteria. It has also led to an etiologic quagmire that includes features as diverse as autoimmunity to simple trauma. These, in turn, have led to overdiagnosis and often overzealous use of pain medications, including narcotics. In a previous paper, we raised the issue of whether CRPS type I reflected a valid diagnosis. Indeed, the diagnostic criteria for CRPS I, and therefore the diagnosis itself, is unreliable for a number of reasons: 1) the underlying pathophysiology of the signs and symptoms of CPRS I are not biologically plausible; 2) there are no consistent laboratory or imaging testing available; 3) the signs and symptoms fluctuate over time without a medical explanation; 4) the definitions of most studies are derived from statistical analysis with little consideration to required sample size, i.e. power calculations; 5) interobserver reliability in the assessment of the signs and symptoms are often only fair to moderate, and agreement on the diagnosis of “CRPS I” is poor. Even physicians who still believe in the concept of “CRPS I” admit that it is vastly overdiagnosed and has become a diagnosis of last resort, often without a complete differential diagnosis and an alternative explanation. Finally, one of the most convincing arguments that there is no clinical entity as “CRPS I” comes from the enormous heterogeneity in sign and symptom profiles and the heterogeneity of pathophysiological mechanisms postulated. This observation is underscored by the diversity of responses among “CRPS I” patients to essentially all treatment modalities. It has even led to the concept that the signs and symptoms of CRPS can spread throughout the body, as if it is an infectious disease, without any medical plausible explanation. If true progress is to be made in helping patients with pain, it will require entirely new and different concepts and abandoning CRPS I as a legitimate diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) is a rare, life-threatening disease in which early diagnosis and aggressive therapeutic strategy may improve the outcome. Due to its rarity, epidemiologic data are still lacking. Hyperferritinemia is frequently associated with MAS and might modulate the cytokine storm, which is involved in the development of multiple organ failure. In this paper, we investigated clinical data, treatments, and outcome of a homogeneous cohort of 41 adult MAS patients, complicating autoimmune rheumatic diseases. MAS-related death occurred in 17 patients (42.5%) during the follow-up, and older age and increased serum ferritin levels, at the time of diagnosis, were significantly associated with mortality. In conclusion, adult MAS is associated with high mortality rate. Some clinical features at diagnosis may be predictive of MAS-associated death. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At the 12th International Workshop on Autoantibodies and Autoimmunity (IWAA), organized in August 2014 in Sao Paulo, Brazil, more than 300 autoimmunologists gathered to discuss the status of many novel autoantibodies in clinical practice, and to envisage additional value of autoantibodies in terms of prediction, prognosis and prevention of autoimmune diseases. Two separate workshops were dedicated to standardization and harmonization of autoantibody testing and nomenclature: International Autoantibody Standardization (IAS) and International Consensus on ANA Patterns (ICAP). It was apparent to all in attendance that the discovery and elucidation of novel autoantibodies did not slow down, but that multiple challenges lay ahead of us in order to apply these discoveries to effective and efficient clinical practice. Importantly, this requires optimal bidirectional communication between clinicians and laboratory specialists, as well as close collaboration with the diagnostic industry. This paper is a report on the 12th IWAA in combination with a review of the recent developments in the field of autoantibodies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Immune thrombocytopenia, or ITP, has been recognized as a clinical entity for centuries, and the importance of humoral mechanisms in the pathophysiology of ITP has been recognized for decades. Despite the long history of the syndrome, progress in understanding its epidemiology and management has been hindered by inconsistencies in nomenclature and classification schema together with the inherent heterogeneity in characteristics of global populations and ITP-associated disorders. In the past decade, great strides have been made in devising a common language for caregivers and investigators alike through standardization definitions and outcome measures, while new tools have become available for management of its clinical manifestations. In 2009, an International Working Group presented proposed standards for definitions, classification criteria, and outcome measures. The American Society of Hematology adopted these standards in 2011, including them in that body's guideline for immune thrombocytopenia. Despite the progress made so far, 20th century interventions such as corticosteroids and IVIg remain the mainstay of therapy. However, advances in treatment have led to the introduction of targeted therapies for select patients with chronic disease. In this paper, we review aspects of the epidemiology and pathophysiology of ITP and discuss the recent changes in guidelines for nomenclature, diagnosis, and treatment. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Monogenic Autoinflammatory diseases (AIDs) are a broad spectrum of rare hereditary diseases whose ocular involvement has not been well characterized yet. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of the current knowledge about ocular findings in AIDs. A systematic literature review was conducted using 2 electronic databases, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A combination of AIDs and ophthalmology-related search terms were used. All articles were screened by 2 independent reviewers for title, abstract and full text level. We included solely studies that investigated ocular findings in AIDs. 198 papers of 4268 records were retained. Data about 1353 patients with a diagnosis of autoinflammatory disease and ocular involvement were collected (680 CAPS, 211 FMF, 138 TRAPS, 238 Blau, 32 MKD, 21 SIFD, 7 Aicardi Goutières, 3 CANDLE, 8 DADA2, 9 HA20, 6 APLAID). Conjunctivitis was significantly more frequent in CAPS (p < 0.00001), uveitis in Blau, MKD, HA20 and CANDLE (p < 0.00001), papillitis/papilledema in CAPS (p < 0.00001), optic neuritis in Aicardi and DADA2 (p < 0.008), retinal vasculitis in FMF (p < 0.00001), progressive reduction in choroidal thickness in FMF and DADA2 (p < 0.00001), periorbital oedema in TRAPS (p < 0.00001) and retinitis in SIFD (p < 0.00001). Among AIDs with uveitis, granulomatous inflammation was more common in Blau syndrome (p < 0.00001). This systematic literature review characterized the ocular involvement of several AIDs, and the present data may encourage to consider a timely ophthalmological screening program for these rare diseases. • Ocular involvement is one of the key features of Autoinflammatory diseases. • Peculiar ocular findings are the hallmarks of specific autoinflammatory diseases. • A timely ophthalmological screening program might be useful in these rare diseases [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Studies of accuracy are often more complex to understand than clinical trials, since there can be more than one outcome and scope (screening, diagnosis, and prognosis) and because results have to be reported in more than one way, than in clinical trials (relative risk or odds ratio). Sensitivity and specificity are common terms for practitioners, but to remember that sensitivity is the “ratio between true positive rate and true positive rate plus false negative rate” may sometime cause some frustration. Moreover, likelihood ratio, predictive values, diagnostic odds ratio, and pre- and post-test probability complicate the framework. To summarize these indexes from multiple studies can be also a little more difficult. However, understanding diagnostic test accuracy from different study results and how to interpret systematic reviews and meta‐analysis can help every practitioner improve critical appraisal of evidence about the best use of diagnostic tests. Avoiding complicated mathematical formulas, this paper attempts to explain the meaning of the most important diagnostic indexes and how to read a Forest plot and a summary Receiver Operative Characteristic curve. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The diagnosis of seronegative (SN-) antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) has been suggested for patients with clinical manifestations indicative of APS but with persistently negative results in the commonly used assays to detect anti-cardiolipin (aCL) antibodies, anti-β2 Glycoprotein I antibodies (aβ2GPI), and lupus anticoagulant (LA). To date the best management of these patients is still unclear. New emerging anti-phospholipid (aPL) assays could improve our ability in diagnosing APS. However, the availability of aPL assays in routine laboratory practice is limited. In fact, even aβ2GPI is routinely tested in only a small number of laboratories, and other aPL, such as anti-prothrombin or anti-annexin antibodies, in only a few research laboratories. On the other hand transient or false negative aPL assay and other genetic or acquired pro-thrombotic conditions can further complicate this issue. This paper is focused on the arguments for and against the diagnosis of SN-APS and is aimed to help the clinician when approaching a patient with clinical manifestations consistent with APS diagnosis but with negative aPL using the commonly available tests. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is the most severe form of APS with acute multiple organ involvement and small vessel thrombosis. During the 13th International Congress on Antiphospholipid Antibodies (aPL) a “Catastrophic APS Task Force” was developed to discuss the challenges in the diagnosis and management of catastrophic APS. The purpose of this paper is to summarize the diagnostic challenges (false-positive/negative aPL results and overlap with other thrombotic microangiopathies) and propose updated diagnostic algorithms for catastrophic APS. Important steps of the diagnostic algorithms include: a) history of APS or persistent aPL-positivity; b) three or more organ new thrombosis developing in less than a week; c) biopsy diagnosis of microthrombosis; and d) other explanations for multiple organ thromboses and/or microthrombosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]