Search

Objective: To develop and validate updated classification criteria for giant cell arteritis (GCA). Methods: Patients with vasculitis or comparator diseases were recruited into an international cohort. The study proceeded in 6 phases: 1) identification of candidate items, 2) prospective collection of candidate items present at the time of diagnosis, 3) expert panel review of cases, 4) data‐driven reduction of candidate items, 5) derivation of a points‐based risk classification score in a development data set, and 6) validation in an independent data set. Results: The development data set consisted of 518 cases of GCA and 536 comparators. The validation data set consisted of 238 cases of GCA and 213 comparators. Age ≥50 years at diagnosis was an absolute requirement for classification. The final criteria items and weights were as follows: positive temporal artery biopsy or temporal artery halo sign on ultrasound (+5); erythrocyte sedimentation rate ≥50 mm/hour or C‐reactive protein ≥10 mg/liter (+3); sudden visual loss (+3); morning stiffness in shoulders or neck, jaw or tongue claudication, new temporal headache, scalp tenderness, temporal artery abnormality on vascular examination, bilateral axillary involvement on imaging, and fluorodeoxyglucose–positron emission tomography activity throughout the aorta (+2 each). A patient could be classified as having GCA with a cumulative score of ≥6 points. When these criteria were tested in the validation data set, the model area under the curve was 0.91 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.88–0.94) with a sensitivity of 87.0% (95% CI 82.0–91.0%) and specificity of 94.8% (95% CI 91.0–97.4%). Conclusion: The 2022 American College of Rheumatology/EULAR GCA classification criteria are now validated for use in clinical research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To develop and validate revised classification criteria for granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA). Methods: Patients with vasculitis or comparator diseases were recruited into an international cohort. The study proceeded in 5 phases: 1) identification of candidate criteria items using consensus methodology, 2) prospective collection of candidate items present at the time of diagnosis, 3) data‐driven reduction of the number of candidate items, 4) expert panel review of cases to define the reference diagnosis, and 5) derivation of a points‐based risk score for disease classification in a development set using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression, with subsequent validation of performance characteristics in an independent set of cases and comparators. Results: The development set for GPA consisted of 578 cases of GPA and 652 comparators. The validation set consisted of an additional 146 cases of GPA and 161 comparators. From 91 candidate items, regression analysis identified 26 items for GPA, 10 of which were retained. The final criteria and their weights were as follows: bloody nasal discharge, nasal crusting, or sino‐nasal congestion (+3); cartilaginous involvement (+2); conductive or sensorineural hearing loss (+1); cytoplasmic antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) or anti–proteinase 3 ANCA positivity (+5); pulmonary nodules, mass, or cavitation on chest imaging (+2); granuloma or giant cells on biopsy (+2); inflammation or consolidation of the nasal/paranasal sinuses on imaging (+1); pauci‐immune glomerulonephritis (+1); perinuclear ANCA or antimyeloperoxidase ANCA positivity (−1); and eosinophil count ≥1 × 109/liter (−4). After excluding mimics of vasculitis, a patient with a diagnosis of small‐ or medium‐vessel vasculitis could be classified as having GPA if the cumulative score was ≥5 points. When these criteria were tested in the validation data set, the sensitivity was 93% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 87–96%) and the specificity was 94% (95% CI 89–97%). Conclusion: The 2022 American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology classification criteria for GPA demonstrate strong performance characteristics and are validated for use in research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To develop and validate revised classification criteria for eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA). Methods: Patients with vasculitis or comparator diseases were recruited into an international cohort. The study proceeded in 5 phases: 1) identification of candidate criteria items using consensus methodology, 2) prospective collection of candidate items present at the time of diagnosis, 3) data‐driven reduction of the number of candidate items, 4) expert panel review of cases to define the reference diagnosis, and 5) derivation of a points‐based risk score for disease classification in a development set using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression, with subsequent validation of performance characteristics in an independent set of cases and comparators. Results: The development set for EGPA consisted of 107 cases of EGPA and 450 comparators. The validation set consisted of an additional 119 cases of EGPA and 437 comparators. From 91 candidate items, regression analysis identified 11 items for EPGA, 7 of which were retained. The final criteria and their weights were as follows: maximum eosinophil count ≥1 × 109/liter (+5), obstructive airway disease (+3), nasal polyps (+3), cytoplasmic antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) or anti–proteinase 3 ANCA positivity (−3), extravascular eosinophilic predominant inflammation (+2), mononeuritis multiplex/motor neuropathy not due to radiculopathy (+1), and hematuria (−1). After excluding mimics of vasculitis, a patient with a diagnosis of small‐ or medium‐vessel vasculitis could be classified as having EGPA if the cumulative score was ≥6 points. When these criteria were tested in the validation data set, the sensitivity was 85% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 77–91%) and the specificity was 99% (95% CI 98–100%). Conclusion: The 2022 American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology classification criteria for EGPA demonstrate strong performance characteristics and are validated for use in research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]