Abstract
Objective: To compare the responsiveness of the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group 2004 index (BILAG-2004) and the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) disease activity indices and to determine whether there was any added value in combining BILAG-2004, BILAG-2004 system tally (BST), or simplified BST (sBST) with SLEDAI-2K. Methods: This was a multicenter longitudinal study of SLE patients. Data were collected on BILAG-2004, SLEDAI-2K, and therapy on consecutive assessments in routine practice. The external responsiveness of the indices was assessed by determining the relationship between change in disease activity and change in therapy between 2 consecutive visits. Comparison of indices and their derivatives was performed by assessing the main effects of the indices using logistic regression. Receiver operating characteristic curves analysis was used to describe the performance of these indices individually and in various combinations, and comparisons of area under the curve were performed. Results: There were 1,414 observations from 347 patients. Both BILAG-2004 and SLEDAI-2K maintained an independent relationship with change in therapy when compared. There was some improvement in responsiveness when continuous SLEDAI-2K variables (change in score and score of previous visit) were combined with BILAG-2004 system scores. Dichotomization of BILAG-2004 or SLEDAI-2K resulted in poorer performance. BST and sBST had similar responsiveness as the combination of SLEDAI-2K variables and BILAG-2004 system scores. There was little benefit in combining SLEDAI-2K with BST or sBST. Conclusion: The BILAG-2004 index had comparable responsiveness to SLEDAI-2K. There was some benefit in combining both indices. Dichotomization of BILAG-2004 and SLEDAI-2K leads to suboptimal performance. BST and sBST performed well on their own; sBST is recommended for its simplicity and clinical meaningfulness.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 1623-1630 |
Number of pages | 8 |
Journal | Arthritis Care & Research |
Volume | 74 |
Issue number | 10 |
Early online date | 30 Mar 2021 |
Publication status | Published - 31 Oct 2022 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© 2021 American College of Rheumatology.
Funding
Dr. Yee has received consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb and Immupharma (less than $10,000 each). Dr. Gordon has received consulting fees from UCB and MGP (less than $10,000 each). Dr. Teh has received grants from Pfizer and AbbVie. Dr. Akil has received consulting or speaking fees from Action, AstraZeneca, and Gilead (less than $10,000 each). Dr. D'Cruz has received consulting or speaking fees from GlaxoSmithKline (less than $10,000). No other disclosures relevant to this article were reported. Supported by Versus Arthritis (grant 16081), the Medical Research Council UK (grant U105261167), and Vifor Pharma/Aspreva Pharmaceuticals. The Birmingham SLE clinics were supported by Lupus UK. Some of the work for this study was carried out at the NIHR/Wellcome Trust Birmingham Clinical Research Facility. The work of Drs. Isenberg and Rahman was supported by the NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Bruce's work was supported by Versus Arthritis, NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Unit, and NIHR Manchester Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Facility.
Funders | Funder number |
---|---|
NIHR Manchester Wellcome Trust | |
Vifor Pharma/Aspreva Pharmaceuticals | |
Pfizer | |
AbbVie | |
Manchester Biomedical Research Centre | |
Medical Research Council | U105261167 |
Versus Arthritis | 16081 |
University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre | |
LUPUS UK |