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.
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.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/rheumatology/keq376
复制
发表时间：
2011-05
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Gordon C
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Yee CS;Farewell VT;Isenberg DA;Griffiths B;Teh LS;Bruce IN;Ahmad Y;Rahman A;Prabu A;Akil M;McHugh N;Edwards C;D'Cruz D;Khamashta MA;Gordon C
目标.检查SLEDAI-2000临界评分用于定义活动性SLE，并确定SLEDAI-2000变化的敏感性，以评估SLE疾病活动性和评分的最小临床意义变化。方法.在分析中使用了来自两个多中心研究的数据：以横截面和纵向方式。在每次评估时，收集SLEDAI-2000和治疗的数据。采用受试者工作特征（ROC）曲线进行横断面分析，以SLEDAI-2000评分确定活动性疾病，并以治疗增加作为参考标准。在纵向分析中，用多项Logistic回归分析SLEDAI-2000变化的敏感性。ROC曲线分析用于检查与治疗变化相关的评分变化的可能临界点，并估计平均变化。结果在横断面分析中，活动性疾病最合适的截止评分为3或4。在纵向分析中，预测治疗增加的最佳模型是将SLEDAI-2000评分的变化和上次访视的评分作为连续变量。与使用连续评分相比，使用临界点对治疗变化的预测性较低。根据既往评分调整后，增加治疗的患者与未增加治疗的患者之间SLEDAI-2000评分变化的平均差异为2.64（95% CI 2.16，3.14）。结论.定义活动性疾病的适当SLEDAI-2000评分为3或4。SLEDAI-2000指数变化敏感。建议使用SLEDAI-2000作为连续结果，以进行比较。
Objectives. To examine SLEDAI-2000 cut-off scores for definition of active SLE and to determine the sensitivity to change of SLEDAI-2000 for the assessment of SLE disease activity and minimal clinically meaningful changes in score. 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.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Schisterman, EF;Perkins, NJ;Bondell, H
通讯作者：
Bondell, H
影响因子：
--
作者：
PETRI, M;GENOVESE, M;HOCHBERG, M
通讯作者：
HOCHBERG, M
影响因子：
7.2
作者：
Chang, E;Abrahamowicz, M;Fortin, PR
通讯作者：
Fortin, PR
影响因子：
--
作者：
BOMBARDIER, C;GLADMAN, DD;CHANG, CH
通讯作者：
CHANG, CH
影响因子：
1.9
作者：
Williams, RL
通讯作者：
Williams, RL