Objectives To describe short-term (up to 12 months) and long-term (up to 7 years) damage in patients with newly diagnosed antineutrophil-cytoplasm antibodyassociated vasculitis (AAV). Methods Data were combined from six European Vasculitis Study group trials (n=735). Long-term followup (LTFU) data available for patients from four trials (n=535). Damage accrued was quantified by the Vasculitis Damage Index (VDI). Sixteen damage items were defined a priori as being potentially treatmentrelated. Results VDI data were available for 629 of 735 patients (85.6%) at baseline, at which time 217/629 (34.5%) had ≥1 item of damage and 32 (5.1%) ≥5 items, reflecting disease manifestations prior to diagnosis and trial enrolment. LTFU data were available for 467/535 (87.3%) at a mean of 7.3 years postdiagnosis. 302/535 patients (56.4%) had VDI data at LTFU, with 104/302 (34.4%) having ≥5 items and only 24 (7.9%) no items of damage. At 6 months and LTFU, the most frequent items were proteinuria, impaired glomerular filtration rate, hypertension, nasal crusting, hearing loss and peripheral neuropathy. The frequency of damage, including potentially treatment-related damage, rose over time ( p<0.01). At LTFU, the most commonly reported items of treatment-related damage were hypertension (41.5%; 95% CI 35.6 to 47.4%), osteoporosis (14.1%; 9.9 to 18.2%), malignancy (12.6%; 8.6 to 16.6%), and diabetes (10.4%; 6.7 to 14.0%). Conclusions In AAV, renal, otolaryngological and treatment-related (cardiovascular, disease, diabetes, osteoporosis and malignancy) damage increases over time, with around one-third of patients having ≥5 items of damage at a mean of 7 years postdiagnosis.
ObjectiveTo develop and validate revised classification criteria for eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA).MethodsPatients with vasculitis or comparator diseases were recruited into an international cohort. The study proceeded in five 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.ResultsThe 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/L (+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 haematuria (−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% CI 77% to 91%) and the specificity was 99% (95% CI 98% to 100%).ConclusionThe 2022 American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology Classification Criteria for Eosinophilic Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis demonstrate strong performance characteristics and are validated for use in research.
ObjectiveTo develop and validate revised classification criteria for granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA).MethodsPatients with vasculitis or comparator diseases were recruited into an international cohort. The study proceeded in five 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.ResultsThe 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 /L (−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% CI 87% to 96%) and the specificity was 94% (95% CI 89% to 97%).ConclusionThe 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.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.