Objective The Systemic Lupus Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) revised and validated the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) SLE classification criteria in order to improve clinical relevance, meet stringent methodology requirements and incorporate new knowledge in SLE immunology. Methods The classification criteria were derived from a set of 702 expert-rated patient scenarios. Recursive partitioning was used to derive an initial rule that was simplified and refined based on SLICC physician consensus. SLICC validated the classification criteria in a new validation sample of 690 SLE patients and controls. Results Seventeen criteria were identified. The SLICC criteria for SLE classification requires: 1) Fulfillment of at least four criteria, with at least one clinical criterion AND one immunologic criterion OR 2) Lupus nephritis as the sole clinical criterion in the presence of ANA or anti-dsDNA antibodies. In the derivation set, the SLICC classification criteria resulted in fewer misclassifications than the current ACR classification criteria (49 versus 70, p=0.0082), had greater sensitivity (94% versus 86%, p<0.0001) and equal specificity (92% versus 93%, p=0.39). In the validation set, the SLICC Classification criteria resulted in fewer misclassifications (62 versus 74, p=0.24), had greater sensitivity (97% versus 83%, p<0.0001) but less specificity (84% versus 96%, p<0.0001). Conclusions The new SLICC classification criteria performed well on a large set of patient scenarios rated by experts. They require that at least one clinical criterion and one immunologic criterion be present for a classification of SLE. Biopsy confirmed nephritis compatible with lupus (in the presence of SLE autoantibodies) is sufficient for classification.

Objective To develop and validate new classification criteria for adult and juvenile idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) and their major subgroups. Methods Candidate variables were assembled from published criteria and expert opinion using consensus methodology. Data were collected from 47 rheumatology, dermatology, neurology and pediatric clinics worldwide. Several statistical methods were utilized to derive the classification criteria. Results Based on data from 976 IIM patients (74% adults; 26% children) and 624 non-IIM patients with mimicking conditions (82% adults; 18% children) new criteria were derived. Each item is assigned a weighted score. The total score corresponds to a probability of having IIM. Sub-classification is performed using a classification tree. A probability cutoff of 55%, corresponding to a score of 5.5 (6.7 with muscle biopsy) “probable IIM”, had best sensitivity/specificity (87%/82% without biopsies, 93%/88% with biopsies) and is recommended as a minimum to classify a patient as having IIM. A probability of ≥90%, corresponding to a score of ≥7.5 (≥8.7 with muscle biopsy), corresponds to “definite IIM”. A probability of <50%, corresponding to a score of <5.3 (<6.5 with muscle biopsy) rules out IIM, leaving a probability of ≥50 to <55% as “possible IIM”. Conclusions The EULAR/ACR classification criteria for IIM have been endorsed by international rheumatology, dermatology, neurology and pediatric groups. They employ easily accessible and operationally defined elements, and have been partially validated. They allow classification of “definite”, “probable”, and “possible” IIM, in addition to the major subgroups of IIM, including juvenile IIM. They generally perform better than existing criteria.

ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of anifrolumab, a type I interferon (IFN) receptor antagonist, in a phase IIb, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study of adults with moderate‐to‐severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).MethodsPatients (n = 305) were randomized to receive intravenous anifrolumab (300 mg or 1,000 mg) or placebo, in addition to standard therapy, every 4 weeks for 48 weeks. Randomization was stratified by SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 score (<10 or ≥10), oral corticosteroid dosage (<10 or ≥10 mg/day), and type I IFN gene signature test status (high or low) based on a 4‐gene expression assay. The primary end point was the percentage of patients achieving an SLE Responder Index (SRI[4]) response at week 24 with sustained reduction of oral corticosteroids (<10 mg/day and less than or equal to the dose at week 1 from week 12 through 24). Other end points (including SRI[4], British Isles Lupus Assessment Group [BILAG]–based Composite Lupus Assessment [BICLA], modified SRI[6], and major clinical response) were assessed at week 52. The primary end point was analyzed in the modified intent‐to‐treat (ITT) population and type I IFN–high subpopulation. The study result was considered positive if the primary end point was met in either of the 2 study populations. The Type I error rate was controlled at 0.10 (2‐sided), within each of the 2 study populations for the primary end point analysis.ResultsThe primary end point was met by more patients treated with anifrolumab (34.3% of 99 for 300 mg and 28.8% of 104 for 1,000 mg) than placebo (17.6% of 102) (P = 0.014 for 300 mg and P = 0.063 for 1,000 mg, versus placebo), with greater effect size in patients with a high IFN signature at baseline (13.2% in placebo‐treated patients versus 36.0% [P = 0.004] and 28.2% [P = 0.029]) in patients treated with anifrolumab 300 mg and 1,000 mg, respectively. At week 52, patients treated with anifrolumab achieved greater responses in SRI(4) (40.2% versus 62.6% [P < 0.001] and 53.8% [P = 0.043] with placebo, anifrolumab 300 mg, and anifrolumab 1,000 mg, respectively), BICLA (25.7% versus 53.5% [P < 0.001] and 41.2% [P = 0.018], respectively), modified SRI(6) (28.4% versus 49.5% [P = 0.002] and 44.7% [P = 0.015], respectively), major clinical response (BILAG 2004 C or better in all organ domains from week 24 through week 52) (6.9% versus 19.2% [P = 0.012] and 17.3% [P = 0.025], respectively), and several other global and organ‐specific end points. Herpes zoster was more frequent in the anifrolumab‐treated patients (2.0% with placebo treatment versus 5.1% and 9.5% with anifrolumab 300 mg and 1,000 mg, respectively), as were cases reported as influenza (2.0% versus 6.1% and 7.6%, respectively), in the anifrolumab treatment groups. Incidence of serious adverse events was similar between groups (18.8% versus 16.2% and 17.1%, respectively).ConclusionAnifrolumab substantially reduced disease activity compared with placebo across multiple clinical end points in the patients with moderate‐to‐severe SLE.

Our scientific knowledge of pemphigus has dramatically progressed in recent years. However, despite the availability of various therapeutic options for the treatment of inflammatory diseases, only a few multicenter controlled trials have helped to define effective therapies in pemphigus. A major obstacle in comparing therapeutic outcomes between centers is the lack of generally accepted definitions and measurements for the clinical evaluation of pemphigus patients. Common terms and endpoints of pemphigus are needed so that experts in the field can accurately measure and assess disease extent, activity, severity, and therapeutic response, and thus facilitate and advance clinical trials This consensus statement from the International Pemphigus Committee represents two years of collaborative efforts to attain mutually acceptable common definitions for pemphigus. These should assist in development of consistent reporting of outcomes in future studies.

We developed and validated a measurement instrument (CLASI-Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index) for lupus erythematosus that could be used in clinical trials. The instrument has separate scores for damage and activity. A group of seven American Dermato-Rheumatologists and the "American College of Rheumatology Response Criteria Committee on SLE (systemic lupus erythematosus)" assessed content validity. After a preliminary session, we conducted standardized interviews with the raters and made slight changes to the instrument. The final instrument was evaluated by five dermatologists and six residents who scored nine patients to estimate inter- and intra-rater reliability in two sessions. Consultation with experts has established content validity of the instrument. Reliability studies demonstrated an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for inter-rater reliability of 0.86 for the activity score (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.73-0.99) and of 0.92 for the damage score (95% CI = 0.85-1.00). The Spearman's rho (Sp) for intra-rater reliability for the activity score was 0.96 (95% CI = 0.89 to 1.00) and for the damage score Sp was 0.99 (95% CI = 0.97-1.00). Clinical responsiveness needs to be evaluated in a prospective clinical trial, which is ongoing.

Objective To develop and validate new classification criteria for adult and juvenile idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) and their major subgroups. Methods Candidate variables were assembled from published criteria and expert opinion using consensus methodology. Data were collected from 47 rheumatology, dermatology, neurology and pediatric clinics worldwide. Several statistical methods were utilized to derive the classification criteria. Results Based on data from 976 IIM patients (74% adults; 26% children) and 624 non-IIM patients with mimicking conditions (82% adults; 18% children) new criteria were derived. Each item is assigned a weighted score. The total score corresponds to a probability of having IIM. Sub-classification is performed using a classification tree. A probability cutoff of 55%, corresponding to a score of 5.5 (6.7 with muscle biopsy) “probable IIM”, had best sensitivity/specificity (87%/82% without biopsies, 93%/88% with biopsies) and is recommended as a minimum to classify a patient as having IIM. A probability of ≥90%, corresponding to a score of ≥7.5 (≥8.7 with muscle biopsy), corresponds to “definite IIM”. A probability of <50%, corresponding to a score of <5.3 (<6.5 with muscle biopsy) rules out IIM, leaving a probability of ≥50 to <55% as “possible IIM”. Conclusions The EULAR/ACR classification criteria for IIM have been endorsed by international rheumatology, dermatology, neurology and pediatric groups. They employ easily accessible and operationally defined elements, and have been partially validated. They allow classification of “definite”, “probable”, and “possible” IIM, in addition to the major subgroups of IIM, including juvenile IIM. They generally perform better than existing criteria.

We present here the recommendations resulting from this Delphi process. This international consensus includes intravenous CD20 inhibitors as a first line therapy option for moderate to severe pemphigus.

Our scientific knowledge of bullous pemphigoid (BP) has dramatically progressed in recent years. However, despite the availability of various therapeutic options for the treatment of inflammatory diseases, only a few multicenter controlled trials have helped to define effective therapies in BP. A major obstacle in sharing multicenter-based evidences for therapeutic efforts is the lack of generally accepted definitions for the clinical evaluation of patients with BP. Common terms and end points of BP are needed so that experts in the field can accurately measure and assess disease extent, activity, severity, and therapeutic response, and thus facilitate and advance clinical trials. These recommendations from the International Pemphigoid Committee represent 2 years of collaborative efforts to attain mutually acceptable common definitions for BP and proposes a disease extent score, the BP Disease Area Index. These items should assist in the development of consistent reporting of outcomes in future BP reports and studies.