rss
Ann Rheum Dis 2008;67:873-876 doi:10.1136/ard.2007.070847
  • Extended report

BILAG-2004 index captures systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity better than SLEDAI-2000

  1. C-S Yee1,
  2. D A Isenberg2,
  3. A Prabu1,
  4. K Sokoll3,
  5. L-S Teh4,
  6. A Rahman2,
  7. I N Bruce5,
  8. B Griffiths6,
  9. M Akil7,
  10. N McHugh8,
  11. D D’Cruz9,
  12. M A Khamashta9,
  13. P Maddison10,
  14. A Zoma11,
  15. C Gordon1
  1. 1
    University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
  2. 2
    University College London, London, UK
  3. 3
    University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
  4. 4
    Royal Blackburn Hospital, Blackburn, UK
  5. 5
    University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  6. 6
    Freeman Hospital, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
  7. 7
    Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Sheffield, UK
  8. 8
    Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases NHS Trust, Bath, UK
  9. 9
    St Thomas’ Hospital, London, UK
  10. 10
    University of Wales, Bangor, UK
  11. 11
    Hairmyres Hospital, Lanarkshire, UK
  1. Dr Chee-Seng Yee, Clinical Research Fellow, Department of Rheumatology, Division of Immunity and Infection, The Medical School (East Wing), University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK; csyee{at}blueyonder.co.uk
  • Accepted 17 May 2007
  • Published Online First 22 May 2007

Abstract

Objective: To assess the reliability of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI)-2000 index in routine practice and its ability to capture disease activity as compared with the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG)-2004 index.

Methods: Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus from 11 centres were assessed separately by two raters in routine practice. Disease activity was assessed using the BILAG-2004 and SLEDAI-2000 indices. The level of agreement for items was used to assess the reliability of SLEDAI-2000. The ability to detect disease activity was assessed by determining the number of patients with a high activity on BILAG-2004 (overall score A or B) but low SLEDAI-2000 score (<6) and number of patients with low activity on BILAG-2004 (overall score C, D or E) but high SLEDAI-2000 score (≥6). Treatment of these patients was analysed, and the increase in treatment was used as the gold standard for active disease.

Results: 93 patients (90.3% women, 69.9% Caucasian) were studied: mean age was 43.8 years, mean disease duration 10 years. There were 43 patients (46.2%) with a difference in SLEDAI-2000 score between the two raters and this difference was ≥4 in 19 patients (20.4%). Agreement for each of the items in SLEDAI-2000 was between 81.7 and 100%. 35 patients (37.6%) had high activity on BILAG-2004 but a low SLEDAI-2000 score, of which 48.6% had treatment increased. There were only five patients (5.4%) with low activity on BILAG-2004 but a high SLEDAI-2000 score.

Conclusions: SLEDAI-2000 is a reliable index to assess systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity but it is less able than the BILAG-2004 index to detect active disease requiring increased treatment.

Footnotes

  • Funding: AP was funded by an unrestricted educational grant from Actelion Pharmaceuticals. CG received consulting fees and/or honoraria from Bristol Meyer Squibb, Genentech, Immunomedics, Roche, UCB Pharma and Aspreva.

  • Competing interests: None.

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF
  4. All versions of this article:
    1. ard.2007.070847v1
    2. 67/6/873 most recent

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.