Lachenbruch, Peter A.

Objective To describe the methodology used to develop new classification criteria for adult and juvenile idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) and their major subgroups. Methods An international, multidisciplinary group of myositis experts produced a set of 93 potentially relevant variables to be tested for inclusion in the criteria. Rheumatology, dermatology, neurology and paediatric clinics worldwide collected data on 976 IIM cases (74% adults, 26% children) and 624 non-IIM comparator cases with mimicking conditions (82% adults, 18% children). The participating clinicians classified each case as IIM or non-IIM. Generally, the classification of any given patient was based on few variables, leaving remaining variables unmeasured. We investigated the strength of the association between all variables and between these and the disease status as determined by the physician. We considered three approaches: (1) a probability-score approach, (2) a sum-of-items approach criteria and (3) a classification-tree approach. Results The approaches yielded several candidate models that were scrutinised with respect to statistical performance and clinical relevance. The probability-score approach showed superior statistical performance and clinical practicability and was therefore preferred over the others. We developed a classification tree for subclassification of patients with IIM. A calculator for electronic devices, such as computers and smartphones, facilitates the use of the European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology (EULAR/ACR) classification criteria. Conclusions The new EULAR/ACR classification criteria provide a patient’s probability of having IIM for use in clinical and research settings. The probability is based on a score obtained by summing the weights associated with a set of criteria items.

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. Subclassification 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–<55% as “possible IIM.” Conclusion The European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology (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 develop response criteria for adult dermatomyositis (DM) and polymyositis (PM).MethodsExpert surveys, logistic regression, and conjoint analysis were used to develop 287 definitions using core set measures. Myositis experts rated greater improvement among multiple pairwise scenarios in conjoint analysis surveys, where different levels of improvement in 2 core set measures were presented. The PAPRIKA (Potentially All Pairwise Rankings of All Possible Alternatives) method determined the relative weights of core set measures and conjoint analysis definitions. The performance characteristics of the definitions were evaluated on patient profiles using expert consensus (gold standard) and were validated using data from a clinical trial. The nominal group technique was used to reach consensus.ResultsConsensus was reached for a conjoint analysis–based continuous model using absolute percent change in core set measures (physician, patient, and extramuscular global activity, muscle strength, Health Assessment Questionnaire, and muscle enzyme levels). A total improvement score (range 0–100), determined by summing scores for each core set measure, was based on improvement in and relative weight of each core set measure. Thresholds for minimal, moderate, and major improvement were ≥20, ≥40, and ≥60 points in the total improvement score. The same criteria were chosen for juvenile DM, with different improvement thresholds. Sensitivity and specificity in DM/PM patient cohorts were 85% and 92%, 90% and 96%, and 92% and 98% for minimal, moderate, and major improvement, respectively. Definitions were validated in the clinical trial analysis for differentiating the physician rating of improvement (P < 0.001).ConclusionThe response criteria for adult DM/PM consisted of the conjoint analysis model based on absolute percent change in 6 core set measures, with thresholds for minimal, moderate, and major improvement.