Suppr超能文献

与SLEDAI - 2000相比,BILAG - 2004指数能更好地反映系统性红斑狼疮的疾病活动情况。

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

作者信息

Yee C-S, Isenberg D A, Prabu A, Sokoll K, Teh L-S, Rahman A, Bruce I N, Griffiths B, Akil M, McHugh N, D'Cruz D, Khamashta M A, Maddison P, Zoma A, Gordon C

机构信息

Department of Rheumatology, Division of Immunity and Infection, The Medical School (East Wing), University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.

出版信息

Ann Rheum Dis. 2008 Jun;67(6):873-6. doi: 10.1136/ard.2007.070847. Epub 2007 May 22.

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 (>or=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 >or=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.

摘要

目的

评估系统性红斑狼疮疾病活动指数(SLEDAI)-2000在常规临床实践中的可靠性,以及与不列颠群岛狼疮评估组(BILAG)-2004指数相比其捕捉疾病活动的能力。

方法

来自11个中心的系统性红斑狼疮患者在常规临床实践中由两名评估者分别进行评估。使用BILAG-2004和SLEDAI-2000指数评估疾病活动。通过项目的一致性水平评估SLEDAI-2000的可靠性。通过确定BILAG-2004评估为高活动度(总体评分A或B)但SLEDAI-2000评分低(<6)的患者数量,以及BILAG-2004评估为低活动度(总体评分C、D或E)但SLEDAI-2000评分高(≥6)的患者数量,来评估检测疾病活动的能力。分析这些患者的治疗情况,并将治疗增加作为活动性疾病的金标准。

结果

研究了93例患者(90.3%为女性,69.9%为白种人):平均年龄43.8岁,平均病程10年。43例患者(46.2%)两名评估者的SLEDAI-2000评分存在差异,其中19例患者(20.4%)差异≥4。SLEDAI-2000各项目的一致性在81.7%至100%之间。35例患者(37.6%)BILAG-2004评估为高活动度但SLEDAI-2000评分低,其中48.6%的患者治疗增加。只有5例患者(5.4%)BILAG-2004评估为低活动度但SLEDAI-2000评分高。

结论

SLEDAI-2000是评估系统性红斑狼疮疾病活动的可靠指标,但在检测需要增加治疗的活动性疾病方面,其能力不如BILAG-2004指数。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验