Internal Medicine Department, Hospital El Bierzo, Ponferrada, Leon, Spain.
Internal Medicine Department, Hospital Universitario Río Hortega (HURH), Calle Dulzaina, 2, 47012, Valladolid, Spain.
Rheumatol Int. 2020 Feb;40(2):303-311. doi: 10.1007/s00296-019-04406-5. Epub 2019 Aug 5.
The different sets of criteria for diagnosis or classification of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis (AAV) lead to numerous overlapping and reclassified diagnoses in clinical practice. We designed this study to assess the difficulties in classifying patients with AAV. As a secondary objective, different variables were tested to predict prognosis. We conducted a retrospective chart review in a Western Spain multicentre survey. A total of 115 adult patients diagnosed with AAV from 2002 to 2013 and followed for at least 3 years were included. They were classified according to (1) Chapel Hill Consensus Conference (CHCC), (2) European Medicines Agency algorithm and (3) French Vasculitis Study Group/European Vasculitis Society phenotypes. Fifty-three patients (46%) had neither distinctive histopathological data of a single AAV definition nor any surrogate markers for granulomatous inflammation and thus did not fulfill any diagnostic criteria. Ocular, ear, nose, throat, skin, and lung involvement were more frequent with proteinase 3 (PR3) antibodies, whereas peripheral neuropathy was more frequent with myeloperoxidase (MPO) antibodies. When the disease was severe at diagnosis, the HR for mortality was 10.44. When induction treatment was not given in accordance with the guidelines, the HR for mortality was 4.00. For maintenance treatment, the HR was 5.49 for mortality and 2.48 for relapse. AAV classification is difficult because many patients had neither specific clinical data nor distinctive histological features of a single CHCC definition. A structured clinical assessment of patient severity is the best tool to guide the management of AAV.
抗中性粒细胞胞质抗体相关性血管炎(AAV)的诊断或分类标准不同,导致临床实践中存在许多重叠和重新分类的诊断。我们设计本研究旨在评估对 AAV 患者进行分类的困难。作为次要目标,测试了不同变量来预测预后。我们在西班牙西部的一项多中心调查中进行了回顾性图表审查。共纳入 115 例 2002 年至 2013 年诊断为 AAV 的成年患者,随访时间至少 3 年。根据(1)Chapel Hill 共识会议(CHCC)、(2)欧洲药品管理局算法和(3)法国血管炎研究组/欧洲血管炎学会表型对其进行分类。53 例患者(46%)既没有单一 AAV 定义的特征性组织病理学数据,也没有任何粒细胞炎症的替代标志物,因此不符合任何诊断标准。蛋白酶 3(PR3)抗体与眼部、耳部、鼻部、喉咙、皮肤和肺部受累更为常见,而髓过氧化物酶(MPO)抗体与周围神经病更为常见。诊断时疾病严重时,死亡率的 HR 为 10.44。未根据指南给予诱导治疗时,死亡率的 HR 为 4.00。对于维持治疗,死亡率的 HR 为 5.49,复发的 HR 为 2.48。AAV 分类困难,因为许多患者既没有特定的临床数据,也没有单一 CHCC 定义的特征性组织学特征。对患者严重程度进行结构化临床评估是指导 AAV 管理的最佳工具。