To determine the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) of validated measures of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) disease activity in childhood-onset SLE.
To determine the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) of validated measures of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) disease activity in childhood-onset SLE.
Childhood-onset SLE patients (n = 98) were followed every 3 months for up to 7 visits (n = 623 total visits). Disease activity measures (European Consensus Lupus Activity Measure, Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index, Systemic Lupus Activity Measure, British Isles Lupus Assessment Group, and Responder Index for Lupus Erythematosus [RIFLE]) were completed at the time of each visit. Physician-rated changes in the disease course (clinically relevant improvement, no change, clinically relevant worsening) between visits served as the criterion standard.
MCIDs defined by mean change scores with improvement and worsening, or those based on the standard error of measurement with stable disease, were both small and did not discriminate well between disease courses (detection rates for improvement or worsening were all <55%). MCIDs based on discriminant and classification analyses yielded similar results. Alternative MCIDs, defined by a 70% predicted probability of improvement or worsening as per the discrimination analysis, were larger but underestimated the proportion of patients with change. The RIFLE only correctly identified 26% and 8% of episodes of clinically important worsening and improvement of childhood-onset SLE, respectively.
The MCIDs of childhood-onset SLE disease activity measures are often small but similar to those reported for adults with SLE. Therefore, even small changes in disease activity scores can be clinically relevant. Low correct detection rates of these MCID thresholds for changes in disease course support the notion that worsening and improvement with childhood-onset SLE, or its response to therapy, is unlikely to be captured adequately by validated measures of disease activity alone.
Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a complex, chronic multisystem autoimmune inflammatory disease that targets young women and men (1, 2). The up to 20% of SLE patients who are diagnosed during childhood, i.e., prior to age 16 years, tend to experience a more severe disease course than those with disease onset later in life (3–5). Various measures of global disease activity have been developed for SLE in adults and subsequent validation confirmed that these indices have concurrent validity for measuring disease activity of childhood-onset SLE (6–8). These consist of the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) (9), the Systemic Lupus Activity Measure (SLAM) (10), the European Consensus Lupus Activity Measurement (ECLAM) (11), and the British Isles Lupus Activity Group (BILAG) Index (12). Conversely, the Responder Index for Lupus Erythematosus (RIFLE) was developed specifically to define treatment response, i.e., clinically meaningful change in SLE over time (13), but has not been used in childhood-onset SLE.
The concept of a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was introduced by Jaeschke et al, who defined the MCID as “the smallest difference in a score of a disease measure of interest that patients perceive as beneficial and that would mandate, in the absence of side-effects, a change in the patient's management” (14). Since then, the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials group has explored the concept of MCIDs in depth (15, 16). There are different types of MCIDs, depending on whether improvement or worsening is considered and what external standard is employed. MCIDs constitute threshold values for clinically relevant change, i.e., special features of the responsiveness to change of a disease activity index. Any amount of change greater than the MCID threshold can be considered clinically meaningful or important, whereas any change score smaller than the MCID, irrespective of statistical significance, is clinically irrelevant.
Various statistical approaches have been suggested to calculate the MCID for an outcome measure (17). In addition to determining the MCID itself, it is also of interest to assess how well an index can discriminate patients in whom a clinically important change has occurred from others.
The objective of this study was to determine the MCIDs of validated measures of disease activity when used in childhood-onset SLE from a physician's and parent's perspective, using previously proposed statistical methods. We also wished to assess the ability of the disease activity indices to identify patients in whom a clinically relevant change of childhood-onset SLE has occurred and to study the usefulness of the RIFLE for capturing clinically relevant change in childhood-onset SLE.
Children (n = 98) fulfilling the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) classification criteria for SLE (2) were recruited at 7 pediatric rheumatology centers and studied every 3 months for up to 18 months. Disease activity and change in the course of childhood-onset SLE were measured at each study visit.
In addition to the SLAM (10), SLEDAI (9), and ECLAM (11), the BILAG Index (12, 18) was completed. To convert the alphabetical domain scores of the BILAG Index to numerical childhood-onset SLE activity scores, 3 alternative schemes were considered, as suggested by Gladman et al (A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1, and E = 0) (19), Liang et al (A = 10, B = 6.7, C = 3.3, D = 0, and E = 0) (10), and Stoll et al (A = 9, B = 3, C = 1, D = 0, and E = 0) (20). None of these schemes has been well validated in childhood-onset SLE or SLE. For all of the abovementioned disease activity indices, a score of 0 reflects inactive disease.
The RIFLE is a 60-item questionnaire to measure change of disease activity using a 5-point Likert scale: not present, partial response, complete response, present, or worsening (13, 21). It has been suggested that clinically important worsening of SLE is present if there are at least 3 RIFLE items with “worsening” conditions; similarly, clinically important improvement occurs when there are at least 4 RIFLE items with “partial response” and/or “resolution” conditions. This tool has not yet been validated for use in childhood-onset SLE.
The managing pediatric rheumatology professional completed a visual analog scale (VASMD; where 0 = inactive and 10 = very active) presented with the sentence stem: “Considering the findings at today's visit, the overall disease activity of the patient is (Please circle the number that appears most appropriate).” All of the raters underwent detailed and repeated training in completing the abovementioned disease activity measures.
In response to the sentence stem, “Compared to the last study visit three months ago and the patient's overall disease, the patient experienced a…,” the managing pediatric rheumatology professional rated the change in the disease course between consecutive visits on a 5-point Likert scale as follows: major flare of disease, minor flare of disease, no change in disease, minor improvement of disease, or major improvement of disease. All pediatric rheumatology professionals who provided the above ratings for the course of childhood-onset SLE, i.e., information about the external standard used for this validation exercise, were board certified or board eligible and, on average, see 20 patients with childhood-onset SLE per week in their academic center and have a 10-year experience in treating childhood-onset SLE.
In the secondary analysis, we assessed how the scores of the disease activity indices changed with the course of childhood-onset SLE as reflected by the family's perspective. Therefore, the parent rated the change of their child's disease on a 5-point Likert scale (much worse, somewhat worse, unchanged, somewhat improved, or much improved) that was presented with the sentence stem: “Compared to the last study visit three months ago, and when considering medications, school, work, life at home, doctor visits, pains and feelings the overall well-being is … .”
Various approaches to assessing a measure's MCID have been proposed (22, 23). After review of the medical literature, we considered statistics that appeared to be most commonly employed to measure MCIDs: first, we used mixed models in longitudinal analyses that considered that each patient had up to 7 study visits, and the mean score change with improvement of disease activity was determined by assessing the changes in scores of the disease indices in patients who were rated either as showing “minor improvement” or “major improvement.” Similarly, the mean score change with worsening of disease activity considered changes of the scores of the disease indices in patients who were rated as having a “minor flare” or “major flare,” respectively. When assessing for significant differences in change scores between groups (here: clinically relevant improvement, no change in disease, or clinically relevant worsening), P values were corrected under the mixed-model framework using a Tukey procedure. A random effect was used, i.e., patients were introduced in the mixed-effects model to account for within-patient correlation caused by the repeated measurement.
Alternatively, the MCID can be defined based on the standard error of measurement (SEM) of changes in the disease activity scores with stable disease, i.e., patients rated as having “no change in disease” between consecutive visits; the MCID is then based on the so-called one-SEM criterion proposed by Wyrwich et al (24, 25). As done in the past, the SEM was defined as the square root of the within-episodes mean square error variance (calculated from an analysis of variance model), using both episodes (nested in patients) and visits as fixed effects and accounting for within-patient (or between-episodes) correlation using a generalized estimating equation method in computation (26). Besides the traditional MCID thresholds at ±1 SEM (or, equivalently, the 63% confidence interval [63% CI]), we explored alternative MCID thresholds at ±1.645 SEM (or, equivalently, the 90% confidence interval [90% CI]). Furthermore, to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the MCID with clinically important improvement, we calculated the detection rate, i.e., the proportion of correctly identified episodes of improvement among the total episodes of improvement (as per the criterion standard), for each disease index. Accordingly, the detection rates with clinically worsening or stable disease courses were calculated.
In a third approach to determining the MCID, each disease activity measure was assessed for its ability to discriminate between the disease courses (improved versus no change versus worsening) using classification and discrimination modeling (27). Linearized discrimination functions were done to calculate predicted probabilities for clinically important improvement, no change in disease, and clinically important worsening of disease for a given change score of the disease activity measure under the classification and discrimination model framework.
Similar to what has been suggested by the ACR Ad Hoc Committee on SLE Response Criteria (26), clinically relevant changes of indices may be defined as the change score of disease activity measures with a 70%, 80%, or 90% predicted probability of an event to have occurred (here: clinically relevant improvement or clinically relevant worsening), i.e., each observation is assigned a probability of belonging to a given group based on the distance of its discriminant function from that of each class mean.
We also calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) to assess chance-corrected agreement of the activity measures' change scores with stable courses (28), using a similar approach as detailed above.
For the RIFLE, kappa statistics were calculated to assess its agreement with the criterion standards. Like kappa coefficients, ICC values can be interpreted as follows: ICCs <0.4 = poor agreement, ICCs ≥0.4 to 0.75 = fair to good agreement, and ICCs ≥0.75 = excellent agreement (28).
In the secondary analysis, the analysis detailed above was repeated, using the parents' ratings of the patients' changes in well-being between visits (instead of the physician's assessment of childhood-onset SLE disease course) as the criterion standard for determining the MCIDs of the SLE disease activity measures. All of the analyses were done using SAS software, version 9.2 (SAS Institute). P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
The study was approved by the institutional review boards of the participating pediatric rheumatology centers. Informed consent was obtained from all of the parents and, as appropriate, assent was given by the participants prior to the study procedures.
The demographics and disease features of the patients with childhood-onset SLE are summarized in Table 1. Data from a total of 623 visits (or 526 between-visit intervals) of 98 children were available for analysis. There were 39 patients with biopsy-proven lupus nephritis. As per the managing pediatric rheumatology professionals, the courses of childhood-onset SLE between consecutive study visits consisted of 89 episodes of clinically relevant worsening (12 major worsening, 77 minor worsening), 348 episodes of stable disease between visits, and 89 episodes of improvement (14 major improvements, 75 minor improvements).
|Parameter||N||Mean ± SD|
|Age, years||98||15.3 ± 2.85|
|Disease duration, years||98||1.5 ± 2.0|
|Prednisone, mg/day||82||15.1 ± 1.8|
|Azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, methotrexate||47|
|Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs||24|
|At least 1 antihypertensive medication||38|
|Biopsy-proven lupus nephritis†||39|
|Disease damage: SDI score‡||98||0.42 ± 0.1|
|Physician assessment of overall disease activity (VASMD)§||98||2.5 ± 1.95|
|SLAM||7.64 ± 6.01|
|SLEDAI||5.18 ± 4.35|
|Stoll et al BILAG Index||5.31 ± 5.44|
|Liang et al BILAG Index||11.8 ± 8.81|
|Gladman et al BILAG Index||8.7 ± 3.57|
|ECLAM||1.85 ± 1.75|
From the families' perspectives, there were 59 episodes of worsening of well-being (9 major worsening, 50 minor worsening), 253 episodes of stable well-being, and 202 episodes of improved well-being (108 minor improvements, 94 major improvements). For 12 between-visit intervals, no family ratings were available.
Between-visit changes of the VASMD and the scores of the disease indices are summarized in Table 2. Despite statistical significance, but irrespective of the index, the mean change scores were all small and close to the smallest possible difference in score, which is 1 for each of these tools. Therefore, increases of the ECLAM scores as small as 1 appeared to be clinically relevant, whereas for the Liang et al BILAG Index, increases of 3 could be considered as clinically important. With clinically relevant improvement of childhood-onset SLE, decreases in the scores of the disease activity indices were somewhat larger.
|Change in core set variables||Worsening (n = 89 episodes)||No change (n = 348 episodes)||Improvement (n = 89 episodes)||Worsening vs. no change†||Worsening vs. improvement†||No change vs. improvement†|
|Physician-rated change in childhood-onset SLE course|
|VASMD||1.23 ± 0.12||−0.18 ± 0.06||−1.01 ± 0.12||< 0.001||< 0.001||< 0.001|
|ECLAM||0.97 ± 0.16||0.02 ± 0.08||−1.12 ± 0.16||< 0.001||< 0.001||< 0.001|
|SLEDAI||1.56 ± 0.33||−0.09 ± 0.17||−2.27 ± 0.33||< 0.001||< 0.001||< 0.001|
|SLAM||1.78 ± 0.76||−0.01 ± 0.38||−1.78 ± 0.78||< 0.1||< 0.01||NS|
|Liang et al BILAG Index||3.23 ± 0.70||−0.62 ± 0.35||−4.61 ± 0.70||< 0.001||< 0.001||< 0.001|
|Gladman et al BILAG Index||1.18 ± 0.23||−0.08 ± 0.12||−1.22 ± 0.23||< 0.001||< 0.001||< 0.001|
|Stoll et al BILAG Index||1.85 ± 0.39||−0.35 ± 0.20||−2.79 ± 0.39||< 0.001||< 0.001||< 0.001|
|Parent-rated change in patient well-being|
|VASMD||0.42 ± 0.18||−0.03 ± 0.09||−0.24 ± 0.09||< 0.1||< 0.01||NS|
|ECLAM||0.65 ± 0.22||0.03 ± 0.10||−0.25 ± 0.11||< 0.05||< 0.001||NS|
|SLEDAI||1.04 ± 0.45||−0.03 ± 0.21||−0.66 ± 0.23||< 0.1||< 0.01||NS|
|SLAM||1.83 ± 0.98||−0.29 ± 0.46||−0.04 ± 0.50||NS||NS||NS|
|Liang et al BILAG Index||2.98 ± 0.93||−0.34 ± 0.44||−1.81 ± 0.47||< 0.01||< 0.001||< 0.1|
|Gladman et al BILAG Index||1.22 ± 0.30||0.02 ± 0.14||−0.43 ± 0.15||< 0.01||< 0.001||< 0.1|
|Stoll et al BILAG Index||1.53 ± 0.53||−0.29 ± 0.25||−0.97 ± 0.27||< 0.01||< 0.001||NS|
Disease measures most often remained unchanged, with disease courses rated as “no change in disease” by the managing pediatric rheumatology professional (Table 2). Chance-corrected agreement of change score of activity index with a stable disease course was “excellent” for the VASMD (ICC 0.76) and “good” for all other disease indices (all ICCs ≥0.47) (Table 3).
|Disease activity measure||ICC†||MCID definition‡||MCID for clinically important improvement||MCID for clinically important worsening||Detection rate for clinically important improvement, %§||Detection rate for no change, %||Detection rate for clinically important worsening, %||Overall correct detection rate of all childhood-onset SLE courses, %|
|VASMD||0.76||63% CI of SEM||−0.7||+0.7||71||61||65||63|
|90% CI of SEM||−1.2||+1.2||29||90||35||71|
|ECLAM||0.47||63% CI of SEM||−0.9||+0.9||49||51||55||52|
|90% CI of SEM||−1.5||+1.5||38||75||39||63|
|SLEDAI||0.63||63% CI of SEM||−1.9||+1.9||58||52||45||52|
|90% CI of SEM||−3.1||+3.1||31||77||33||62|
|SLAM||0.57||63% CI of SEM||−3.8||+3.8||29||74||36||60|
|90% CI of SEM||−6.3||+6.3||18||84||17||62|
|Liang et al BILAG Index||0.62||63% CI of SEM||−4.2||+4.2||40||72||40||61|
|90% CI of SEM||−6.9||+6.9||30||86||21||66|
|Gladman et al BILAG Index||0.77||63% CI of SEM||−1.4||+1.4||40||70||40||60|
|90% CI of SEM||−2.3||+2.3||30||84||29||66|
|Stoll et al BILAG Index||0.58||63% CI of SEM||−2.0||+2.0||51||65||49||60|
|90% CI of SEM||−3.3||+3.3||34||86||27||67|
Alternatively, as is shown in Table 3, the MCID can be based on the one-SEM criterion, assuming that important improvement or worsening has occurred if the change score exceeds −1 SEM or +1 SEM, respectively. We also tested a more stringent MCID definition, i.e., the 90% CI around the mean change score or ±1.645 SEM (Table 3). As is reflected by the respective detection rates, the tighter the confidence interval limit was set, the more accurately patients with a stable disease course could be discriminated from those who experienced clinically relevant change (Figure 1), but this occurred at the expense of decreased rates of correctly identified patients with clinically relevant change in disease (Table 3).
For example, when setting the MCID value of the SLEDAI to the one-SEM (63% CI) boundary, only 56% of the patients with a stable disease course would be correctly classified, whereas at the 90% CI mark, 77% of the patients with “no change in disease” would be correctly identified as having a stable disease course. However, the 90% CI mark for defining the MCID would have greatly underestimated the frequency of patients in whom change truly had occurred.
Of note, detection rates using the 63% CI thresholds (one-SEM criterion) were again small and quite similar to those using the mean change scores as shown in Table 2.
The discrimination and classification analysis provides cutoff values of disease change scores that best discriminate the 3 groups of patients (worsening, no change, and improvement). Such cutoff values could be considered as alternative MCID thresholds. The MCID cutoff values (detection rates) for physician-rated worsening and improvement, respectively, were at +0.6 (65%) and −0.5 (71%) for the VASMD, +0.6 (64%) and −0.5 (49%) for the ECLAM, +1.2 (48%) and −0.9 (58%) for the SLEDAI, +0.9 (57%) and −0.9 (57%) for the SLAM, +2.6 (55%) and −1.3 (61%) for the Liang et al BILAG Index, +0.7 (56%) and −0.6 (60%) for the Gladman et al BILAG Index, and +1.6 (60%) and −0.8 (52%) for the Stoll et al BILAG Index. Irrespective of the measure of disease activity considered, none of the MCID cutoffs determined by this statistical approach correctly classified >64% of all of the episodes of the 3 disease courses. Figure 2A depicts the representative results of these analyses for the VASMD and the SLEDAI.
|Liang et al BILAG Index||−14||−19||−28|
|Gladman et al BILAG Index||−5||−7||−10|
|Stoll et al BILAG Index||−8||−11||−14|
|Liang et al BILAG Index||+13||+19||+27|
|Gladman et al BILAG Index||+5||+6||+9|
|Stoll et al BILAG Index||+7||+10||+15|
Of note, MCID thresholds defined by discrimination and classification analysis were somewhat smaller but again similar to those defined by the one-SEM criterion and comparable with those using the mean change scores for defining the MCID.
It has been suggested (26) that clinically relevant change in disease activity indices may be defined based on a certain desired probability to correctly detect patients with change of disease. The results of such analyses for predicted probabilities of 70–90% for improvement and worsening of childhood-onset SLE, as would be predicted by discrimination analysis and the physician-rated change in childhood-onset SLE as an external standard, are summarized in Table 4 and Figure 2.
Clinically relevant changes in disease indices defined by such high predicted probabilities were much larger than the MCID defined by any of the other approaches to estimating the MCID.
When considering the ratings of the families (external standard: parent's rating of change of the patient's well-being), the mean change scores of the disease measures were often even smaller than when physician ratings of change in childhood-onset SLE were used as an external standard.
MCIDs defined by the one-SEM criterion for the 63% CI were as follows: VASMD at ±0.7, ECLAM at ±0.9, SLEDAI at ±1.9, SLAM at ±3.8, Liang et al BILAG Index at ±4.2, Gladman et al BILAG Index at ±1.4, and Stoll et al BILAG Index at ±3.3.
Using discrimination and classification analysis, the MCID cutoffs (detection rates) that discriminated best between the groups of patients with different disease courses were as follows for worsening and improvement, respectively: +0.2 (42%) and −0.1 (37%) for the VASMD, +0.1 (55%) and −0.2 (44%) for the ECLAM, +0.4 (40%) and −0.2 (42%) for the SLEDAI, +0.2 (16%) and −0.9 (63%) for the SLAM, +1.1 (53%) and −0.6 (44%) for the Liang et al BILAG Index, +0.2 (58%) and −0.4 (44%) for the Gladman et al BILAG Index, and +0.6 (55%) and −0.3 (45%) for the Stoll et al BILAG Index. This is shown for the VASMD or the SLEDAI in Figure 2B. Families often rated the patients' well-being as unchanged even when large changes in the VASMD and the SLEDAI had occurred. Regardless of the activity measure considered, none of the MCID cutoffs using this statistical approach were able to correctly classify >47% of all of the episodes of the 3 disease courses.
For reaching a 70% predicted probability of clinically important worsening of well-being to have occurred, the VASMD had to have increased by 5.2, the ECLAM by 6, the SLEDAI by 13, the SLAM by 4, the Liang et al BILAG Index by 20, the Gladman et al BILAG Index by 6, and the Stoll et al BILAG Index by 12.
Similarly, for achieving 70% predicted probabilities of patients whose well-being importantly improved, the respective MCID thresholds were at −8.2 for the VASMD, at −9 for the ECLAM, at −18 for the SLEDAI, at −5 for the SLAM, at −32 for the Liang et al BILAG Index, at −10 for the Gladman et al BILAG Index, and at −21 for the Stoll et al BILAG Index.
The RIFLE correctly identified 26% and 8% of the episodes of disease worsening and disease improvement, respectively. The kappa coefficient ± standard error of the RIFLE was only 0.06 ± 0.02. Alternative criteria for defining improvement or worsening (instead of clinically relevant worsening: “worsening” of at least 3 RIFLE items; clinically important improvement: “partial response” and/or “resolution” occurring in 4 or more RIFLE items) did not improve the accuracy of the RIFLE for capturing childhood-onset SLE disease courses (data not shown).
The MCIDs, i.e., the smallest changes of measures that have clinical relevance for disease activity indices in childhood-onset SLE, are much sought after but difficult to ascertain. Differences smaller than the MCIDs are regarded as clinically irrelevant, irrespective of whether the difference is statistically significant or not (23). In the world of statistics, a significant difference is simply a difference that is unlikely to have occurred by chance and has a mathematical basis for such a claim. In the realm of health care, a difference may be statistically significant based on a simple numerical value, yet may at the same time be of little or no importance to the health or quality of life of the patients.
There is not a single generally accepted mathematical approach to calculating the MCID. We present various alternative strategies to determining the MCIDs for disease activity measures using previously proposed statistical approaches. Irrespective of the global disease activity index considered, the methodologic approach chosen, and statistical significance, the MCIDs of the disease activity indices in childhood-onset SLE were often very small, confirming previous observations in adults with SLE (29, 30). This means that in childhood-onset SLE, even small changes in disease activity may be clinically relevant. Such small MCIDs of disease activity measures are problematic because they bear the risk of erroneously classifying a patient as having improved or worsened by an important amount when, in fact, no such clinically relevant change has occurred. Because groups of patients with clinically relevant differences in childhood-onset SLE disease courses cannot be well separated using the MCID thresholds, changes in disease activity indices alone appear unlikely to suffice for correctly approximating childhood-onset SLE courses. Therefore, similar to SLE in adults, clinically relevant improvement and worsening of childhood-onset SLE can unlikely be defined based on changes in the scores of the tested disease activity indices alone (31, 32).
More generous MCID thresholds set at the level of 70% predicted probability for detecting patients with clinically relevant change in childhood-onset SLE (improved or worse) were similar to those proposed for adults with SLE (26).
Increasing the MCID thresholds of these high predicted probability rates occurs at the expense of sensitivity, i.e., will result in a large number of patients whose disease has truly worsened or improved to be rated as having experienced no change in their disease course. This again supports the notion that clinically relevant changes in the course of childhood-onset SLE may not be adequately captured solely by the disease activity indices assessed in this study.
When considering the families' perspectives of the course of childhood-onset SLE, the above is also true. Using the MCIDs as cutoff values, disease activity indices appeared even less suited to discriminate patients whose well-being had improved from those where it had remained unchanged or even worsened. Of note, this was true irrespective as to whether the disease index under consideration included items that account for patient symptoms (instead of only objectively measurable childhood-onset SLE signs).
We do not think that errors in completing the disease activity tools were the basis for the small MCID values determined in this study because all of the participating investigators were repeatedly trained to complete the disease activity indices.
It is noteworthy that the MCID thresholds based on the mean change scores, the one-SEM criterion, and the discriminant analysis were all quite similar, supporting the validity of our findings. Moreover, additional data (laboratory values, physical examination, and patient symptom reports) were collected to allow for data-driven confirmation of the disease activity scores provided, and our findings were in line with those seen in adults with SLE (26, 30).
Based on our study, the RIFLE appears to be less useful for the assessment of childhood-onset SLE than for SLE. Additional studies will be necessary to explore in more depth why the RIFLE did not perform as well in children, as would have been expected based on previous studies in adults with SLE (33).
This study has to be interpreted in light of certain limitations. As has been done by others (26, 30), we used the physician's and the parent's, rather than the patient's, assessment of change in childhood-onset SLE as the criterion standard for defining the MCID. Because of the complexity of the underlying construct, expert opinion may differ widely as to whether important improvement or worsening of childhood-onset SLE has occurred or not (33). We did not consider alternative criterion standards such as change in therapy or prednisone doses because medication change reflects the physician's perception of the patient's change in disease activity. Prior research suggests that pediatric rheumatologists, similar to adult rheumatologists, differ widely in their treatments of childhood-onset SLE and SLE (34, 35). Moreover, the inclusion of episodes of major changes in disease, rather than only of minor improvement or worsening of childhood-onset SLE, might have led to an overestimation of the MCID, which would not have changed the conclusions of this study.
In this study, using various statistical approaches, we found the MCIDs of the SLEDAI, SLAM, ECLAM, and BILAG Index for clinically important improvement or worsening of childhood-onset SLE to be small, suggesting that even small changes in their scores can have clinical relevance. Based on the commonly used SEM approach to estimating MCIDs, increases or decreases of the ECLAM score by 1, the SLEDAI, Stoll et al BILAG Index, or Gladman et al BILAG Index by 2, the SLAM by 4, or the Liang et al BILAG Index by 5 can be clinically significant. More generous MCID thresholds based on predicted probabilities using discriminant and classification analysis bear the risk of both underestimating the response to therapy and the occurrence of flares in children with childhood-onset SLE.
All authors were involved in drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content, and all authors approved the final version to be submitted for publication. Dr. Brunner had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Study conception and design. Brunner, Ying.
Acquisition of data. Brunner, Higgins, Klein-Gitelman, Lapidus, Olson, Onel, Punaro.
Analysis and interpretation of data. Brunner, Ying, Giannini.
We acknowledge the following investigators for data collection: Drs. Robert Colbert, T. Brent Graham, Murray Passo, Thomas Griffin, Alexi Grom, and Daniel Lovell (Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio); Dr. Robert Rennebohm (Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio); Dr. Linda Wagner-Weiner (University of Chicago Comer Children's Hospital, Chicago, Illinois); Shirley Henry, PNP (Texas Scottish Rite Hospital, Dallas, Texas); and Drs. James Nocton and Calvin Williams and Elizabeth Roth-Wojicki, PNP (Medical College of Wisconsin and Children's Research Institute, Milwaukee, Wisconsin). We also acknowledge the following people: Shannen Nelson (study coordinating), Jamie Meyers-Eaton (site coordinator), Lukasz Itert (database management), Kristina Wiers (data collection), and Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Biomedical Informatics (Web-based data management application development; Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio); Becky Puplava (site coordinator; University of Chicago Comer Children's Hospital, Chicago, Illinois); Dina Blair (site coordinator; Children's Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois); Marsha Malloy (data collection and site coordinator), Jeremy Zimmermann, Joshua Kapfhamer, and Noshaba Khan (data collection; Medical College of Wisconsin and Children's Research Institute, Milwaukee, Wisconsin); and Drs. AnneMarie Brescia and Carlos Rosé (Alfred I. DuPont Hospital for Children, Wilmington, Delaware).