Highlights • These consensus criteria update the 2003 diagnostic criteria for RLS/WED. • A new essential criterion, differential diagnosis, improves diagnostic specificity. • The clinical significance of RLS/WED is determined by a new specifier. • A course specifier classifies RLS/WED as chronic-persistent or intermittent. • The pediatric diagnostic criteria have been merged with the adult criteria.
Summary In the past 8 years, both the International Working Group (IWG) and the US National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer's Association have contributed criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) that better define clinical phenotypes and integrate biomarkers into the diagnostic process, covering the full staging of the disease. This Position Paper considers the strengths and limitations of the IWG research diagnostic criteria and proposes advances to improve the diagnostic framework. On the basis of these refinements, the diagnosis of AD can be simplified, requiring the presence of an appropriate clinical AD phenotype (typical or atypical) and a pathophysiological biomarker consistent with the presence of Alzheimer's pathology. We propose that downstream topographical biomarkers of the disease, such as volumetric MRI and fluorodeoxyglucose PET, might better serve in the measurement and monitoring of the course of disease. This paper also elaborates on the specific diagnostic criteria for atypical forms of AD, for mixed AD, and for the preclinical states of AD.
Abstract For solid tumours, quantitative analysis of [18 F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with integrated computed tomography potentially can have significant value in early response assessment and thereby discrimination between responders and non-responders at an early stage of treatment. Standardised strategies for this analysis have been proposed, and the positron emission tomography response criteria in solid tumours (PERCIST) criteria can be regarded as the current standard to perform quantitative analysis in a research setting, yet is not implemented in daily practice. However, several exceptions and limitations limit the feasibility of PERCIST criteria. In this article, we point out dilemmas that arise when applying proposed criteria like PERCIST on an expansive set of patients with metastasised solid tumours. Clinicians and scientists should be aware of these limitations to prevent that methodological issues impede successful introduction of research data into clinical practice. Therefore, to deliver on the high potential of quantitative imaging, consensus should be reached on a standardised, feasible and clinically useful analysis methodology. This methodology should be applicable in the majority of patients, tumour types and treatments.
Objectives To validate the previously proposed classification criteria for Henoch–Schönlein purpura (HSP), childhood polyarteritis nodosa (c-PAN), c-Wegener granulomatosis (c-WG) and c-Takayasu arteritis (c-TA). Methods Step 1: retrospective/prospective web-data collection for children with HSP, c-PAN, c-WG and c-TA with age at diagnosis ≤18 years. Step 2: blinded classification by consensus panel of a representative sample of 280 cases. Step 3: statistical (sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve and κ-agreement) and nominal group technique consensus evaluations. Results 827 patients with HSP, 150 with c-PAN, 60 with c-WG, 87 with c-TA and 52 with c-other were compared with each other. A patient was classified as HSP in the presence of purpura or petechiae (mandatory) with lower limb predominance plus one of four criteria: (1) abdominal pain; (2) histopathology (IgA); (3) arthritis or arthralgia; (4) renal involvement. Classification of c-PAN required a systemic inflammatory disease with evidence of necrotising vasculitis OR angiographic abnormalities of medium-/small-sized arteries (mandatory criterion) plus one of five criteria: (1) skin involvement; (2) myalgia/muscle tenderness; (3) hypertension; (4) peripheral neuropathy; (5) renal involvement. Classification of c-WG required three of six criteria: (1) histopathological evidence of granulomatous inflammation; (2) upper airway involvement; (3) laryngo-tracheo-bronchial involvement; (4) pulmonary involvement (x-ray/CT); (5) antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody positivity; (6) renal involvement. Classification of c-TA required typical angiographic abnormalities of the aorta or its main branches and pulmonary arteries (mandatory criterion) plus one of five criteria: (1) pulse deficit or claudication; (2) blood pressure discrepancy in any limb; (3) bruits; (4) hypertension; (5) elevated acute phase reactant. Conclusion European League Against Rheumatism/Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation/Paediatric Rheumatology European Society propose validated classification criteria for HSP, c-PAN, c-WG and c-TA with high sensitivity/specificity.
Summary The NINCDS–ADRDA and the DSM-IV-TR criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are the prevailing diagnostic standards in research; however, they have now fallen behind the unprecedented growth of scientific knowledge. Distinctive and reliable biomarkers of AD are now available through structural MRI, molecular neuroimaging with PET, and cerebrospinal fluid analyses. This progress provides the impetus for our proposal of revised diagnostic criteria for AD. Our framework was developed to capture both the earliest stages, before full-blown dementia, as well as the full spectrum of the illness. These new criteria are centred on a clinical core of early and significant episodic memory impairment. They stipulate that there must also be at least one or more abnormal biomarkers among structural neuroimaging with MRI, molecular neuroimaging with PET, and cerebrospinal fluid analysis of amyloid β or tau proteins. The timeliness of these criteria is highlighted by the many drugs in development that are directed at changing pathogenesis, particularly at the production and clearance of amyloid β as well as at the hyperphosphorylation state of tau. Validation studies in existing and prospective cohorts are needed to advance these criteria and optimise their sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy.
Objectives To develop and validate an international set of classification criteria for primary Sjögren's syndrome (SS) using guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR). These criteria were developed for use in individuals with signs and/or symptoms suggestive of SS. Methods We assigned preliminary importance weights to a consensus list of candidate criteria items, using multi-criteria decision analysis. We tested and adapted the resulting draft criteria using existing cohort data on primary SS cases and non-SS controls, with case/noncase status derived from expert clinical judgement. We then validated the performance of the classification criteria in a separate cohort of patients. Results The final classification criteria are based on the weighted sum of five items: anti-SSA/Ro antibody positivity and focal lymphocytic sialadenitis with a focus score of ≥1 foci/4 mm2, each scoring 3; an abnormal Ocular Staining Score of ≥5 (or van Bijsterveld score of ≥4), a Schirmer's test result of ≤5 mm/5 min and an unstimulated salivary flow rate of ≤0.1 mL/min, each scoring 1. Individuals with signs and/or symptoms suggestive of SS who have a total score of ≥4 for the above items meet the criteria for primary SS. Sensitivity and specificity against clinician-expert-derived case/non-case status in the final validation cohort were high, that is, 96% (95% CI92% to 98%) and 95% (95% CI 92% to 97%), respectively. Conclusion Using methodology consistent with other recent ACR/EULAR-approved classification criteria, we developed a single set of data-driven consensus classification criteria for primary SS, which performed well in validation analyses and are well suited as criteria for enrolment in clinical trials.
Abstract Objective To compare the performance of the American–European Consensus Group (AECG) and the newly proposed American College of Rheumatology (ACR) classification criteria for Sjögren's Syndrome (SS) in a well-characterised sicca cohort, given ongoing efforts to resolve discrepancies and weaknesses in the systems. Methods In a multidisciplinary clinic for the evaluation of sicca, we assessed features of salivary and lacrimal gland dysfunction and autoimmunity as defined by tests of both AECG and ACR criteria in 646 participants. Global gene expression profiles were compared in a subset of 180 participants. Results Application of the AECG and ACR criteria resulted in classification of 279 and 268 participants with SS, respectively. Both criteria were met by 244 participants (81%). In 26 of the 35 AECG+/ACR participants, the minor salivary gland biopsy focal score was ≥1 (74%), while nine had positive anti-Ro/La (26%). There were 24 AECG−/ACR+ who met ACR criteria mainly due to differences in the scoring of corneal staining. All patients with SS, regardless of classification, had similar gene expression profiles, which were distinct from the healthy controls. Conclusions The two sets of classification criteria yield concordant results in the majority of cases and gene expression profiling suggests that patients meeting either set of criteria are more similar to other SS participants than to healthy controls. Thus, there is no clear evidence for increased value of the new ACR criteria over the old AECG criteria from the clinical or biological perspective. It is our contention, supported by this report, that improvements in diagnostic acumen will require a more fundamental understanding of the pathogenic mechanisms than is at present available.
Classification criteria for Sjogren's syndrome (SS) were developed and validated between 1989 and 1996 by the European Study Group on Classification Criteria for SS, and broadly accepted. These have been re-examined by consensus group members, who have introduced some modifications, more clearly defined the rules for classifying patients with primary or secondary SS, and provided more precise exclusion criteria.
Current IASP diagnostic criteria for CRPS have low specificity, potentially leading to overdiagnosis. This validation study compared current IASP diagnostic criteria for CRPS to proposed new diagnostic criteria (the “Budapest Criteria”) regarding diagnostic accuracy. Structured evaluations of CRPS-related signs and symptoms were conducted in 113 CRPS-I and 47 non-CRPS neuropathic pain patients. Discriminating between diagnostic groups based on presence of signs or symptoms meeting IASP criteria showed high diagnostic sensitivity (1.00), but poor specificity (0.41), replicating prior work. In comparison, the Budapest clinical criteria retained the exceptional sensitivity of the IASP criteria (0.99), but greatly improved upon the specificity (0.68). As designed, the Budapest research criteria resulted in the highest specificity (0.79), again replicating prior work. Analyses indicated that inclusion of four distinct CRPS components in the Budapest Criteria contributed to enhanced specificity. Overall, results corroborate the validity of the Budapest Criteria and suggest they improve upon existing IASP diagnostic criteria for CRPS.