TY - JOUR
T1 - Development of the 2023 ACR/EULAR Antiphospholipid Syndrome Classification Criteria, Phase III-D Report
T2 - Multicriteria Decision Analysis
AU - the ACR/EULAR APS Classification Criteria Collaborators
AU - Barbhaiya, Medha
AU - Zuily, Stephane
AU - Amigo, Mary Carmen
AU - Andrade, Danieli
AU - Avcin, Tadej
AU - Bertolaccini, Maria Laura
AU - Branch, D. Ware
AU - Costedoat-Chalumeau, Nathalie
AU - Crowther, Mark
AU - Ramires de Jesus, Guilherme
AU - Devreese, Katrien M.J.
AU - Frances, Camille
AU - Garcia, David
AU - Gómez-Puerta, Jose A.
AU - Guillemin, Francis
AU - Levine, Steven R.
AU - Levy, Roger A.
AU - Lockshin, Michael D.
AU - Ortel, Thomas L.
AU - Petri, Michelle
AU - Sanna, Giovanni
AU - Sciascia, Savino
AU - Seshan, Surya V.
AU - Tektonidou, Maria G.
AU - Wahl, Denis
AU - Willis, Rohan
AU - Yelnik, Cecile
AU - Hendry, Alison
AU - Naden, Ray
AU - Costenbader, Karen
AU - Erkan, Doruk
AU - Agmon-Levin, Nancy
AU - Aguilar, Cassyanne
AU - Alba, Paula
AU - Alpan, Oral
AU - Ambrozic, Ales
AU - Andrade, Luis
AU - Appenzeller, Simone
AU - Berkun, Yackov
AU - Cabral, Antonio
AU - Canaud, Guillame
AU - Chen, Pojen
AU - Chighizola, Cecilia
AU - Cimaz, Rolando
AU - Cuadrado, Maria Jose
AU - de Groot, Philip G.
AU - de Moerloose, Philippe
AU - Derksen, Ronald
AU - Dörner, Thomas
AU - Kenet, Gili
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 American College of Rheumatology.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Objective: The 2023 American College of Rheumatology/EULAR antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria development, which aimed to identify patients with high likelihood of APS for research, employed a four-phase methodology. Phase I and II resulted in 27 proposed candidate criteria, which are organized into laboratory and clinical domains. Here, we summarize the last stage of phase III efforts, employing a consensus-based multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to weigh candidate criteria and identify an APS classification threshold score. Methods: We evaluated 192 unique, international real-world patients referred for “suspected APS” with a wide range of APS manifestations. Using proposed candidate criteria, subcommittee members rank ordered 20 representative patients from highly unlikely to highly likely to have APS. During an in-person meeting, the subcommittee refined definitions and participated in an MCDA exercise to identify relative weights of candidate criteria. Using consensus decisions and pairwise criteria comparisons, 1000Minds software assigned criteria weights, and we rank ordered 192 patients by their additive scores. A consensus-based threshold score for APS classification was set. Results: Premeeting evaluation of 20 representative patients demonstrated variability in APS assessment. MCDA resolved 81 pairwise decisions; relative weights identified domain item hierarchy. After assessing 192 patients by weights and additive scores, the Steering Committee reached consensus that APS classification should require separate clinical and laboratory scores, rather than a single-aggregate score, to ensure high specificity. Conclusion: Using MCDA, candidate criteria preliminary weights were determined. Unlike other disease classification systems using a single-aggregate threshold score, separate clinical and laboratory domain thresholds were incorporated into the new APS classification criteria.
AB - Objective: The 2023 American College of Rheumatology/EULAR antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria development, which aimed to identify patients with high likelihood of APS for research, employed a four-phase methodology. Phase I and II resulted in 27 proposed candidate criteria, which are organized into laboratory and clinical domains. Here, we summarize the last stage of phase III efforts, employing a consensus-based multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to weigh candidate criteria and identify an APS classification threshold score. Methods: We evaluated 192 unique, international real-world patients referred for “suspected APS” with a wide range of APS manifestations. Using proposed candidate criteria, subcommittee members rank ordered 20 representative patients from highly unlikely to highly likely to have APS. During an in-person meeting, the subcommittee refined definitions and participated in an MCDA exercise to identify relative weights of candidate criteria. Using consensus decisions and pairwise criteria comparisons, 1000Minds software assigned criteria weights, and we rank ordered 192 patients by their additive scores. A consensus-based threshold score for APS classification was set. Results: Premeeting evaluation of 20 representative patients demonstrated variability in APS assessment. MCDA resolved 81 pairwise decisions; relative weights identified domain item hierarchy. After assessing 192 patients by weights and additive scores, the Steering Committee reached consensus that APS classification should require separate clinical and laboratory scores, rather than a single-aggregate score, to ensure high specificity. Conclusion: Using MCDA, candidate criteria preliminary weights were determined. Unlike other disease classification systems using a single-aggregate threshold score, separate clinical and laboratory domain thresholds were incorporated into the new APS classification criteria.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85205323058&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/acr.25415
DO - 10.1002/acr.25415
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
C2 - 39135467
AN - SCOPUS:85205323058
SN - 2151-464X
JO - Arthritis Care and Research
JF - Arthritis Care and Research
ER -