A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio in systemic lupus erythematosus.

The wide range of clinical and serological manifestations in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and the lack of accepted diagnostic criteria warrant the identification of novel, more accurate biomarkers. Hematological indices derived from full blood cell counts, particularly the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), have shown promise in SLE; however, a critical appraisal of their diagnostic accuracy is lacking. We sought to address this issue by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of the NLR and PLR in SLE. The electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception to 15 March 2024 for studies reporting the sensitivity and specificity of the NLR and PLR, obtained by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, for the presence of SLE, disease severity, organ involvement (lupus nephritis, pericarditis, and pleural disease), and complications (infections). The risk of bias was assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024531446). The NLR exhibited good accuracy for the diagnosis of SLE (eight studies; area under the curve, AUC = 0.81, 95% CI 0.78-0.85) and lupus nephritis (nine studies; AUC = 0.81, 95% CI 0.77-0.84), but not for severe disease (nine studies; AUC = 0.69, 95% CI 0.65-0.73) or infections (six studies; AUC = 0.73, 95% CI 0.69-0.77). The PLR exhibited good accuracy for the diagnosis of severe disease (six studies; AUC = 0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.87). There were an insufficient number of studies to assess the accuracy of the PLR for the diagnosis of SLE, lupus nephritis, or infections. No study investigated the NLR and PLR in SLE patients with pericarditis or pleural disease. Therefore, the NLR and the PLR have a relatively high diagnostic accuracy for the presence of SLE and lupus nephritis (NLR) and severe disease (PLR). Further studies are warranted to determine whether the NLR and PLR, in combination with clinical evaluation and other serological biomarkers, can enhance the diagnosis and management of SLE.

Zinellu A ，Paliogiannis P ，Mangoni AA 《-》

Diagnostic accuracy of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Existing challenges with the early diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and active disease, mainly by non-rheumatologists, have prompted the search for novel biomarkers. Elevations in indices derived from blood cell counts, e.g., the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), have been reported in RA patients. However, their diagnostic accuracy has not been comprehensively assessed. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting the sensitivity and specificity of the NLR and PLR, obtained by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, for the presence of RA and active disease. We searched electronic databases from inception to 15 March 2024 and assessed the risk of bias using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024533546). In 15 studies, the NLR exhibited acceptable accuracy for the presence of RA (area under the curve, AUC = 0.76, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.80) and active disease (AUC = 0.70, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.74). The PLR exhibited good accuracy for the presence of RA (AUC = 0.80, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.83). There were insufficient studies to assess the accuracy of the PLR for the presence of active disease. Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that the NLR and the PLR are promising biomarkers of RA (NLR and PLR) and active disease (NLR). Further research is required to investigate whether the NLR and PLR can significantly enhance the capacity to diagnose RA and active disease in clinical practice.

Mangoni AA ，Zinellu A 《-》

Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio as a biomarker of systemic inflammation in systemic lupus erythematosus: A meta-analysis and systematic review.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Additionally, the study aimed to establish an association between PLR and SLE disease activity, specifically lupus nephritis (LN). We conducted a comprehensive search across Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases to identify relevant articles. Subsequently, we performed meta-analyses to compare PLR between SLE patients and controls, as well as active and inactive SLE cases, along with LN and non-LN groups. Furthermore, a meta-analysis was conducted on correlation coefficients between PLR and various parameters in SLE patients, including the SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI), C3, C4, anti-dsDNA, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and C-reactive protein (CRP). In total, fifteen studies comprising 1,522 SLE patients and 1,424 controls were eligible for inclusion. The meta-analysis demonstrated a significant elevation of PLR in the SLE group compared to the control group (Standardized Mean Difference [SMD] = 0.604, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 0.299-0.909, p < 0.001). Upon stratification by ethnicity, an elevated PLR was observed in the SLE group among both Asian and Arab populations. Subgroup analysis based on sample size revealed consistently higher PLR in both small (n < 200) and large sample (n ≥ 200) SLE groups. Moreover, when considering disease activity, there was a noteworthy trend of increased PLR in the active disease group compared to the inactive group (SMD = 0.553, 95% CI = 0.000-1.106, p = 0.050). However, the meta-analysis did not demonstrate a significant distinction in PLR between the LN and non-LN groups. Notably, a positive association was established between PLR and SLEDAI (correlation coefficient = 0.325, 95% CI = 0.176-0.459, p < 0.001). Furthermore, PLR exhibited positive correlations with ESR, CRP, proteinuria, C3, and anti-dsDNA antibody levels. The outcomes of this meta-analysis underscored the elevated PLR in SLE patients, suggesting its potential as a biomarker for gauging systemic inflammation in SLE. Additionally, PLR exhibited correlations with SLEDAI, as well as with key indicators such as ESR, CRP, proteinuria, C3, and anti-dsDNA antibody levels.

Lee YH ，Song GG 《PLoS One》

Defining the optimum strategy for identifying adults and children with coeliac disease: systematic review and economic modelling.

Elwenspoek MM ，Thom H ，Sheppard AL ，Keeney E ，O'Donnell R ，Jackson J ，Roadevin C ，Dawson S ，Lane D ，Stubbs J ，Everitt H ，Watson JC ，Hay AD ，Gillett P ，Robins G ，Jones HE ，Mallett S ，Whiting PF ... -  《-》

The vascular endothelial growth factor as a candidate biomarker of systemic lupus erythematosus: a GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis.

There is an ongoing search for novel biomarkers of endothelial damage, active disease, and organ dysfunction in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). We investigated the role of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) as a candidate biomarker by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies examining VEGF concentrations in SLE patients and healthy controls. We searched electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) from inception to 31 May 2024 (inclusion criteria: VEGF measurement in SLE patients and healthy controls and SLE patients with and without active disease or specific organ dysfunction in case-control studies, recruitment of adult participants, and availability of the full text in the English language; exclusion criteria: non-case-control studies, participants under 18 years, articles reporting duplicate or irrelevant data, and animal studies). We assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of evidence using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist and GRADE, respectively (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024561636). Circulating VEGF concentrations were significantly higher in SLE patients than in controls (22 studies; standardised mean difference, SMD = 0.71, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.98, p < 0.001; low certainty of evidence). In SLE patients, VEGF concentrations were significantly higher in those with active disease (six studies; SMD = 1.10, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.92, p = 0.009; very low certainty of evidence) and lupus nephritis (four studies; SMD = 0.80, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.57, p = 0.042; very low certainty of evidence). Only one study reported VEGF concentrations in SLE patients with and without pulmonary arterial hypertension. The effect size of the differences in VEGF concentrations between SLE patients and controls was not associated with disease duration, use of glucocorticoids and immunosuppressors, biological matrix assessed, or analytical method used. However, it was significantly associated with the study's geographical location. The evidence was limited by the high but partially explainable heterogeneity and the presence of publication bias which was addressed with the "trim-and-fill" method (SLE presence), the high but partially explainable heterogeneity and lack of assessment of publication bias because of the limited study number (active disease), and the limited study number preventing the identification of sources of heterogeneity, sensitivity analysis, and assessment of publication bias (lupus nephritis). Our results highlight VEGF's potential role as a SLE biomarker and the need for further research, also given the aforementioned limitations, investigating VEGF concentrations in a wide range of SLE patient subgroups.

Mangoni AA ，Zinellu A 《-》