April Barnado

Objective: Late-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (LO-SLE) is defined as SLE diagnosed at age 50 years or later. Current studies on LO-SLE are small and have conflicting results. Methods: Using a large, electronic health record (EHR)-based cohort of SLE individuals, we compared demographics, disease characteristics, SLE-specific antibodies, and medication prescribing practices in LO ( n = 123) vs. NLO-SLE ( n = 402) individuals. Results: The median age (interquartile range) at SLE diagnosis was 60 (56–67) years for LO-SLE and 28 (20–38) years for NLO-SLE. Both groups were predominantly female (85% vs. 91%, p = 0.10). LO-SLE individuals were more likely to be White than NLO-SLE individuals (74% vs. 60%, p = 0.005) and less likely to have positive dsDNA (39% vs. 58%, p = 0.001) and RNP (17% vs. 32%, p = 0.02) with no differences in Smith, SSA, and SSB. Autoantibody positivity declined with increasing age at SLE diagnosis. LO-SLE individuals were less likely to develop SLE nephritis (9% vs. 29%, p < 0.001) and less likely to be prescribed multiple classes of SLE medications including antimalarials (90% vs. 95%, p = 0.04), azathioprine (17% vs. 31%, p = 0.002), mycophenolate mofetil (12% vs. 38%, p < 0.001), and belimumab (2% vs. 8%, p = 0.02). Conclusion: LO-SLE individuals may be less likely to fit an expected course for SLE with less frequent positive autoantibodies at diagnosis and lower rates of nephritis, even after adjusting for race. Understanding how age impacts SLE disease presentation could help reduce diagnostic delays in SLE.

Objective Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) poses diagnostic challenges. We undertook this study to evaluate the utility of a phenotype risk score (PheRS) and a genetic risk score (GRS) to identify SLE individuals in a real‐world setting. Methods Using a de‐identified electronic health record (EHR) database with an associated DNA biobank, we identified 789 SLE cases and 2,261 controls with available MEGA EX genotyping. A PheRS for SLE was developed using billing codes that captured American College of Rheumatology SLE criteria. We developed a GRS with 58 SLE risk single‐nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Results SLE cases had a significantly higher PheRS (mean ± SD 7.7 ± 8.0 versus 0.8 ± 2.0 in controls; P < 0.001) and GRS (mean ± SD 12.2 ± 2.3 versus 11.0 ± 2.0 in controls; P < 0.001). Black individuals with SLE had a higher PheRS compared to White individuals (mean ± SD 10.0 ± 10.1 versus 7.1 ± 7.2, respectively; P = 0.002) but a lower GRS (mean ± SD 9.0 ± 1.4 versus 12.3 ± 1.7, respectively; P < 0.001). Models predicting SLE that used only the PheRS had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.87. Adding the GRS to the PheRS resulted in a minimal difference with an AUC of 0.89. On chart review, controls with the highest PheRS and GRS had undiagnosed SLE. Conclusion We developed a SLE PheRS to identify established and undiagnosed SLE individuals. A SLE GRS using known risk SNPs did not add value beyond the PheRS and was of limited utility in Black individuals with SLE. More work is needed to understand the genetic risks of SLE in diverse populations.