James F. Fries

Bio: James F. Fries is an academic researcher from Stanford University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Rheumatoid arthritis & Arthritis. The author has an hindex of 100, co-authored 369 publications receiving 83589 citations. Previous affiliations of James F. Fries include University of Saskatchewan & National Institutes of Health.

A "state model" of renal function in systemic lupus erythematosus: its value in the prediction of outcome in 292 patients.

Abstract: We defined a clinical staging of renal function in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) which uses inexpensive outpatient measures to serially stage patient status and then analyzed the disease course of 292 patients followed since 1968. The 4 mutually exclusive states used were (1) normal (creatinine less than 1.2 mg/dl and protein less than 2+ on dipstick); (2) proteinuria alone (creatinine less than 1.2 mg/dl and protein greater than or equal to 2+ on dipstick); (3) moderate filtration dysfunction (creatinine greater than or equal to 1.2 mg/dl and less than 4.0 mg/dl); and (4) severe azotemia (creatinine greater than or equal to 4.0 mg/dl). Duration in each state and subsequent transitions were incorporated in an assessment of outcome. Prognostic variables were found which predicted different outcomes within each of the 4 states. This stratification, based on renal function over time, provides a useful analytical tool for comparing subsets of patients with lupus. We found that serum complement (C3) predicted progression in state 1 and 2 as well as potential responders to therapy in state 3. No improvement was noted for patients in state 4.

The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis.

Abstract: The revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were formulated from a computerized analysis of 262 contemporary, consecutively studied patients with RA and 262 control subjects with rheumatic diseases other than RA (non-RA). The new criteria are as follows: 1) morning stiffness in and around joints lasting at least 1 hour before maximal improvement; 2) soft tissue swelling (arthritis) of 3 or more joint areas observed by a physician; 3) swelling (arthritis) of the proximal interphalangeal, metacarpophalangeal, or wrist joints; 4) symmetric swelling (arthritis); 5) rheumatoid nodules; 6) the presence of rheumatoid factor; and 7) radiographic erosions and/or periarticular osteopenia in hand and/or wrist joints. Criteria 1 through 4 must have been present for at least 6 weeks. Rheumatoid arthritis is defined by the presence of 4 or more criteria, and no further qualifications (classic, definite, or probable) or list of exclusions are required. In addition, a "classification tree" schema is presented which performs equally as well as the traditional (4 of 7) format. The new criteria demonstrated 91-94% sensitivity and 89% specificity for RA when compared with non-RA rheumatic disease control subjects.

The 1982 revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus

Abstract: The 1971 preliminary criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) were revised and updated to incorporate new immunologic knowledge and improve disease classification. The 1982 revised criteria include fluorescence antinuclear antibody and antibody to native DNA and Sm antigen. Some criteria involving the same organ systems were aggregated into single criteria. Raynaud's phenomenon and alopecia were not included in the 1982 revised criteria because of low sensitivity and specificity. The new criteria were 96% sensitive and 96% specific when tested with SLE and control patient data gathered from 18 participating clinics. When compared with the 1971 criteria, the 1982 revised criteria showed gains in sensitivity and specificity.

Updating the American College of Rheumatology revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus.

Abstract: In 1982, the Diagnostic and Therapeutic Criteria Committee of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR)published revised criteria for the classification of systemiclupus erythematosus (SLE) (1). During the ensuing decade several investigators, including Drs. Graham Hughes and Donato Alarcon-Segovia, among others, have described the presence and clinical associations or antiphospholipid antibodies in patients with SLE, as well as the occurrence of theprimary antiphospholipid syndrome (2-5). In 1992, Piette and colleagues suggested that the ACR revised criteria be reevaluated in light of the above discoveries (6).

The American College of Rheumatology 1990 Criteria for the Classification of Fibromyalgia. Report of the Multicenter Criteria Committee.

Abstract: To develop criteria for the classification of fibromyalgia, we studied 558 consecutive patients: 293 patients with fibromyalgia and 265 control patients. Interviews and examinations were performed by trained, blinded assessors. Control patients for the group with primary fibromyalgia were matched for age and sex, and limited to patients with disorders that could be confused with primary fibromyalgia. Control patients for the group with secondary-concomitant fibromyalgia were matched for age, sex, and concomitant rheumatic disorders. Widespread pain (axial plus upper and lower segment plus left- and right-sided pain) was found in 97.6% of all patients with fibromyalgia and in 69.1% of all control patients. The combination of widespread pain and mild or greater tenderness in greater than or equal to 11 of 18 tender point sites yielded a sensitivity of 88.4% and a specificity of 81.1%. Primary fibromyalgia patients and secondary-concomitant fibromyalgia patients did not differ statistically in any major study variable, and the criteria performed equally well in patients with and those without concomitant rheumatic conditions. The newly proposed criteria for the classification of fibromyalgia are 1) widespread pain in combination with 2) tenderness at 11 or more of the 18 specific tender point sites. No exclusions are made for the presence of concomitant radiographic or laboratory abnormalities. At the diagnostic or classification level, the distinction between primary fibromyalgia and secondary-concomitant fibromyalgia (as defined in the text) is abandoned.