Systemic lupus erythematosus Larissa Lisnevskaia, Grainne Murphy, David Isenberg Lancet 2014; 384: 1878–88 Published Online May 30, 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(14)60128-8 Oshawa Clinic, Oshawa, ON, Canada (L Lisnevskaia MD); and Centre for Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University College London Hospital, London, UK (G Murphy PhD, Prof D Isenberg MD) Correspondence to: Prof David Isenberg, Centre for Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University College London Hospital, The Rayne Building, Room 424, 5 University Street, London WC1E 6JF, UK [email protected]
Systemic lupus erythematosus is a remarkable and challenging disorder. Its diversity of clinical features is matched by the complexity of the factors (genetic, hormonal, and environmental) that cause it, and the array of autoantibodies with which it is associated. In this Seminar we reﬂect on changes in its classiﬁcation criteria; consider aspects of its more serious clinical expression; and provide a brief review of its aetiopathogenesis, major complications, coping strategies, and conventional treatment. Increased understanding of the cells and molecules involved in the development of the diseases has encouraged the identiﬁcation of new, better targeted biological approaches to its treatment. The precise role of these newer therapies remains to be established.
Introduction Systemic lupus erythematosus is a challenging disease to assess and manage. The progress in our understanding of its aetiopathogenesis is notable. In this Seminar we provide an update on its clinical presentations and conventional management. We also review some of the many studies published in the past decade that used biological drugs, the development of which has been based on improved understanding of the causes of this disease. However, success in treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus with biological strategies is less impressive than that for rheumatoid arthritis. This diﬀerence is attributable to the complexity of the disorder and the likely diverse mechanisms that contribute to its clinical expression. This extra challenge makes the work of scientists, who seek to understand the disease better, and clinicians treating patients with lupus, more demanding.
Epidemiology The incidence and prevalence of systemic lupus erythematosus seems to be increasing, probably because of both the identiﬁcation of milder cases and improved survival. In 2007, a review outlined the geographical variability in disease incidence and prevalence. In the US population, the all race incidence was 5·1 per 100 000 per year and the prevalence was 52·2 per 100 000, with comparative ﬁgures of 3·8 and 26·2 in the UK, and 2·9 and 28·4 in Japan, respectively.1 These ﬁgures are substantially higher in some ethnic populations, notably in individuals of African-American
Search strategy and selection criteria We searched PubMed (January, 2009, to September, 2013) and Summon Search (January, 2009, to September, 2013) databases with the terms “systemic lupus erythematosus” and “lupus” in combination with the terms “epidemiology”, “classiﬁcation”, “cardiovascular risk”, “lupus nephritis”, “CNS lupus”, “antiphospholipid syndrome”, “pregnancy”, “pathogenesis”, “presentation”, and “management”, with no language restrictions. We also searched the references of articles identiﬁed by this strategy and selected those that were relevant.
or African-Caribbean descent. Systemic lupus erythematosus aﬀects women of childbearing age, with a male-to-female ratio of about 9:1 commonly reported. This female predominance is less striking in the juvenile and elderly populations with ratios of 2–6:1 and 3–8:1, respectively, in these age groups. This diﬀerence is largely thought to reﬂect the eﬀect of female sex hormones on aspects of the immune system. In view of the relative rarity of systemic lupus erythematosus in men and in juvenile patients, investigators of many studies in the past 20 years have considered whether this disease has a particular clinical or serological proﬁle in these patients. Although ﬁndings from the Euro-lupus project—a prospective cohort study of 1000 patients with lupus followed up from 1991— showed a higher rate of serositis and lower rate of arthritis in men than in women, a review2 of nearly 500 patients followed up for 30 years showed very few diﬀerences between sexes. In children, however, consistent evidence suggests a signiﬁcantly higher risk of lupus nephritis, and perhaps greater mortality, than in patients who develop disease as adults. These ﬁndings draw attention to the need for close monitoring and more intensive therapy, particularly with reference to the risk of lupus nephritis, for these patients, who are susceptible to greater damage accrual as a result of aggressive inﬂammatory disease. The Euro-lupus project has oﬀered some valuable insights into the epidemiology and clinical manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus.3 Nearly half (48%) of patients presented with arthritis and a third had a malar rash. Active nephropathy was detected in 28% of patients. The presence of antidouble-stranded DNA antibodies was a predictor of nephritis (relative risk 1·79) and haemolytic anaemia (2·49), and lupus anticoagulant predicted clinical antiphospholipid syndrome (1·2–1·53). The 10 year survival was 92%, which is signiﬁcantly better than mortality rates reported earlier in the 20th century. The activity of disease and infections (28·9% each) were major causes of mortality during the ﬁrst 5 years of follow-up. Thrombosis (26·1%) was the most common cause of death during the last 5 years of the study. The mortality risk has decreased substantially over past decades. In a cohort of 1241 patients with lupus from a clinic in Toronto, the standardised mortality ratio www.thelancet.com Vol 384 November 22, 2014
changed from 12·60 in the 1970s, to 3·46 in the past decade.4 Despite the improved mortality rate, patients with systemic lupus erythematosus have a higher mortality risk than that of the general population, particularly in patients with a younger age at disease onset.5 Furthermore, in developed countries with high gross domestic product, survival is much higher because of better access to health care, educational level, physician availability, and treatment compliance.6 Clearly the outcome for systemic lupus erythematosus depends on more than just the development of new drugs. Furthermore, in some countries the funding for such drugs is not available. Some diﬀerences in outcome are evident in terms of ethnic origin. In the Lupus cohort at University College Hospital, London, UK, black patients with renal disease were far more likely to go into renal failure than were white patients,7 with the reasons almost certainly nothing to do with economics since health care is free at the point of entry in the UK’s National Health Service. In similar studies in the USA economic and genetic factors have been hard to disentangle.
Revised classiﬁcation criteria Since the publication of the last Seminar on systemic lupus erythematosus in The Lancet in 2007,1 a major development has been the publication of the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) classiﬁcation criteria in 2012.8 This classiﬁcation attempted to rationalise the clinical criteria and provided a modest expansion in recognised laboratory abnormalities (panel 1). Biopsy-proven nephritis compatible with systemic lupus erythematosus in the presence of antinuclear or antidouble-stranded DNA antibodies in the absence of other lupus features is regarded as suﬃcient for a patient to be diagnosed as having lupus. The symptoms and laboratory abnormalities are cumulative and need not to be present concurrently.
Pathogenesis Systemic lupus erythematosus is a multifactorial disease with evidence of genetic susceptibility, environmental eﬀects, and disturbances in both innate and adaptive immunity manifest by disturbances in apoptotic cell clearance, cytokines, B-cell immunity, and T-cell signalling. Although a detailed review of the pathogenesis of lupus has been published,9 we brieﬂy summarise some noteworthy developments. Deﬁciencies in components of the complement cascade are well known to predispose to the development of systemic lupus erythematosus. However, more than 28 other disease susceptibility loci have now been conﬁrmed.10 Some of the strongest associated risk loci identiﬁed through genome-wide association studies are ITGAM, FcγR, PRDM1-ATG5, and TNFAIP3. Whether these loci will help to identify additional inﬂammatory pathways implicated in the disorder that will translate into novel therapeutic targets is unknown. www.thelancet.com Vol 384 November 22, 2014
Lupus is strongly associated with defects in apoptotic clearance.11 The initiating events are likely to vary, but the consequent excessive apoptotic debris has an important pathogenic eﬀect. Early apoptotic cells express so-called eat-me signals—ie, cell-surface proteins such as phophatidylserine that prompt circulating immune cells to engulf these cells. They also express so-called ﬁnd-me signals to attract macrophages and dendritic cells. Failure of phagocytes to remove apoptotic material eﬃciently Panel 1: Clinical and immunological criteria used in the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) classiﬁcation system* Clinical criteria 1 Acute cutaneous lupus, including lupus malar rash, bullous lupus, toxic epidermal necrolysis variant of systemic lupus erythematosus, maculopapular lupus rash, photosensitive lupus rash, or subacute cutaneous lupus (psoriaform or annular polycyclic lesions, or both) 2 Chronic cutaneous lupus, including classic discoid rash (localised and generalised), hypertrophic lupus, lupus panniculitis, mucosal lupus, lupus erythematosus tumidus, chilblains lupus, and discoid lupus/lichen planus overlap 3 Oral ulcers or nasal ulcers 4 Non-scarring alopecia 5 Synovitis involving two or more joints and at least 30 min of morning stiﬀness 6 Serositis 7 Renal (urine protein-to-creatinine ratio [or 24 h urine protein]) representing 500 mg protein per 24 h or red blood cell casts 8 Neurological: seizures, psychosis, mononeuritis multiplex, myelitis, peripheral and cranial neuropathy, acute confusional state 9 Haemolytic anaemia 10 Leukopenia (7·5 mg in BLISS-52, and 44–48% in BLISS-76) and some also took other immunosuppressive drugs. The success of belimumab encourages other studies of molecules that block B-cell activating factors. Atacicept is another agent that blocks the interaction between BLyS and APRIL (a proliferation-inducing ligand) and their receptors. APRIL has a function similar to BLyS.77 Atacicept is a recombinant receptor-Ig fusion protein that binds to BLyS and APRIL. It suppresses the diﬀerentiation and survival of antibody-producing B cells. Atacicept with mycophenolate mofetil was used in a trial of lupus nephritis that was stopped after the enrolment of six patients because of serious infections. Detailed analysis of these infections proved them to be mainly due to hypogammaglobulinaemia induced by mycophenolate mofetil before atacicept had been given. The eﬃcacy of atacicept was not assessed.78 The preliminary results of a major trial in non-renal lupus have indicated that atacicept might be eﬀective at prevention of disease ﬂare.79 The full results are awaited. CD22 is a B-lymphocyte-speciﬁc transmembrane sialoglycoprotein. It is present in highest concentration on the surface of mature IgM+/IgD+ B cells and is absent on memory and plasma cells.80 CD22 functions through the B-cell receptor (BCR) complex by phosphorylation of three tyrosine-based inhibitory motifs on its intracellular part. Phosphorylation initiates the recruitment of the tyrosine phosphotase 1 molecules that inhibit BCR signalling. Epratuzumab is a humanised anti-CD22 IgG1 monoclonal antibody. Treatment with epratuzumab causes a decrease in the peripheral B lymphocyte count in patients with lupus. An initial open-label clinical trial of epratuzumab in 14 patients with moderately active systemic lupus erythematosus, which was undertaken in 2008, showed that epratuzumab was well tolerated and improved BILAG scores by more than 50% in 77% of patients at 6 weeks, and in all patients at some point during the study period.81 A phase IIb study of epratuzumab in 227 patients with moderate to severe lupus showed that patients had a symptom reduction or absence of active disease within speciﬁc body systems, especially cardiorespiratory or neuropsychiatric systems.82 www.thelancet.com Vol 384 November 22, 2014
Panel 4: Biological treatments available or potentially available for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus Targeting B cells • • • •
B-cell depleting therapy: rituximab B-cell modulating therapy: epratuzumab Inhibition of B-cell survival: belimumab, atacicept Other potential B-cell (plasma cell) targeting strategies: bortezomib
Targeting T cells •
Inhibition of T-cell function: abatacept, ruplizumab, toralizumab, lupuzor
Interleukin 6 •
Tumour necrosis factor α inhibitors • •
Type I interferon inhibitors • •
Complement inhibitors •
T cells have also been suggested as a therapeutic target in systemic lupus erythematosus. Abatacept is a biological drug that blocks T-cell costimulation. It is a fusion protein consisting of the T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) and modiﬁed Fc portion of human immunoglobulin.83 To be activated T lymphocytes require two signals: the antigen-speciﬁc signal 1 and costimulatory signal 2. CTLA-4 plays a part in the inhibition of costimulation; through its engagement with CD80/86, it causes inhibition of T-cell activation. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of abatacept in patients with nonlife-threatening lupus,84 118 patients were studied. The primary endpoint was the proportion of new ﬂares after tapering of the steroid dose. The study did not meet the primary endpoint, but treatment diﬀerences were evident in patients with polyarthritic symptoms in post-hoc analyses.84 19·4% of patients in the study were negative for antinuclear and double-stranded DNA antibodies, which is substantially higher than in lupus cohorts in general. Sifalimumab, a human anti-interferon α monoclonal antibody, binds and neutralises most interferon α subtypes. It prevents signalling through the type 1 interferon receptor. Two randomised, double-blind studies85,86 showed its safety, and results support the continued clinical development of strategies targeting interferon α for treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus. Other antiinterferon α molecules that have been going through testing in phase 2 studies are rontalizumab, AGS-009, MEDI-546, and interferon-α kinoid.87 Panel 4 summarises biological agents already available or potentially available for use for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus. 1885
Coping with the disease and quality of life Non-pharmacological management of systemic lupus erythematosus is also important. The psychological eﬀects of lupus include depression, fatigue, psychological distress, and diﬃculties with emotion-oriented coping.88 A study of 120 patients with this disorder showed that treatment of depression, and consideration of stress and insomnia, reduced fatigue.88 Of 154 Australian and UK patients with lupus, 26% were clinically depressed.89 Depression and insuﬃcient suitable coping mechanisms and support impair the ability to manage chronic disease eﬀectively. Some studies indicate dissatisfaction with social support, notably poor understanding and unsatisfactory contacts with the doctor or little information about the disorder.90 Ideally, patients with lupus should be assessed regularly for depression, and medical intervention and referral to psychology services should be available. Connecting the patient with support groups or societies available locally can relieve the frustration of searching unreliable internet sources A supervised cardiovascular training programme in patients with lupus substantially improves exercise tolerance, aerobic capacity, depression, and quality of life. A study of 60 patients who participated in a training protocol on a treadmill showed that the training group had a signiﬁcant improvement in their aerobic capacity, as measured by the anaerobic threshold, and improvements in depression and quality-of-life scales.91 Supervised physical exercise also improves endothelial function and aerobic capacity without worsening of the disease activity in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.92
Conclusion Understanding of the pathogenesis of lupus is clearly growing. Encouragingly, this knowledge is being applied in clinical practice with improvements in classiﬁcation, a better appreciation of lupus features and complications, and the development of new drugs. There is better understanding of the importance of other aspects of lupus management such as quality of life, mental health, prevention of complications such as atherosclerosis, and pregnancy morbidity, and they play an important part in day-to-day practice. Despite the complexity and diversity of the disease there is hope for these patients. New promising agents targeting its diﬀerent mechanisms are already used or in development. Contributors LL cowrote the ﬁrst draft of this Seminar with GM, did much of the original literature search, and approved the responses to reviewers written by GM and DI. GM cowrote the ﬁrst draft of this Seminar with LL, and modiﬁed some of the panels and table. DI set out the original plan for the Seminar, had a major contribution to redrafting the original version, and took responsibility for answering the reviewers’ comments. Declaration of interests DI has undertaken consulting work for several pharmaceutical companies including Eli Lilly, Merck Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, and UCB Pharma. The support oﬀered is made available to a local arthritis charity. LL and GM declare that they have no competing interests.
References 1 D’Cruz DP, Khamashta MA, Hughes GR. Systemic lupus erythematosus. Lancet 2007; 369: 587–96. 2 Renau AI, Isenberg DA. Male versus female lupus: a comparison of ethnicity, clinical features, serology and outcome over a 30 year period. Lupus 2012; 21: 1041–48. 3 Cervera R, Khamashta MA, Hughes GR. The Euro-lupus project: epidemiology of systemic lupus erythematosus in Europe. Lupus 2009; 18: 869–74. 4 Bernatsky S, Boivin JF, Joseph L, et al. Mortality in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2006; 54: 2550–57. 5 Urowitz MB, Gladman DD, Tom BD, Ibañez D, Farewell VT. Changing patterns in mortality and disease outcomes for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol 2008; 35: 2152–58. 6 Vasudevan A, Krishnamurthy AN. Changing worldwide epidemiology of systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 2010; 36: 1–13, vii. 7 Adler M, Chambers S, Edwards C, Neild G, Isenberg D. An assessment of renal failure in an SLE cohort with special reference to ethnicity, over a 25 year period. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2006; 45: 1144–47. 8 Petri M, Orbai AM, Alarcón GS, et al. Derivation and validation of the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics classiﬁcation criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2012; 64: 2677–86. 9 Wahren-Herlenius M, Dörner T. Immunopathogenic mechanisms of systemic autoimmune disease. Lancet 2013; 382: 819–31. 10 Guerra SG, Vyse TJ, Cunninghame Graham DS. The genetics of lupus: a functional perspective. Arthritis Res Ther 2012; 14: 211–23. 11 Shao WH, Cohen PL. Disturbances of apoptotic cell clearance in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Res Ther 2011; 13: 202–09. 12 Yamaguchi H, Takagi J, Miyamae T, et al. Milk fat globule EGF factor 8 in the serum of human patients of systemic lupus erythematosus. J Leukoc Biol 2008; 83: 1300–07. 13 Dörner T, Giesecke C, Lipsky PE. Mechanisms of B cell autoimmunity in SLE. Arthritis Res Ther 2011; 13: 243–54. 14 Blair PA, Noreña LY, Flores-Borja F, et al. CD19(+)CD24(hi) CD38(hi) B cells exhibit regulatory capacity in healthy individuals but are functionally impaired in systemic lupus erythematosus patients. Immunity 2010; 32: 129–40. 15 Moulton VR, Tsokos GC. Abnormalities of T cell signaling in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Res Ther 2011; 13: 207–16. 16 Jacob N, Stohl W. Cytokine disturbances in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Res Ther 2011; 13: 228–38. 17 Zandman-Goddard G, Solomon M, Rosman Z, Peeva E, Shoenfeld Y. Environment and lupus-related diseases. Lupus 2012; 21: 241–50. 18 Kamen D, Aranow C. Vitamin D in systemic lupus erythematosus. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2008; 20: 532–37. 19 Caricchio R, McPhie L, Cohen PL. Ultraviolet B radiation-induced cell death: critical role of ultraviolet dose in inﬂammation and lupus autoantigen redistribution. J Immunol 2003; 171: 5778–86. 20 Williams EL, Gadola S, Edwards CJ. Anti-TNF-induced lupus. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2009; 48: 716–20. 21 Costenbader KH, Feskanich D, Stampfer MJ, Karlson EW. Reproductive and menopausal factors and risk of systemic lupus erythematosus in women. Arthritis Rheum 2007; 56: 1251–62. 22 Buyon JP, Petri MA, Kim MY, et al. The eﬀect of combined estrogen and progesterone hormone replacement therapy on disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2005; 142: 953–62. 23 Roman MJ, Shanker BA, Davis A, et al. Prevalence and correlates of accelerated atherosclerosis in systemic lupus erythematosus. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 2399–406. 24 Manzi S, Selzer F, Sutton-Tyrrell K, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of carotid plaque in women with systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 1999; 42: 51–60. 25 Escárcega RO, Garcia-Carrasco M, Jara LJ, Cervera R. Accelerated atherosclerosis in systemic lupus erythematosus: perspectives towards decreasing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Lupus 2009; 18: 383–86.
www.thelancet.com Vol 384 November 22, 2014
Manzi S, Meilahn EN, Rairie JE, et al. Age-speciﬁc incidence rates of myocardial infarction and angina in women with systemic lupus erythematosus: comparison with the Framingham Study. Am J Epidemiol 1997; 145: 408–15. Gustafsson JT, Simard JF, Gunnarsson I, et al. Risk factors for cardiovascular mortality in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, a prospective cohort study. Arthritis Res Ther 2012; 14: R46–55. El-Magadmi M, Bodill H, Ahmad Y, et al. Systemic lupus erythematosus: an independent risk factor for endothelial dysfunction in women. Circulation 2004; 110: 399–404. Nikpour M, Harvey PJ, Ibanez D, Gladman DD, Urowitz MB. High-sensitivity C-reactive protein as a marker of cardiovascular risk in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2012; 64: 3052–53. Somers EC, Zhao W, Lewis EE, et al. Type I interferons are associated with subclinical markers of cardiovascular disease in a cohort of systemic lupus erythematosus patients. PLoS One 2012; 7: e37000. Symmons DP, Gabriel SE. Epidemiology of CVD in rheumatic disease, with a focus on RA and SLE. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2011; 7: 399–408. Rahman P, Gladman DD, Urowitz MB, Yuen K, Hallett D, Bruce IN. The cholesterol lowering eﬀect of antimalarial drugs is enhanced in patients with lupus taking corticosteroid drugs. J Rheumatol 1999; 26: 325–30. Jung H, Bobba R, Su J, et al. The protective eﬀect of antimalarial drugs on thrombovascular events in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2010; 62: 863–68. David KM, Morris JA, Steﬀen BJ, Chi-Burris KS, Gotz VP, Gordon RD. Mycophenolate mofetil vs. azathioprine is associated with decreased acute rejection, late acute rejection, and risk for cardiovascular death in renal transplant recipients with pre-transplant diabetes. Clin Transplant 2005; 19: 279–85. Kiani AN, Magder LS, Petri M. Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) does not slow the progression of subclinical atherosclerosis in SLE over 2 years. Rheumatol Int 2012; 32: 2701–05. Ntali S, Bertsias G, Boumpas DT. Cyclophosphamide and lupus nephritis: when, how, for how long? Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 2011; 40: 181–91. Bertsias GK, Tektonidou M, Amoura Z, et al, and the European League Against Rheumatism and European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association. Joint European League Against Rheumatism and European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (EULAR/ERA-EDTA) recommendations for the management of adult and paediatric lupus nephritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2012; 71: 1771–82. Dooley MA, Jayne D, Ginzler EM, et al. Mycophenolate versus azathioprine as maintenance therapy for lupus nephritis. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 1886–95. Popescu A, Kao AH. Neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus. Curr Neuropharmacol 2011; 9: 449–57. Zandman-Goddard G, Chapman J, Shoenfeld Y. Autoantibodies involved in neuropsychiatric SLE and antiphospholipid syndrome. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2007; 36: 297–315. Alessandri C, Conti F, Pendolino M, Mancini R, Valesini G. New autoantigens in the antiphospholipid syndrome. Autoimmun Rev 2011; 10: 609–16. Miyakis S, Lockshin MD, Atsumi T, et al. International consensus statement on an update of the classiﬁcation criteria for deﬁnite antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). J Thromb Haemost 2006; 4: 295–306. Ames PRJ, Antinolﬁ I, Scenna G, Gaeta G, Margaglione M, Margarita A. Atherosclerosis in thrombotic primary antiphospholipid syndrome. J Thromb Haemost 2009; 7: 537–42. Cervera R. [Therapeutic strategies in antiphospholipid syndrome]. Reumatol Clin 2010; 6: 37–42. [In Spanish] Giles I, Khamashta M, D’Cruz D, Cohen H. A new dawn of anticoagulation for patients with antiphospholipid syndrome? Lupus 2012; 21: 1263–65. Lopez-Pedrera C, Ruiz-Limon P, Aguirre MA, Rodriguez-Ariza A, Cuadrado MJ. Potential use of statins in the treatment of antiphospholipid syndrome. Curr Rheumatol Rep 2012; 14: 87–94.
www.thelancet.com Vol 384 November 22, 2014
52 53 54 55
57 58 59 60 61 62
Jajoria P, Murthy V, Papalardo E, Romay-Penabad Z, Gleason C, Pierangeli SS. Statins for the treatment of antiphospholipid syndrome? Ann N Y Acad Sci 2009; 1173: 736–45. Pierangeli SS, Erkan D. Antiphospholipid syndrome treatment beyond anticoagulation: are we there yet? Lupus 2010; 19: 475–85. Broder A, Putterman C. Hydroxychloroquine use is associated with lower odds of persistently positive antiphospholipid antibodies and/or lupus anticoagulant in systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol 2013; 40: 30–33. Kumar D, Roubey RA. Use of rituximab in the antiphospholipid syndrome. Curr Rheumatol Rep 2010; 12: 40–44. Ioannou Y, Lambrianides A, Cambridge G, Leandro MJ, Edwards JC, Isenberg DA. B cell depletion therapy for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus results in a signiﬁcant drop in anticardiolipin antibody titres. Ann Rheum Dis 2008; 67: 425–26. Clowse ME. Lupus activity in pregnancy. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 2007; 33: 237–52, v. Ruiz-Irastorza G, Khamashta MA. Managing lupus patients during pregnancy. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2009; 23: 575–82. Day CJ, Lipkin GW, Savage CO. Lupus nephritis and pregnancy in the 21st century. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2009; 24: 344–47. Brucato A, Cimaz R, Caporali R, Ramoni V, Buyon J. Pregnancy outcomes in patients with autoimmune diseases and anti-Ro/SSA antibodies. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 2011; 40: 27–41. Yee CS, Akil M, Khamashta M, et al. The BILAG2004-Pregnancy index is reliable for assessment of disease activity in pregnant SLE patients. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2012; 51: 1877–80. Thompson A. Tarascon pocket rheumatologica (4th edn). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2010. Ruiz-Irastorza G, Khamashta MA. Hydroxychloroquine: the cornerstone of lupus therapy. Lupus 2008; 17: 271–73. Abu-Shakra M, Shoenfeld Y. Azathioprine therapy for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus 2001; 10: 152–53. Dolﬀ S, Berden JH, Bijl M. Treatment of lupus nephritis. Expert Rev Clin Immunol 2010; 6: 901–11. Wong JM, Esdaile JM. Methotrexate in systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus 2005; 14: 101–05. Moroni G, Doria A, Ponticelli C. Cyclosporine (CsA) in lupus nephritis: assessing the evidence. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2009; 24: 15–20. Sárdy M, Ruzicka T, Kuhn A. Topical calcineurin inhibitors in cutaneous lupus erythematosus. Arch Dermatol Res 2009; 301: 93–98. Lee YH, Lee H-S, Choi SJ, Dai Ji J, Song GG. Eﬃcacy and safety of tacrolimus therapy for lupus nephritis: a systematic review of clinical trials. Lupus 2011; 20: 636–40. Teschner S, Burst V. Leﬂunomide: a drug with a potential beyond rheumatology. Immunotherapy 2010; 2: 637–50. Zandman-Goddard G, Blank M, Shoenfeld Y. Intravenous immunoglobulins in systemic lupus erythematosus: from the bench to the bedside. Lupus 2009; 18: 884–88. Emer JJ, Claire W. Rituximab: overview of dermatological applications. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol 2009; 2: 29–37. Merrill JT, Neuwelt CM, Wallace DJ, et al. Eﬃcacy and safety of rituximab in moderately-to-severely active systemic lupus erythematosus: the randomized, double-blind, phase II/III systemic lupus erythematosus evaluation of rituximab trial. Arthritis Rheum 2010; 62: 222–33. Rovin BH, Furie R, Latinis K, et al, and the LUNAR Investigator Group. Eﬃcacy and safety of rituximab in patients with active proliferative lupus nephritis: the Lupus Nephritis Assessment with Rituximab study. Arthritis Rheum 2012; 64: 1215–26. Pepper R, Griﬃth M, Kirwan C, et al. Rituximab is an eﬀective treatment for lupus nephritis and allows a reduction in maintenance steroids. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2009; 24: 3717–23. Ezeonyeji AN, Isenberg DA. Early treatment with rituximab in newly diagnosed systemic lupus erythematosus patients: a steroid-sparing regimen. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2012; 51: 476–81. Condon MB, Ashby D, Pepper RJ, et al. Prospective observational single-centre cohort study to evaluate the eﬀectiveness of treating lupus nephritis with rituximab and mycophenolate mofetil but no oral steroids. Ann Rheum Dis 2013; 72: 1280–86.
Burness CB, McCormack PL. Belimumab: in systemic lupus erythematosus. Drugs 2011; 71: 2435–44. Stohl W, Hilbert DM. The discovery and development of belimumab: the anti-BLyS-lupus connection. Nat Biothechnol 2012; 30: 69–77. Navarra SV, Guzmán RM, Gallacher AE, et al. Eﬃcacy and safety of belimumab in patients with active systemic lupus erythematosus: a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2011; 377: 721–31 Furie R, Petri M, Zamani O, et al. A phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled study of belimumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits B lymphocyte stimulator, in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2011; 63: 3918–30. Bracewell C, Isaacs JD, Emery P, Ng WF. Atacicept, a novel B cell-targeting biological therapy for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Expert Opin Biol Ther 2009; 9: 909–19. Ginzler EM, Wax S, Rajeswaran A, et al. Atacicept in combination with MMF and corticosteroids in lupus nephritis: results of a prematurely terminated trial. Arthritis Res Ther 2012; 14: R33. Isenberg DA, Gordon C, Licu D. Eﬃciency and safety of atacicept for prevention of ﬂares in patients with moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) – 52 week data (APRIL – SLE trial). Ann Rheum Dis 2013; 72: S256. Traczewski P, Rudnicka L. Treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus with epratuzumab. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2011; 71: 175–82. Dörner T, Kaufmann J, Wegener WA, Teoh N, Goldenberg DM, Burmester GR. Initial clinical trial of epratuzumab (humanized anti-CD22 antibody) for immunotherapy of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Res Ther 2006; 8: R74. Wallace DJ, Kalunian K, Petri MA, et al. Eﬃcacy and safety of epratuzumab in patients with moderate/severe active systemic lupus erythematosus: results from EMBLEM, a phase IIb, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study. Ann Rheum Dis 2014; 73: 183–90.
87 88 89
Todd DJ, Costenbader KH, Weinblatt ME. Abatacept in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Int J Clin Pract 2007; 61: 494–500. Merrill JT, Burgos-Vargas R, Westhovens R, et al. The eﬃcacy and safety of abatacept in patients with non-life-threatening manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus: results of a twelve-month, multicenter, exploratory, phase IIb, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2010; 62: 3077–87. Merrill JT, Wallace DJ, Petri M, et al, and the Lupus Interferon Skin Activity (LISA) Study Investigators. Safety proﬁle and clinical activity of sifalimumab, a fully human anti-interferon α monoclonal antibody, in systemic lupus erythematosus: a phase I, multicentre, double-blind randomised study. Ann Rheum Dis 2011; 70: 1905–13. Petri M, Wallace DJ, Spindler A, et al. Sifalimumab, a human anti-interferon-α monoclonal antibody, in systemic lupus erythematosus: a phase I randomized, controlled, dose-escalation study. Arthritis Rheum 2013; 65: 1011–21. Kirou KA, Gkrouzman E. Anti-interferon alpha treatment in SLE. Clin Immunol 2013; 148: 303–12. Dobkin PL, Da Costa D, Fortin PR, et al. Living with lupus: a prospective pan-Canadian study. J Rheumatol 2001; 28: 2442–48. Philip EJ, Lindner H, Lederman L. Conﬁdence in medical care linked to depression in lupus suﬀerers. J Allied Health 2009; 38: 106–12. Mazzoni D, Cicognani E. Social support and health in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a literature review. Lupus 2011; 20: 1117–25. Carvalho MR, Sato EI, Tebexreni AS, Heidecher RT, Schenkman S, Neto TL. Eﬀects of supervised cardiovascular training program on exercise tolerance, aerobic capacity, and quality of life in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2005; 53: 838–44. dos Reis-Neto ET, da Silva AE, Monteiro CM, de Camargo LM, Sato EI. Supervised physical exercise improves endothelial function in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2013; 52: 2187–95.
www.thelancet.com Vol 384 November 22, 2014