Maureen McMahon

In the United States, approximately 35% of adults with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) have clinical evidence of nephritis at the time of diagnosis; with an estimated total of 50–60% developing nephritis during the first 10 years of disease [1–4]. The prevalence of nephritis is significantly higher in African Americans and Hispanics than in Caucasians, and is higher in men than in women. Renal damage is more likely to develop in non-Caucasian groups [2–4]. Overall survival in patients with SLE is approximately 95% at 5 years after diagnosis and 92% at 10 years [5, 6]. The presence of lupus nephritis significantly reduces survival, to approximately 88% at 10 years, with even lower survival in African Americans [5, 6]. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) last published guidelines for management of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in 1999 [7]. That publication was designed primarily for education of primary care physicians and recommended therapeutic and management approaches for many manifestations of SLE. Recommendations for management of lupus nephritis (LN) consisted of pulse glucocorticoids followed by high dose daily glucocorticoids in addition to an immunosuppressive medication, with cyclophosphamide viewed as the most effective immunosuppressive medication for diffuse proliferative glomerulonephritis. Mycophenolate mofetil was not yet in use for lupus nephritis and was not mentioned. Since that time, many clinical trials of glucocorticoids-plus-immunosuppressive interventions have been published, some of which are high quality prospective trials, and some not only prospective but also randomized. Thus, the ACR determined that a new set of management recommendations was in order. A combination of extensive literature review and the opinions of highly qualified experts, including rheumatologists, nephrologists and pathologists, has been used to reach the recommendations. The management strategies discussed here apply to lupus nephritis in adults, particularly to those receiving care in the United States of America, and include interventions that were available in the United States as of April 2011. While these recommendations were developed using rigorous methodology, guidelines do have inherent limitations in informing individual patient care; hence the selection of the term “recommendations.” While they should not supplant clinical judgment or limit clinical judgment, they do provide expert advice to the practicing physician managing patients with lupus nephritis.

Guidelines and recommendations developed and/or endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) are intended to provide guidance for particular patterns of practice and not to dictate the care of a particular patient. The ACR considers adherence to these guidelines and recommendations to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in light of each patient’s individual circumstances. Guidelines and recommendations are intended to promote beneficial or desirable outcomes but cannot guarantee any specific outcome. Guidelines and recommendations developed or endorsed by the ACR are subject to periodic revision as warranted by the evolution of medical knowledge, technology, and practice.

BACKGROUND: Although several agents are available to treat osteoporosis, the relative efficacy and toxicity of these agents when used to prevent fractures has not been well described. PURPOSE: To compare the benefits in fracture reduction and the harms from adverse events of various therapies for osteoporosis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1966 to November 2007) and other selected databases were searched for English-language studies. STUDY SELECTION: For the efficacy analysis, investigators selected studies that reported the rate of or risk for fractures. For the adverse event analysis, they selected studies that reported the relationship between an agent and cardiovascular, thromboembolic, or upper gastrointestinal events; malignant conditions; and osteonecrosis. DATA EXTRACTION: Using a standardized protocol, investigators abstracted data on fractures and adverse events, agents and comparators, study design, and variables of methodological quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Good evidence suggests that alendronate, etidronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronic acid, estrogen, parathyroid hormone (1-34), and raloxifene prevent vertebral fractures more than placebo; the evidence for calcitonin was fair. Good evidence suggests that alendronate, risedronate, and estrogen prevent hip fractures more than placebo; the evidence for zoledronic acid was fair. The effects of vitamin D varied with dose, analogue, and study population for both vertebral and hip fractures. Raloxifene, estrogen, and estrogen-progestin increased the risk for thromboembolic events, and etidronate increased the risk for esophageal ulcerations and gastrointestinal perforations, ulcerations, and bleeding. LIMITATION: Few studies have directly compared different agents or classes of agents used to treat osteoporosis. CONCLUSION: Although good evidence suggests that many agents are effective in preventing osteoporotic fractures, the data are insufficient to determine the relative efficacy or safety of these agents.

OBJECTIVE: To study 5 type I interferon (IFN)-inducible genes (LY6E, OAS1, OASL, MX1, and ISG15) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and to correlate expression levels with disease activity and/or clinical manifestations. METHODS: Peripheral blood cells were obtained from 48 SLE patients, 48 normal controls, and 22 rheumatic disease controls, and total RNA was extracted and reverse transcribed into complementary DNA. Gene expression levels were measured by real-time polymerase chain reaction, standardized to a housekeeping gene, and summed to an IFN score. Disease activity was determined by the Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus: National Assessment-Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SELENA-SLEDAI) composite. RESULTS: Each gene was highly expressed in SLE patients compared with normal controls (P < or = 0.0003) or disease controls (P < or = 0.0008 except for MX1). IFN scores were positively associated with the SELENA-SLEDAI instrument score (P = 0.001), the SELENA-SLEDAI flare score (P = 0.03), and the physician's global assessment score (P = 0.005). Compared with patients without nephritis, lupus nephritis patients had higher IFN scores (overall P < 0.0001), especially during active renal disease. IFN scores were weakly associated with neurologic manifestations. Elevated IFN scores were positively associated with the current presence of anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibodies (P = 0.007) or hypocomplementemia (P = 0.007). LY6E expression levels distinguished active from inactive lupus nephritis (P = 0.02) and were positively associated with proteinuria (P = 0.009). CONCLUSION: The 5 IFN-inducible genes were highly expressed in SLE patients, and increased levels were correlated with disease activity defined by several methods. IFN scores, or LY6E levels, were elevated in lupus nephritis patients, especially during active renal disease, and in patients with anti-dsDNA antibody positivity and hypocomplementemia. IFN scores, or LY6E levels, may be useful as a biomarker for lupus nephritis therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have a 7-50-fold increased risk of coronary artery disease (CAD). In the general population, oxidized low-density lipoprotein (ox-LDL) increases the risk for CAD. Normal high-density lipoproteins (HDLs) protect LDL from oxidation; proinflammatory HDLs do not. This study was undertaken to determine whether patients with SLE, who have chronic inflammation that causes oxidative damage, have more proinflammatory HDL and higher levels of ox-LDL, thus predisposing them to atherosclerosis. METHODS: One hundred fifty-four women with SLE, 48 women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and 72 healthy controls were studied. The ability of the patients' HDL to prevent oxidation of normal LDL was measured. Values >1.0 (the value assigned for LDL oxidation in the absence of HDL) after the addition of HDL indicated proinflammatory HDL. Plasma ox-LDL levels were measured as the amount of oxidation produced by the patient's LDL after the removal of HDL. RESULTS: SLE patients had more proinflammatory HDL (mean +/- SD score 1.02 +/- 0.57, versus 0.68 +/- 0.28 in controls [P < 0.0001] and 0.81 +/- 0.22 in RA patients [P = 0.001 versus SLE patients]). A higher proportion of SLE patients had proinflammatory HDL: 44.7% of SLE patients versus 4.1% of controls and 20.1% of RA patients had scores >1.0 (P < 0.006 between all groups). Levels of ox-LDL correlated with levels of proinflammatory HDL (r = 0.37, P < 0.001). SLE patients with CAD had significantly higher proinflammatory HDL scores than patients without CAD (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: HDLs are proinflammatory in a significant proportion of SLE patients and are associated with elevated levels of ox-LDL. Abnormal HDLs impair the ability to prevent LDL oxidation and may predispose to atherosclerosis.