Search

The first inhabitants of Australia and the traditional owners of Australian lands are the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are two to four times more likely to have systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) than the general Australian population. Phenotypically, SLE appears distinctive in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and its severity is substantially increased, with mortality rates up to six times higher than in the general Australian population with SLE. In particular, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with SLE have increased prevalence of lupus nephritis and increased rates of progression to end-stage kidney disease. The reasons for the increased prevalence and severity of SLE in this population are unclear, but socioeconomic, environmental, and biological factors are all likely to be implicated, although there are no published studies investigating these factors in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with SLE specifically, indicating an important knowledge gap. In this Review, we summarise the data on the incidence, prevalence, and clinical and biological findings relating to SLE in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and explore potential factors contributing to its increased prevalence and severity in this population. Importantly, we identify health disparities and deficiencies in health-care provision that limit optimal care and outcomes for many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with SLE and highlight potentially addressable goals to improve outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests FBV has received support from Janssen-Cilag and CSL for projects described in the scope of this Review and from Pfizer, Lupus Research Alliance, and SomaLogic for conference or meeting sponsorship. SK has received support from Pfizer for conference sponsorship. AYH has received support from Arthritis Australia, Perpetual IMPACT fund, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, GSK, Eli Lilly, Union Chimique Belge (UCB), and Janssen. AYH also received honoraria from Novartis, Janssen, and Recordati. EFM has received grant or research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, GSK, and UCB. EFM received consultant fees from EMD Serono, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Genentech, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, AbbVie, Galapagos, and IgM; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, and Gilead; and travel support from AstraZeneca. EFM is Board Director of Rare Voices Australia, a not-for-profit organisation. MR received research grants for SLE clinical trials from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Servier, and UCB. MR received consulting fees from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Global Services, Novartis, and Pfizer., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Background: Validation of protective associations of the lupus low disease activity state (LLDAS) against flare, irreversible damage, health-related quality of life, and mortality has enabled the adoption of treat-to-target strategies in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Previous validation studies were of short duration, limiting the ability to detect longer term signals in flare rate and irreversible damage. In addition, previous studies have focused on percent time at target, rather than actual periods of time that are more useful in clinical practice and trials. We assessed long-term protective associations of LLDAS and remission, and specifically examined protective thresholds of sustained LLDAS and remission., Methods: Patients aged 18 years or older with SLE were followed up from May 1, 2013, to Dec 31, 2020 in a prospective, multinational, longitudinal cohort study. Patients were recruited from 25 centres in 12 countries. Multi-failure time-to-event analyses were used to assess the effect of sustained LLDAS on irreversible damage accrual (primary outcome; measured with the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index) and flare (key secondary outcome; measured with the SELENA Flare Index), with dose exposure and threshold effects studied. Sustained LLDAS or remission were defined as two or more consecutive visits over at least 3 months in the respective state. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03138941., Findings: 3449 patients were followed up for a median of 2·8 years (IQR 1·1-5·6), totalling 37 662 visits. 3180 (92·2%) patients were women, and 3031 (87·9%) were of Asian ethnicity. 2506 (72·7%) patients had sustained LLDAS at least once. Any duration of sustained LLDAS or remission longer than 3 months was associated with reduced damage accrual (LLDAS: hazard ratio 0·60 [95% CI 0·51-0·71], p<0·0001; remission: 0·66 [0·57-0·76], p<0·0001) and flare (LLDAS: 0·56 [0·51-0·63], p<0·0001; remission: 0·66 [0·60-0·73], p<0·0001), and increasing durations of sustained LLDAS corresponded to increased protective associations. Sustained DORIS remission or steroid-free remission were less attainable than LLDAS., Interpretation: We observed significant protective associations of LLDAS and remission against damage accrual and flare, establish a threshold of 3 months sustained LLDAS or remission as protective, and demonstrate deepening protection with longer durations of sustained LLDAS or remission., Funding: The Asia Pacific Lupus Collaboration receives project support grants from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Sereno, GSK, Janssen, Eli Lilly, and UCB., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests RK-R received grants from GSK and Novartis. SVN received consulting fees from Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astra Zeneca, Idorsia; payment for lectures from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, and Roche; participation in advisory board for Biogen; and leadership of societies, unpaid (CEO of Rheumatology Educational Trust Foundation, and Head of the SLE Special Interest Group at the Philippine Rheumatology Association). ZL received consulting fees from Pfizer, Roche, Janssen, Abbott, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, and UCB, and has royalties with Pfizer, Roche, Janssen, Abbott, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, and UCB. SS received consulting fees from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and ZP Therapeutics. YK received payment or honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Pfizer Japan, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Astellas Pharma, and Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation. MH received institutional research grants from GSK and Novartis; and honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca and Astellas Pharma. ZZ received payment or honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Janssen, and UCB; and participation in advisory board for Beigene. JK received speaker fees from GSK and Asahi Kasei. TT received grants from Astellas, Asahi Kasei, Chugai, and Mitsubishi Tanabe, and consulting fees from Astellas and Chugai. FG is Director of the Board of the Australian Rheumatology Association. KN received Advisory Board participation fees from AbbVie. YT received research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Taisho, and Chugai; and speaker fees or honoraria from AbbVie, Eisai, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Taisho, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Pfizer, UCB, Asahi-kasei, and Astellas. AH received a research grant from AstraZeneca; consulting fees from EUSA Pharma (UK); and speaker fees or honoraria from Limbic, Novartis, Moose Republic, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly. MN received an Investigator Grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC GNT1176538); research grants from Janssen and Boehringer Ingelheim; consulting fees from AstraZeneca and GSK; honoraria for presentations from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Boehringer Ingelheim; and support for conference attendance from Boehringer Ingelheim. EFM received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Genetech, Janssen, Novartis, Servier, and EMD Serono. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Background: Targets of treatment for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) include the Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS), remission, and complete remission. Whether treatment can be tapered after attaining these targets and whether tapering is safer in patients in complete remission compared with LLDAS are unknown. We aimed to assess the odds of disease flares after treatment tapering in stable disease, versus continuing the same therapy. We also aimed to examine whether tapering in complete remission resulted in fewer flares or longer time to flare compared with tapering in LLDAS or remission., Methods: This multinational cohort study was conducted at 25 sites across 13 Asia-Pacific countries. We included adult patients aged 18 years or older with stable SLE who were receiving routine clinical care, had two or more visits and had attained stable disease at one or more visits. We categorised stable disease into: LLDAS (Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 [SLEDAI-2K] score ≤4, Physician Global Assessment [PGA] ≤1, and prednisolone ≤7·5 mg/day); Definitions of Remission in SLE (DORIS) remission (clinical SLEDAI-2K score 0, PGA <0·5, and prednisolone ≤5 mg/day); or complete remission on therapy (SLEDAI-2K score 0, PGA <0·5, and prednisolone ≤5 mg/day). Stable disease categories were mutually exclusive. Tapering was defined as any decrease in dose of corticosteroids or immunosuppressive therapy (mycophenolate mofetil, calcineurin inhibitors, azathioprine, leflunomide, or methotrexate). Using multivariable generalised estimating equations, we compared flares (SELENA-SLEDAI Flare Index) at the subsequent visit after drug tapering. We used generalised estimating equations and Cox proportional hazard models to compare tapering attempts that had begun in LLDAS, remission, and complete remission., Findings: Between May 1, 2013, and Dec 31, 2020, 4106 patients were recruited to the cohort, 3002 (73·1%) of whom were included in our analysis. 2769 (92·2%) participants were female, 233 (7·8%) were male, and 2636 (88·1%) of 2993 with ethnicity data available were Asian. The median age was 39·5 years (IQR 29·0-50·0). There were 14 808 patient visits for patients in LLDAS, or remission or complete remission, of which 13 140 (88·7%) entered the final multivariable model after excluding missing data. Among the 9863 visits at which patients continued the same therapy, 1121 (11·4%) flared at the next visit, of which 221 (19·7%) were severe flares. Of the 3277 visits at which a patient received a tapering of therapy, 557 (17·0%) flared at the next visit, of which 120 (21·5%) were severe flares. Tapering was associated with higher odds of flare compared with continuing the same therapy (odds ratio [OR] 1·24 [95% CI 1·10-1·39]; p=0·0005). Of 2095 continuous tapering attempts, 860 (41·1%) were initiated in LLDAS, 596 (28·4%) in remission, and 639 (30·5%) in complete remission. Tapering initiated in LLDAS (OR 1·37 [95% CI 1·03-1·81]; p=0·029) or remission (1·45 [1·08-1·94]; p=0·013) had higher odds of flare in 1 year compared with complete remission. Tapering in LLDAS (hazard ratio 1·24 [95% CI 1·04-1·48]; p=0·016) or remission (1·30 [1·08-1·56]; p=0·0054) had a significantly shorter time to first flare than tapering initiated in complete remission. Attaining sustained LLDAS, remission, or complete remission for at least 6 months just before the time of taper was associated with lower odds of flare at next visit, flares in 1 year, and longer time to flare., Interpretation: Tapering of corticosteroids or immunosuppressive therapy in patients with stable SLE was associated with excess flares. Our findings suggest that drug tapering should be carefully considered, weighing the risks and benefits, and is best exercised in complete (clinical and serological) remission and after maintaining stable disease for at least 6 months., Funding: AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lily, Janssen, Merck Serono, GSK, and UCB., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests YK received honoraria from GSK, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Pfizer Japan, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Astellas Pharma, and Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation. MHa received payment for post-marketing surveillance from GSK; research grants from Novartis; and honoraria from GSK, AstraZeneca, and Astella Pharma. TT received research grants from Astellas Pharma, Asahi Kasei, Chugai, and Mitsubishi Tanabe, as well as consulting fees from Astellas Pharma and Chugai. KPKN is on the advisory board for AbbVie. SVN received consulting fees from Biogen and Boehringer Ingelheim; honoraria from Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and GSK; support for attending meetings from Pfizer; and is on the advisory board for Biogen. EFM received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, Servier, EMD, Serono, and Eli Lily. MN received research grants from Janssen; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, and Janssen; and honoraria from Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The selection and categorisation of laboratory tests in disease activity measures used within systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) trial endpoints lack strong evidence. We aimed to determine whether longitudinal improvements in routinely measured laboratory tests are associated with measures of clinical improvement in patients with baseline active SLE., Methods: We included patients from a multicentre longitudinal cohort (recruited between May 1, 2013, and Dec 31, 2019) with active SLE (SLEDAI-2K ≥6) coinciding with an abnormality in at least one of 13 routine laboratory tests, at a visit designated as baseline. At 12 months, we analysed associations between thresholds of improvement in individual laboratory test results, measured as continuous variables, and five clinical outcomes using logistic regression. Primary outcomes were damage accrual and lupus low disease activity state (LLDAS), and secondary outcomes were modified SLE responder index (mSRI), physician global assessment (PGA) improvement of at least 0·3, and flare., Findings: We included 1525 patients (1415 [93%] women and 110 [7%] men, 1328 [87%] Asian ethnicity) in separate subsets for each laboratory test. The strongest associations with LLDAS and damage protection were seen with improvements in proteinuria (complete response: adjusted odds ratio [OR] 62·48, 95% CI 18·79-208·31 for LLDAS, OR 0·22, 95% CI 0·10-0·49 for damage accrual), albumin (complete response: adjusted OR 6·46, 95% CI 2·20-18·98 for LLDAS, OR 0·42, 95% CI 0·20-1·22 for damage accrual), haemoglobin (complete response: adjusted OR 1·97, 95% CI 1·09-3·53 for LLDAS, OR 0·33, 95% CI 0·15-0·71 for damage accrual), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (complete response: adjusted OR 1·71, 95% CI 1·10-2·67 for LLDAS, OR 0·53, 95% CI 0·30-0·94 for damage accrual), and platelets (complete response: adjusted OR 4·82, 95% CI 1·54-15·07 for LLDAS, OR 0·49, 95% CI 0·20-1·19 for damage accrual). Improvement in serological tests were mainly associated with PGA and mSRI. White cell and lymphocyte count improvements were least predictive., Interpretation: Improvements in several routine laboratory tests correspond with clinical outcomes in SLE over 12 months. Tests with the strongest associations were discrepant with laboratory tests included in current trial endpoints, and associations were observed across a range of improvement thresholds including incomplete resolution. These findings suggest the need to revise the use of laboratory test results in SLE trial endpoints., Funding: Abbvie., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests KC reports grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council and Royal Australian College of Physicians, personal fees from AstraZeneca, and sponsorship from Janssen and Pfizer. AH reports grants from Merck Serono, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb and UCB, personal fees from Abbvie, Janssen, and GlaxoSmithKline, sponsorship from Janssen, and honorary treasurer and board participation for Australia Rheumatology Association. SN reports personal fees from Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline, sponsorship from Pfizer, and advisory board participation for Biogen. YK reports personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Pfizer Japan, Janssen, Chugai, Asahi-Kasei, Astellas, and Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma. MH reports grants from Chugai, and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Chugai, and AstraZeneca. KPLN reports advisory board participation for Abbvie. TT reports grants from Astellas, Asahi-Kasei, Chugai, and Mitsubishe-Tanabe, and personal fees from Astellas and Chugai. YT reports grants from Asahi-Kasei, Abbvie, Chugai, Eisai, Takeda, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Boehringer-Ingelheim, and personal fees from Behringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Abbvie, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, and GlaxoSmithKline. MN reports grants from Janssen, and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen and Pfizer. EFM reports grants from Janssen, Astra-Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, UCB, Amgen, Abbvie, and Biogen; personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Capella, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Neovacs, Novartis, Sanofi, Servier, UCB, Wolf, and Zenas; sponsorship from AstraZeneca; a patent application with Monash University; and a not-for-profit participation in Rare Voices of Australia. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Treat-to-target goals for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have been validated to protect against organ damage and to improve quality of life. We aimed to investigate the association between lupus low disease activity state (LLDAS) and remission and risk of mortality in patients with SLE. We hypothesised that LLDAS has a protective association with mortality risk., Methods: In this prospective, multinational, longitudinal cohort study, we used data from patients with SLE in the Asia Pacific Lupus Collaboration cohort collected between May 1, 2013, and Dec 31, 2020. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) who met either the 1997 American College of Rheumatology modified classification criteria for SLE or the 2012 Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics classification criteria. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and LLDAS, remission, and variations of remission with lower glucocorticoid thresholds were the primary exposure variables. Survival analyses were used to examine longitudinal associations between these endpoints and risk of mortality. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03138941., Findings: Among a total of 4106 patients in the cohort, 3811 (92·8%) patients were included in the final analysis (median follow-up 2·8 years [IQR 1·0-5·3]; 3509 [92·1%] women and 302 [7·9%] men), of whom 80 died during the observation period (crude mortality rate 6·4 deaths per 1000 person-years). LLDAS was attained at least once in 43 (53·8%) of 80 participants who died and in 3035 (81·3%) of 3731 participants who were alive at the end of the study (p<0·0001); 22 (27·5%) participants who died versus 1966 (52·7%) who were alive at the end of the study attained LLDAS for at least 50% of observed time (p<0·0001). Remission was attained by 32 (40·0%) of 80 who died and in 2403 (64·4%) of 3731 participants who were alive at the end of the study (p<0·0001); 14 (17·5%) participants who died versus 1389 (37·2%) who were alive at the end of the study attained remission for at least 50% of observed time (p<0·0001). LLDAS for at least 50% of observed time (adjusted hazard ratio 0·51 [95% CI 0·31-0·85]; p=0·010) and remission for at least 50% of observed time (0·52 [0·29-0·93]; p=0·027) were associated with reduced risk of mortality. Modifying the remission glucocorticoid threshold (<5·0 mg/day prednisolone) was more protective against mortality than current remission definitions (0·31 [0·12-0·77]; p=0·012), and glucocorticoid-free remission was the most protective (0·13 [0·02-0·96]; p=0·046)., Interpretation: LLDAS significantly reduced the risk of mortality in patients with SLE. Remission did not further reduce the risk of mortality compared with LLDAS, unless lower glucocorticoid thresholds were used., Funding: The Asia-Pacific Lupus Collaboration received funding from Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, and UCB for this study., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SVN has received consulting fees from Biogen and Boehringer Ingelheim; lecture or speaker fees from Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline; conference registration fees from Pfizer; and payment from Biogen for participation on an advisory board. YK has received payment or honouria from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Pfizer Japan, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Astellas Pharma, and Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation. MH has received payment for post-marketing surveillance from GlaxoSmithKline; research grants from Novartis Pharma; and honoraria for lectures for GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Astellas Pharma. TT has received grants from Astellas, Asahi Kasei, Chugai, and Mitsubishi Tanabe; and consulting fees from Astellas and Chugai. KPLN has received advisory board participation fees from AbbVie. DYY is an employee of Janssen. CSK is a stock owner and an employee of Janssen. MN has received research grants from Janssen; and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer & Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and Janssen. EFM has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Genetech, Janssen, Novartis, Servier, and EMD Serono. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) remains a disease of high unmet clinical need. Because of substantial patient heterogeneity, the execution of clinical trials that successfully determine the efficacy of novel therapeutics compared with placebo is a continuous challenge. Clinician-reported outcome measures of treatment response used in SLE trials have evolved from the use of individual disease activity indices, including the SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) and British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG), to composite responder definitions such as the SLE Responder Index (SRI) and BILAG-Based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA), which are based on these indices. However, these approaches have notable drawbacks and defining the optimal clinical trial outcome measure for SLE remains a research goal. In this Viewpoint, we explore the strengths and limitations of existing indices and composite assessments, illustrating features which should be investigated in future analysis of trial data. Further, we provide a platform from which to advance new approaches to endpoint design, which is crucial to improve the interpretability and success of subsequent clinical trials in SLE., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests KC reports personal fees from Cornerstones Health, outside the submitted work. EFM reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, BristolMyersSquibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, and EMD Serono; and personal fees from Biogen, AbbVie, Wolf, Neovacs, UCB, Sanofi, Novartis, and Amgen, outside the submitted work. VG and RK-R declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Evaluating the contribution of glucocorticoid use to organ damage in systemic lupus erythematosus is confounded by glucocorticoid use in active disease. We sought to determine the independence of the contribution of glucocorticoid use to damage accrual from associations with disease activity by analysing patients without measurable disease activity., Methods: Patients (age >18 years) who met the criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus were recruited from 13 centres in Australia, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand, and followed longitudinally. Disease activity (Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 [SLEDAI-2K] and Physician Global Assessment [PGA] scores) and treatment details were recorded at each visit (at least once every 6 months), and organ damage measured annually according to the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics Damage Index (SDI). Glucocorticoid use during the study period was recorded as any exposure to prednisolone, cumulative prednisolone exposure, and time-adjusted mean daily prednisolone dose. Multivariate survival analyses were used to examine time-dependent associations of glucocorticoid use with damage accrual (defined as an increase of ≥1 on SDI). A SLEDAI-2K score of 0 was taken to indicate the absence of clinical and serological disease activity; a subset of patients without disease activity during the study were defined by a time-adjusted mean SLEDAI-2K (AMS) score of 0., Findings: Between May 1, 2013, and Dec 31, 2016, 1707 patients were recruited. Over a median observation period of 2·2 years (IQR 1·5-3·0), damage accrual events were observed in 255 (14·9%) patients. 1405 (82·3%) of patients were exposed to prednisolone, with a median time-adjusted mean prednisolone dose of 5·0 mg/day (IQR 1·9-8·8). As SLEDAI-2K and PGA scores were highly correlated, two multivariable models were set, each including one of these two variables. In the model including AMS score, baseline SDI damage (SDI >0) was independently associated with damage accrual (HR 1·32 [95% CI 1·01-1·73], p=0·0427). In the other model, time-adjusted mean PGA score was independently associated with damage accrual (1·05 [1·02-1·08], p=0·0012). In both models, factors independently associated with damage accrual included time-adjusted mean prednisolone dose, age at enrolment, and ethnicity (Asian vs non-Asians). 157 (9·2%) patients had an AMS score of 0 (no disease activity), among whom 103 (65·6%) had glucocorticoid exposure and the median time-adjusted mean prednisolone dose was 2·0 mg/day (IQR 0·0-5·0). Accrual of irreversible organ damage occurred in 21 (13·4%) of these patients and was independently associated with time-adjusted mean prednisolone dose (HR 1·14 [95% CI 1·03-1·26], p=0·0117), time-adjusted mean PGA score (1·13 [1·03-1·23], p=0·0144), and age at enrolment (1·04 [1·01-1·07], p=0·0061), but not baseline SDI damage (0·94 [0·43-2·06], p=0·8675)., Interpretation: Glucocorticoid use contributes to damage accrual in systemic lupus erythematosus independently of the presence of clinical or serological disease activity., Funding: UCB Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca (to the Asia-Pacific Lupus Collaboration)., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Validated outcome measures are needed from which to derive treatment strategies for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). However, no definition of remission for SLE has been widely adopted. The Definitions of Remission in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (DORIS) group has proposed a framework with multiple potential definitions of remission. In this study, we aimed to assess the attainability and effect on disease outcomes of the DORIS definitions of remission, compared with the lupus low disease activity state (LLDAS), in patients with SLE., Methods: In this prospective cohort study, we enrolled patients with SLE from 13 international centres that are part of the Asia Pacific Lupus Collaboration. Eligible patients were older than 18 years and fulfilled one of two classification criteria for SLE (1997 American College of Rheumatology criteria or the 2012 Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics criteria). Visits were according to clinical need, with a minimum frequency of one visit per 6 months. We assessed attainment of remission on the basis of the eight DORIS definitions of remission, which varied in terms of serological activity, glucocorticoid use, and use of immunosuppresive agents; attainment of LLDAS; and disease flares at each visit. Irreversible organ damage accrual was recorded annually. Our primary aim was to assess exposure of patients to each of the remission definitions or LLDAS, and the respective association of these states with accrual of irreversible organ damage as the primary outcome measure. Occurrence of disease flares was the key secondary outcome. We used time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models and generalised linear models to assess DORIS definitions of remission and LLDAS in terms of their association with damage accrual and disease flares., Findings: Between May 1, 2013, and Dec 31, 2016, 1707 patients with SLE were recruited and followed for a mean of 2·2 years (SD 0·9), totalling 12 689 visits. Remission, depending on DORIS definition, was achieved in 581 (4·6%) to 4546 (35·8%) of 12 689 visits. Spending 50% or more of observed time in any remission state was associated with a significant reduction in damage accrual, except for the two most stringent remission definitions, for which the frequency of attainment was lowest. Remission definitions disallowing serological activity were associated with the greatest reductions in disease flares. LLDAS was more attainable than any remission definition and was associated with a similar magnitude of protection from damage accrual and disease flares. Sustained remission and LLDAS were associated with a wider spread of effect sizes for reduction in risk of damage. By analysing patients who met the definition for LLDAS but not remission, we found that LLDAS was significantly associated with reduction in damage accrual, independent of all definitions of remission, except the least stringent., Interpretation: Attainment of remission was associated with significant reductions in damage accrual and disease flares. LLDAS was more achievable than remission based on the DORIS criteria, but was similarly protective. Remission definitions with less stringency might be insufficiently distinct from LLDAS to substantially affect outcome measures, and further studies are needed to distinguish the protective effects of the various remission definitions., Funding: UCB, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Treat-to-target strategies have improved outcomes in single-organ diseases with simple clinical or laboratory endpoints. A lack of validated endpoints has prevented adoption of treat to target for complex multiorgan conditions, such as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). We report the first prospective study undertaken to specifically validate a treat-to-target endpoint for SLE., Methods: In this prospective cohort study, patients aged 18 years or older with SLE were recruited from 13 centres in eight countries and followed prospectively. Patients with at least two visits over the study period no more than 6 months apart were included in the longitudinal analysis. Patients with no visits in the final year of the study were censored from their last visit. Attainment of the lupus low disease activity state (LLDAS) was assessed at each visit. The primary outcome measure was accrual of irreversible end-organ damage, defined as at least a 1-point increase in the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index. We used time-dependent hazard regression models and generalised linear models to measure the association between LLDAS (attainment at any timepoint, cumulative time in LLDAS, and sustained LLDAS) with accrual of irreversible end-organ damage or flare (key secondary outcome). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03138941., Findings: Between May 1, 2013, and Dec 31, 2016, 1707 patients were recruited and followed for a mean of 2·2 years (SD 0·9), totalling 12 689 visits. Attainment of LLDAS at any timepoint was associated with reduction in damage accrual (hazard ratio 0·59, 0·45-0·76; p<0·0001) and subsequent flare (0·65, 95% CI 0·56-0·75; p<0·0001). Cumulative time in LLDAS was associated with improved outcomes: compared with patients with less than 50% of observed time in LLDAS, those with at least 50% of observed time in LLDAS had reduced risk of damage accrual (0·54, 0·42-0·70; p<0·0001) and flare (0·41, 0·35-0·48; p<0·0001). Similarly, increased durations of sustained LLDAS were associated with incremental reductions in the risk of damage accrual. The association of LLDAS with reduced damage accrual was observed regardless of pre-existing damage or disease activity at study entry., Interpretation: LLDAS attainment is associated with significant protection against flare and damage accrual in SLE. These findings validate LLDAS as an endpoint for clinical studies in SLE., Funding: The Asia Pacific Lupus Collaboration received project support grants from UCB Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)