Search

BackgroundSystemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) management objectives include preventing disease flares while minimizing glucocorticoid exposure. Pooled data from the phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials in patients with moderate to severe SLE were analyzed to determine anifrolumab’s effect on flares, including those arising with glucocorticoid taper.MethodsTULIP-1 and TULIP-2 were randomized, placebo-controlled, 52-week trials of intravenous anifrolumab (300 mg every 4 weeks for 48 weeks). For patients receiving baseline glucocorticoid ≥10 mg/day, attempted taper to ≤7.5 mg/day prednisone or equivalent from Weeks 8–40 was required and defined as sustained reduction when maintained through Week 52. Flares were defined as ≥1 new BILAG-2004 A or ≥2 new BILAG-2004 B scores versus the previous visit. Flare assessments were compared for patients receiving anifrolumab versus placebo.ResultsCompared with placebo (n = 366), anifrolumab (n = 360) was associated with lower annualized flare rates (rate ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60–0.95), prolonged time to first flare (hazard ratio 0.70, 95% CI 0.55–0.89), and fewer patients with ≥1 flare (difference −9.3%, 95% CI −16.3 to −2.3), as well as flares in organ domains commonly active at baseline (musculoskeletal, mucocutaneous). Fewer BILAG-based Composite Lupus Assessment responders had ≥1 flare with anifrolumab (21.1%, 36/171) versus placebo (30.4%, 34/112). Of patients who achieved sustained glucocorticoid reductions from ≥10 mg/day at baseline, more remained flare free with anifrolumab (40.0%, 76/190) versus placebo (17.3%, 32/185).ConclusionsAnalyses of pooled TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 data support that anifrolumab reduces flares while permitting glucocorticoid taper in patients with SLE. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers TULIP-1 NCT02446912 (clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02446912); TULIP-2 NCT02446899 (clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02446899).

The EXPLORER study was designed to assess the response to rituximab versus placebo in patients with moderate to severe extrarenal systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) receiving background immunosuppression. The definition of response required reduced clinical activity without subsequent flares over 52 weeks, and the study did not meet its efficacy endpoint. The current exploratory analysis assessed flare rates in patients who achieved initial low disease activity response (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group [BILAG] C or better in all organs) during the study. Exploratory reanalysis of data from the EXPLORER trial was conducted, considering alternative definitions for flare. No difference was found between rituximab and placebo in preventing or delaying moderate to severe flares. However, when severe (BILAG A) flares alone were examined, rituximab reduced the risk of a subsequent first A flare (hazard ratio = 0.61; p = 0.052) and lowered mean ± SD annualized A flare rates (0.86 ± 1.47 vs. 1.41 ± 2.14; p = 0.038). Eighty-four (49.7%) rituximab-treated patients achieved low disease activity without subsequent A flares versus 31 (35.2%) placebo-treated patients ( p = 0.027). Prednisone rescue for A flares was similar in rituximab- (24%) and placebo-treated (14%) patients ( p = 0.204). This post hoc analysis evaluates the hypothesis that assessment of BILAG A flares may distinguish potential treatment effects with greater sensitivity than assessment of BILAG B flares.

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is characterized by multiple autoantibodies and complement activation. Recent studies have suggested that anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) positivity may disappear over time in some SLE patients. Anti-double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) antibody titers and complement levels may vary with time and immunosuppressive treatment, while the behavior of anti-extractable nuclear antigen (ENA) over time is less well understood. This study sought to determine the correlation between historical autoantibody tests and current testing in patients with SLE. Three hundred and two SLE patients from the ACR Reclassification of SLE (AROSE) database with both historical and current laboratory data were selected for analysis. The historical laboratory data were compared with the current autoantibody tests done at the reference laboratory and tested for agreement using percent agreement and Kappa statistic. Serologic tests included ANA, anti-dsDNA, anti-Smith, anti-ribonucleoprotein (RNP), anti-Ro, anti-La, rheumatoid factor (RF), C3 and C4. Among those historically negative for immunologic markers, a current assessment of the markers by the reference laboratory generally yielded a low percentage of additional positives (3–13%). However, 6/11 (55%) of those historically negative for ANA were positive by the reference laboratory, and the reference laboratory test also identified 20% more patients with anti-RNP and 18% more with RF. Among those historically positive for immunologic markers, the reference laboratory results were generally positive on the same laboratory test (range 57% to 97%). However, among those with a history of low C3 or C4, the current reference laboratory results indicated low C3 or C4 a low percentage of the time (18% and 39%, respectively). ANA positivity remained positive over time, in contrast to previous studies. Anti-Ro, La, RNP, Smith and anti-dsDNA antibodies had substantial agreement over time, while complement had less agreement. This variation could partially be explained by variability of the historical assays, which were done by local laboratories over varying periods of time. Variation in the results for complement, however, is more likely to be explained by response to treatment. These findings deserve consideration in the context of diagnosis and enrolment in clinical trials.

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a clinically diverse, complex autoimmune disease which may present with coincident onset of many criteria or slow, gradual symptom accrual. Early intervention has been postulated to delay or prevent the development of more serious sequelae. One option for treatment in this setting is hydroxychloroquine. Using 130 US military personnel who later met ACR SLE criteria, a retrospective study of onset, development and progression of SLE with and without pre-classification hydroxychloroquine ( n = 26) use was performed. Patients treated with hydroxychloroquine prior to diagnosis had a longer (Wilcoxon signed rank test, P = 0.018) time between the onset of the first clinical symptom and SLE classification (median: 1.08 versus 0.29 years). Patients treated with prednisone before diagnosis also more slowly satisfied the classification criteria (Wilcoxon signed rank test, P = 0.011). The difference in median times between patients who received NSAIDs before diagnosis, as opposed to those who did not, was not different ( P = 0.19). Patients treated with hydroxychloroquine also had a lower rate of autoantibody accumulation and a decreased number of autoantibody specificities at and after diagnosis. These findings are consistent with early hydroxychloroquine use being associated with delayed SLE onset. A prospective, blinded trial testing the capacity of hydroxychloroquine to delay or prevent SLE in high risk populations is warranted. Lupus (2007) 16, 401—409.

The major impediment to drug development for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is its heterogeneity. The unpredictable manner in which lupus targets different organs at varying intensity makes the study of new drugs and the optimization of their administration extremely difficult. With the advent of novel, targeted biologic agents for SLE, it can be hoped that more strategic, lupus-relevant immune modulation will lead to safer and more effective treatments. Two alternative new approaches to lupus treatment are reviewed. The first involves selective inhibition of a single protein (BLyS), which may play a central role in host defense and in the pathogenesis of SLE. Although this approach is finely targeted to the inhibition of a single protein which is known to be upregulated in SLE patients, the positioning of BLyS at a critical hub in the immune response suggests that more global adverse repercussions on immunity might still occur. The second strategy is the use of peptides designed to specifically induce tolerance in limited autoreactive immune responses. Immune repercussions might, at least in theory, be almost nonexistent with this kind of approach. Concerns that limited induction of tolerance might have equally limited impact on the complex immune disorder of SLE are not borne out in preliminary murine data. Specific development programs are ongoing using both of these strategies and have recently entered human trials.

The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) can occur as a primary diagnosis or as a prominent feature of other diseases, predominantly systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The 1982 revised criteria for SLE were published prior to many of the studies which have illuminated current understanding of the antiphospholipid syndrome and several current clinical criteria for SLE, when arising from thrombotic damage to different organ systems, could be attributed to APS, leading to some confusion about where the diagnoses of these two disorders should begin and end. Additionally, APS is a significant generalized risk factor for irreversible organ damage and overall mortality in SLE patients and genetic linkages to HLA in APS hold up whether the disorder is primary or linked to SLE. It is increasingly recognized that APS itself is a complex, heterogenous disorder, involving a spectrum of autoantibodies to phospholipid-binding proteins, many of which have known coagulation-regulating functions. Although the combination of more than one antiphospholipid-related antibody might indicate a more severe phenotype, it is not suggested here that additive criteria for the diagnosis of SLE be accumulated with more than one of these pathologically related autoantibodies. Patients with multiple criteria for APS should be considered to have severe APS but it would be recommended to restrict APS-attributed criteria for SLE to a maximal of two: one immunologic and one clinical. Thus people meeting the Sapporo criteria for APS could gain only a maximum of two criteria for SLE, regardless of how many autoantibodies were detected or how severe the clinical syndrome might be. This would allow manifestations of fullblown APS an appropriate impact towards the diagnosis of SLE without leading to a premature diagnosis of SLE for people who might better be considered to have moderate to severe primary APS.

The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a thrombotic disorder leading to spontaneous abortions, venous thromboses, myocardial infarctions and strokes. Although the syndrome is associated with characteristic autoantibodies, these tests have poor predictive value for thrombosis. The aim of the study was to determine whether the combined presence of two types of antiphospholipidantibodies can be associated with a high-risk subset of thrombosis-prone patients. One hundred and thirty-four sera from a lupus clinic were tested for antibodies to β2-glycoprotein I (β2GPI), protein S and prothrombin. In a group of 29 patients for whom plasma was available, free (functional) protein S levels were also measured. Autoantibodies to β2GPI and protein S are associated with each other. Dual reactivity to β2GPI and protein S correlates with increased history of thrombotic events (69% of doubly reactive patients) when compared to either type of autoantibodyalone (37% of patients with only anti-β2GPI and 38% with only anti-protein S, P=0.04 and P=0.01, respectively) or neither reactivity (37%). Among 29 patients tested for free (functional, anticoagulant)protein S levels, the lowest levels were found in patients with antibodies to β2GPI and/or protein S, and all four patients with a history of thrombosis had below-normal free protein S levels. These associations were not found with antiprothrombin antibodies. In conclusion dual autoantibodiesto β2GPI and protein S are associated with increased history of thrombosis in the antiphospholipid syndrome.

In examining reasons for premature atherosclerosis in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), we previously reported low levels of the cholesterol transport protein apolipoprotein A1 (apoA1) in these patients, and specific antibodies to purified apoA1 were identified in the sera of 5 out of 30 lupus patients. The current study was initiated to determine whether these antibodies are common in lupus patients. 520 serum samples from 175 patients with SLE or primary antiphospholipid syndrome (PAPS) were tested for antibodies to purified apoA1. Positive sera were retested for binding to apolipoprotein incorporated into reconstructed nascent or mature high-density lipoprotein (HDL). Autoantibodies to apoA1 were found in 32.5% of patients with SLE and 22.9% of patients with PAPS, associated with the presence of aPL (anti-β2 glycoprotein-1, antiβ2 GP1) antibodies. When reconstructed, nascent and mature HDL molecules were compared as antigen-containing environments, positive sera reacted best to apoA1 embedded in mature HDL molecules. This report confirms the high prevalence of antibodies to apoA1 in patients with systemic lupus and suggests a high affinity of these antibodies for mature HDL.

A hallmark of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and related autoimmune diseases such as the antiphospholipid syndrome (APL or Hughes syndrome) is an apparent breakdown in tolerance, the process by which the body distinguishesself from nonself in order to maintain a versatile immune defense while protecting itself from self-annihilation.To some extent, loss of tolerance is a desirable feature of host immunity, and is known to occur in healthy individuals. Optimal tolerance then is probably not an all or nothing phenomenon. Autoimmunity should be seen as a breakdown in homeostasis rather than a completely aberrant kind of immunity. This leads to special considerations in the assessment of potentially toleragenic therapies, in which an attempt is made to re-educate the immune system. LJP 1082 is designed as a polyvalent antigenic structure aimed at crosslinking specific surface immunoglobulin and tolerizing B cells to β2-glycoprotein I. Issues of antigenic selection and multiplex forces influencing tolerance and immunity may have impact on its optimal development and use in patients.