Search

To assess the effect of mycophenolate mofetil compared with intravenous pulses of cyclophosphamide on the nonrenal manifestations of lupus nephritis.Patients with active lupus nephritis (renal biopsy class III, IV, or V) were recruited for the study (n = 370) and treated with mycophenolate mofetil (target dosage 3 gm/day) or intravenous cyclophosphamide (0.5-1.0 gm/m(2)/month), plus tapered prednisone, for 24 weeks. Nonrenal outcomes were determined using measures of whole body disease activity, including the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) disease activity index, the Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus: National Assessment (SELENA) version of the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI), and immunologic variables.Both treatments were effective on whole body disease activity in the systems examined, as indicated by changes in the classic BILAG index. With either treatment, remission was induced, notably in the mucocutaneous, musculoskeletal, cardiovascular/respiratory, and vasculitis systems, and flares were rare, as measured by the SELENA-SLEDAI. Levels of complement C3, C4, and CH50 and titers of anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies were normalized after treatment with either mycophenolate mofetil or intravenous cyclophosphamide.In addition to the efficacy of both treatments on the renal system, this analysis showed that remission could also be induced in other systems. There was no clear difference in efficacy between mycophenolate mofetil and intravenous cyclophosphamide in ameliorating either the renal or nonrenal manifestations. Mycophenolate mofetil is, therefore, a suitable alternative to cyclophosphamide for the treatment of renal and nonrenal disease manifestations in patients with biopsy-proven lupus nephritis.

Recent studies have suggested that mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) may offer advantages over intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVC) for the treatment of lupus nephritis, but these therapies have not been compared in an international randomized, controlled trial. Here, we report the comparison of MMF and IVC as induction treatment for active lupus nephritis in a multinational, two-phase (induction and maintenance) study. We randomly assigned 370 patients with classes III through V lupus nephritis to open-label MMF (target dosage 3 g/d) or IVC (0.5 to 1.0 g/m(2) in monthly pulses) in a 24-wk induction study. Both groups received prednisone, tapered from a maximum starting dosage of 60 mg/d. The primary end point was a prespecified decrease in urine protein/creatinine ratio and stabilization or improvement in serum creatinine. Secondary end points included complete renal remission, systemic disease activity and damage, and safety. Overall, we did not detect a significantly different response rate between the two groups: 104 (56.2%) of 185 patients responded to MMF compared with 98 (53.0%) of 185 to IVC. Secondary end points were also similar between treatment groups. There were nine deaths in the MMF group and five in the IVC group. We did not detect significant differences between the MMF and IVC groups with regard to rates of adverse events, serious adverse events, or infections. Although most patients in both treatment groups experienced clinical improvement, the study did not meet its primary objective of showing that MMF was superior to IVC as induction treatment for lupus nephritis.

To examine, in an inception cohort of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients, the association between neuropsychiatric (NP) events and anti-ribosomal P (anti-P), antiphospholipid (lupus anticoagulant [LAC], anticardiolipin), anti-beta2-glycoprotein I, and anti-NR2 glutamate receptor antibodies.NP events were identified using the American College of Rheumatology case definitions and clustered into central/peripheral and diffuse/focal events. Attribution of NP events to SLE was determined using decision rules of differing stringency. Autoantibodies were measured without knowledge of NP events or their attribution.Four hundred twelve patients were studied (87.4% female; mean +/- SD age 34.9 +/- 13.5 years, mean +/- SD disease duration 5.0 +/- 4.2 months). There were 214 NP events in 133 patients (32.3%). The proportion of NP events attributed to SLE varied from 15% to 36%. There was no association between autoantibodies and NP events overall. However, the frequency of anti-P antibodies in patients with central NP events attributed to SLE was 4 of 20 (20%), versus 3 of 107 (2.8%) in patients with other NP events and 24 of 279 (8.6%) in those with no NP events (P = 0.04). Among patients with diffuse NP events, 3 of 11 had anti-P antibodies (27%), compared with 4 of 111 patients with other NP events (3.6%) and 24 of 279 of those with no NP events (8.6%) (P = 0.02). Specific clinical-serologic associations were found between anti-P and psychosis attributed to SLE (P = 0.02) and between LAC and cerebrovascular disease attributed to SLE (P = 0.038). There was no significant association between other autoantibodies and NP events.Clinically distinct NP events attributed to SLE and occurring around the time of diagnosis were found to be associated with anti-P antibodies and LAC. This suggests that there are different autoimmune pathogenetic mechanisms, although low sensitivity limits the clinical application of testing for these antibodies.

To assess prevention of bone mineral density (BMD) loss and durability of the response during treatment with prasterone in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) receiving chronic glucocorticoids.155 patients with SLE received 200 mg/day prasterone or placebo for 6 months in a double-blind phase. Subsequently, 114 patients were re-randomized to receive 200 or 100 mg/day prasterone for 12 months in an open-label phase. Primary efficacy endpoints were changes in BMD at the lumbar spine (L-spine) from baseline to Month 6 and maintenance of BMD from Month 6 to 18 for patients who received prasterone during the double-blind phase.In the double-blind phase, there was a trend for a small gain in BMD at the L-spine for patients who received 200 mg/day prasterone for 6 months versus a loss in the placebo group (mean +/- SD, 0.003 +/- 0.035 vs -0.005 +/- 0.053 g/cm(2), respectively; p = 0.293 between groups). In the open-label phase, there was dose-dependent increase in BMD at the L-spine at Month 18 between patients who received 200 versus 100 mg/day prasterone (p = 0.021). For patients who received 200 mg/day prasterone for 18 months, the L-spine BMD gain was 1.083 +/- 0.512% (p = 0.042). There was no overall change in BMD at the total hip over 18 months with 200 mg/day prasterone treatment. The safety profile reflected the weak androgenic properties of prasterone.This study suggests prasterone 200 mg/day may offer mild protection against bone loss in women with SLE receiving glucocorticoids. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers NCT00053560 and NCT00082511).

Objectives: To determine, in a multi-ethnic/racial, prospective SLE inception cohort, the frequency, attribution, clinical and autoantibody associations with lupus psychosis and the short and long-term outcome as assessed by physicians and patients. Methods: Patients were evaluated annually for 19 neuropsychiatric (NP) events including psychosis. SLE disease activity 2000, SLICC/ACR damage index and SF-36 scores were collected. Time to event and linear regressions were used as appropriate. Results: Of 1,826 SLE patients, 88.8% were female, 48.8% Caucasian. The meanSD age was 35.1±13.3 years, disease duration 5.64.2 months and follow-up 7.44.5 years. There were 31 psychotic events in 28/1,826 (1.53%) patients and most [(26/28; 93%)] had a single event. In the majority of patients [20/25; (80%)] and events [28/31; (90%)] psychosis was attributed to SLE, usually within 3 years of SLE diagnosis. Positive associations [hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval [HR (95%CI)] with lupus psychosis were prior SLE NP events [3.59, (1.16, 11.14), male sex [3.0, (1.20, 7.50)], younger age at SLE diagnosis [(per 10 years younger), 1.45 (1.01, 2.07)] and African ancestry [4.59 (1.79, 11.76)]. By physician assessment most psychotic events resolved by the second annual visit following onset, in parallel with an improvement in patient reported SF-36 summary and subscale scores. Conclusion: Psychosis is an infrequent manifestation of NPSLE. Generally, it occurs early after SLE onset and has a significant negative impact on health status. As determined by patient and physician report, the short and long term outlook is good for most patients, though careful follow-up is required.