Objective The Systemic Lupus Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) revised and validated the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) SLE classification criteria in order to improve clinical relevance, meet stringent methodology requirements and incorporate new knowledge in SLE immunology. Methods The classification criteria were derived from a set of 702 expert-rated patient scenarios. Recursive partitioning was used to derive an initial rule that was simplified and refined based on SLICC physician consensus. SLICC validated the classification criteria in a new validation sample of 690 SLE patients and controls. Results Seventeen criteria were identified. The SLICC criteria for SLE classification requires: 1) Fulfillment of at least four criteria, with at least one clinical criterion AND one immunologic criterion OR 2) Lupus nephritis as the sole clinical criterion in the presence of ANA or anti-dsDNA antibodies. In the derivation set, the SLICC classification criteria resulted in fewer misclassifications than the current ACR classification criteria (49 versus 70, p=0.0082), had greater sensitivity (94% versus 86%, p<0.0001) and equal specificity (92% versus 93%, p=0.39). In the validation set, the SLICC Classification criteria resulted in fewer misclassifications (62 versus 74, p=0.24), had greater sensitivity (97% versus 83%, p<0.0001) but less specificity (84% versus 96%, p<0.0001). Conclusions The new SLICC classification criteria performed well on a large set of patient scenarios rated by experts. They require that at least one clinical criterion and one immunologic criterion be present for a classification of SLE. Biopsy confirmed nephritis compatible with lupus (in the presence of SLE autoantibodies) is sufficient for classification.

Our objective was to update the EULAR recommendations for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), based on emerging new evidence. We performed a systematic literature review (01/2007–12/2017), followed by modified Delphi method, to form questions, elicit expert opinions and reach consensus. Treatment in SLE aims at remission or low disease activity and prevention of flares. Hydroxychloroquine is recommended in all patients with lupus, at a dose not exceeding 5 mg/kg real body weight. During chronic maintenance treatment, glucocorticoids (GC) should be minimised to less than 7.5 mg/day (prednisone equivalent) and, when possible, withdrawn. Appropriate initiation of immunomodulatory agents (methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate) can expedite the tapering/discontinuation of GC. In persistently active or flaring extrarenal disease, add-on belimumab should be considered; rituximab (RTX) may be considered in organ-threatening, refractory disease. Updated specific recommendations are also provided for cutaneous, neuropsychiatric, haematological and renal disease. Patients with SLE should be assessed for their antiphospholipid antibody status, infectious and cardiovascular diseases risk profile and preventative strategies be tailored accordingly. The updated recommendations provide physicians and patients with updated consensus guidance on the management of SLE, combining evidence-base and expert-opinion.

ObjectivesTo develop recommendations for the management of adult and paediatric lupus nephritis (LN).MethodsThe available evidence was systematically reviewed using the PubMed database. A modified Delphi method was used to compile questions, elicit expert opinions and reach consensus.ResultsImmunosuppressive treatment should be guided by renal biopsy, and aiming for complete renal response (proteinuria <0.5 g/24 h with normal or near-normal renal function). Hydroxychloroquine is recommended for all patients with LN. Because of a more favourable efficacy/toxicity ratio, as initial treatment for patients with class III–IVA or A/C (±V) LN according to the International Society of Nephrology/Renal Pathology Society 2003 classification, mycophenolic acid (MPA) or low-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide (CY) in combination with glucocorticoids is recommended. In patients with adverse clinical or histological features, CY can be prescribed at higher doses, while azathioprine is an alternative for milder cases. For pure class V LN with nephrotic-range proteinuria, MPA in combination with oral glucocorticoids is recommended as initial treatment. In patients improving after initial treatment, subsequent immunosuppression with MPA or azathioprine is recommended for at least 3 years; in such cases, initial treatment with MPA should be followed by MPA. For MPA or CY failures, switching to the other agent, or to rituximab, is the suggested course of action. In anticipation of pregnancy, patients should be switched to appropriate medications without reducing the intensity of treatment. There is no evidence to suggest that management of LN should differ in children versus adults.ConclusionsRecommendations for the management of LN were developed using an evidence-based approach followed by expert consensus.

Objective B cells are likely to contribute to the pathogenesis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and rituximab induces depletion of B cells. The Exploratory Phase II/III SLE Evaluation of Rituximab (EXPLORER) trial tested the efficacy and safety of rituximab versus placebo in patients with moderately-to-severely active extrarenal SLE. Methods Patients entered with ≥1 British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) A score or ≥2 BILAG B scores despite background immunosuppressant therapy, which was continued during the trial. Prednisone was added and subsequently tapered. Patients were randomized at a ratio of 2:1 to receive rituximab (1,000 mg) or placebo on days 1, 15, 168, and 182. Results In the intent-to-treat analysis of 257 patients, background treatment was evenly distributed among azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, and methotrexate. Fifty-three percent of the patients had ≥1 BILAG A score at entry, and 57% of the patients were categorized as being steroid dependent. No differences were observed between placebo and rituximab in the primary and secondary efficacy end points, including the BILAG-defined response, in terms of both area under the curve and landmark analyses. A beneficial effect of rituximab on the primary end point was observed in the African American and Hispanic subgroups. Safety and tolerability were similar in patients receiving placebo and those receiving rituximab. Conclusion The EXPLORER trial enrolled patients with moderately-to-severely active SLE and used aggressive background treatment and sensitive cutoffs for nonresponse. No differences were noted between placebo and rituximab in the primary and secondary end points. Further evaluation of patient subsets, biomarkers, and exploratory outcome models may improve the design of future SLE clinical trials.

Objective. To test the reliability of the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology (SLICC/ACR) Damage Index and the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) in the assessment of patients with SLE. Methods. Ten patients with SLE, representing a spectrum of damage and activity, were included. Each patient was examined by 6 of 10 physicians from 5 countries, representing 10 lupus clinics. The SLICC/ACR Damage Index was used to assess accumulated damage, and the SLEDAI was used to assess disease activity. The order of the patients and physicians was randomized according to a Youden square design. Results. The SLICC/ACR Damage Index detected differences among patients (P < 0.001). There was no detectable observer difference (P = 0.933), and there was no order effect (P = 0.261). Similar results were obtained with the SLEDAI. There was concordance in the SLICC/ACR Damage Index among observers, despite a wide spectrum of disease activity detected by the SLEDAI. Conclusion. Physicians from different centers are able to assess patients with SLE in a reproducible way, using the SLEDAI to assess disease activity and the SLICC/ACR Damage Index to assess accumulated damage.