Jennifer M. Grossman

American College of Rheumatology guidelines for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis

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.

American College of Rheumatology 2010 recommendations for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid‐induced osteoporosis

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.

Systematic Review: Comparative Effectiveness of Treatments to Prevent Fractures in Men and Women with Low Bone Density or Osteoporosis

Context Sorting through the proven benefits and harms of the agents available for treating osteoporosis is difficult. Contribution This systematic review of 76 randomized trials and 24 meta-analyses found good evidence that multiple agents, including alendronate, zoledronic acid, and estrogen, prevented vertebral and hip fractures more than placebo. Harms included increased risk for thromboembolic events with raloxifene, estrogen, and estrogenprogestin and increased gastrointestinal symptoms with bisphosphonates. No large trials directly compared 2 or more agents and established superiority of any agent. Implication Available data insufficiently characterize the benefits and harms of various therapies for osteoporosis relative to one another. The Editors Osteoporosis is a systemic skeletal disease characterized by low bone mass and microarchitectural deterioration of bone tissue, with a consequent increase in bone fragility and susceptibility to fracture (1). Approximately 44 million people in the United States are affected by osteoporosis and low bone mass (2). The clinical complications include fractures, disability, and chronic pain. About 54% of women age 50 years or older will have an osteoporotic fracture during their lifetime (3). Furthermore, approximately 4% of patients older than 50 years of age who have a hip fracture die while in the hospital and 24% die within 1 year after the hip fracture (4). The economic burden of osteoporosis is large and growing. Most estimates are based on the cost of fracture alone: A 1995 estimate of costs incurred by osteoporotic fractures in the United States was

Gene copy-number variation and associated polymorphisms of complement component C4 in human systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE): low copy number is a risk factor for and high copy number is a protective factor against SLE susceptibility in European Americans.

13.8 billion (5). A 2003 review estimated the total costs in the United States at

Sex-specific association of X-linked Toll-like receptor 7 (TLR7) with male systemic lupus erythematosus

17 billion (6). Although the bulk of these costs were incurred by retired individuals older than age 65 years, direct costs and work loss are significant among employed postmenopausal women (7). The increasing prevalence and cost of osteoporosis have heightened interest in the efficacy and safety of the many agents available to treat the loss of bone mineral associated with osteoporosis. This systematic review, developed under the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Effective Health Care Program, describes the benefits in fracture reduction and the harms from adverse events among and within the various classes of pharmacotherapies for osteoporosis. The agents evaluated were bisphosphonates (alendronate, etidronate, ibandronate, pamidronate, risedronate, and zoledronic acid), calcitonin, estrogen, teriparatide, selective estrogen receptor modulators (raloxifene and tamoxifen), testosterone, and vitamins (vitamin D) and minerals (calcium). Methods We followed a standardized protocol for the review. The full technical report (8) provides detailed methods, evidence tables, and risk estimates for individual studies. The full report also enumerates studies included in the meta-analyses described in this review. Data Sources and Study Selection We searched MEDLINE (1966 to December 2006), the ACP Journal Club database, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (no date limits), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (no date limits), and the Web sites of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (no date limits) and Health Technology Assessment Programme (January 1998 to December 2006) for materials pertaining to the specified agents, limiting our searches to English-language publications and human studies. We first identified systematic reviews and meta-analyses of trials that reported pooled estimates of the effect of the agents on fracture risk. When such reviews were identified for specific agents, we truncated our searches for randomized trials to include only those published after the last search date used in the review or meta-analysis. We manually searched reference lists of all review articles obtained for any reports of original research not already identified, and we reviewed U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) medical and statistical reviews, scientific information packets from pharmaceutical companies, and additional studies recommended by our technical expert panel and by stakeholders during a public review period. To supplement the information in systematic reviews on estrogen, we reviewed the Womens Health Initiative and Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study trials, as suggested by our technical expert panel. Finally, we conducted an additional search for large observational studies that reported any of the following adverse events: 1) cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction and stroke); 2) thromboembolic events (pulmonary embolism and venous thromboembolic events); 3) malignant conditions (breast cancer, colon cancer, lung cancer, and osteosarcoma); 4) upper gastrointestinal events (perforations, ulcers, bleeding, and esophageal ulcerations); and 5) osteonecrosis. The search was updated for this paper, but not for the full report, by searching MEDLINE (1 January 2007 to 10 November 2007) for large clinical trials that reported fracture outcomes for the specified agents. For information on efficacy, we selected meta-analyses that reported pooled risk estimates for fracture and randomized trials that compared any of the agents with placebo or with each other and reported fracture outcomes. For information on harms, we selected systematic reviews, randomized trials, and large casecontrol or cohort studies with more than 1000 participants. We also reviewed cases of osteonecrosis at AHRQs request. Data Extraction and Study Quality Two physicians independently abstracted data about study populations, interventions, follow-up, and outcome ascertainment by using a structured form. For each group in a randomized trial, a statistician extracted the sample size and number of persons who reported fractures. Two reviewers, under the supervision of the statistician, independently abstracted information about adverse events. Disagreements were resolved by the statistician or the principal investigator. Adverse events were recorded onto a spreadsheet that identified numbers of participants in each trial group and the description of the adverse event as listed in the original article. Each event was counted as if it represented a unique individual. Because an individual may have experienced more than 1 event within a category of adverse events (for example, both stroke and myocardial infarction), this assumption may have overestimated the number of people who had an adverse event in that category. If a trial report mentioned a particular type of adverse event but did not report data on it, we did not include the trial in that particular events analysis. In other words, we did not assume an occurrence of zero events unless it was specifically reported as such. By taking this approach, we may have overestimated the number of patients for whom a particular adverse event was observed. We used predefined criteria to assess the quality of systematic reviews and randomized trials, based on internal and external validity assessment detailed in the QUOROM (Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses) statement (9), and items related to randomization, blinding, and accounting for withdrawals and dropouts (10, 11). Each element is detailed in appendices to the full report (8). For this review, we characterized the overall strength of evidence for estimating fracture risk as good, fair, or weak on the basis of the characteristics previously described, as well as the number of studies, total number of participants across studies, whether fractures were a primary outcome, reproducibility of results across studies, and precision of the CIs surrounding the point estimates. Evidence was classified as good if the total sample size was greater than 1000, the results across all studies were consistent, and the studies were of high methodological quality. Evidence was classified as fair if results were inconsistent across the studies. The evidence was classified as weak if no studies assessed fracture as a primary outcome, the total sample size across studies was less than 500, and the CIs around the point estimates were wide and crossed null. Data Synthesis and Statistical Analysis Comparisons of interest were single agent versus placebo and single agent versus another agent for agents within the same class and across classes. We also compared estrogenprogestin versus placebo or single drugs. Studies that included either calcium or vitamin D in all study groups were classified as comparisons between the other agents in each group; for example, alendronate plus calcium versus risedronate plus calcium would be classified as alendronate versus risedronate. In this review, we summarize data on vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures; data on total, wrist, and humerus fractures are included in the full report (8). The number of people with at least 1 fracture was our primary outcome of interest. Because fractures rarely occurred and zero events were often observed in at least 1 treatment group, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) by using the Peto method (12). Trials with zero events in both groups have an undefined OR. Because fractures are rare events, the OR approximates the relative risk (RR) for fracture. We combined data from multiple study groups in an individual study to calculate a single OR for comparisons of interest. In these instances, the same outcome had been reported for each group, and the individuals in each group were unique. For example, to develop an OR for the risk for vertebral fractures regardless of dose, we combined the participants in the various dose groups and compared them with those in the placebo group. We conducted the meta-analysis by using StatXact PROCs (Cytel, Cambridge, Massachusetts) for SAS software (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina). Recognizing that characteristics of the study population may affect risk for fracture, we defined risk groups to categorize the

Dysfunctional Proinflammatory High-Density Lipoproteins Confer Increased Risk of Atherosclerosis in Women With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Interindividual gene copy-number variation (CNV) of complement component C4 and its associated polymorphisms in gene size (long and short) and protein isotypes (C4A and C4B) probably lead to different susceptibilities to autoimmune disease. We investigated the C4 gene CNV in 1,241 European Americans, including patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), their first-degree relatives, and unrelated healthy subjects, by definitive genotyping and phenotyping techniques. The gene copy number (GCN) varied from 2 to 6 for total C4, from 0 to 5 for C4A, and from 0 to 4 for C4B. Four copies of total C4, two copies of C4A, and two copies of C4B were the most common GCN counts, but each constituted only between one-half and three-quarters of the study populations. Long C4 genes were strongly correlated with C4A (R=0.695; P<.0001). Short C4 genes were correlated with C4B (R=0.437; P<.0001). In comparison with healthy subjects, patients with SLE clearly had the GCN of total C4 and C4A shifting to the lower side. The risk of SLE disease susceptibility significantly increased among subjects with only two copies of total C4 (patients 9.3%; unrelated controls 1.5%; odds ratio [OR] = 6.514; P=.00002) but decreased in those with > or =5 copies of C4 (patients 5.79%; controls 12%; OR=0.466; P=.016). Both zero copies (OR=5.267; P=.001) and one copy (OR=1.613; P=.022) of C4A were risk factors for SLE, whereas > or =3 copies of C4A appeared to be protective (OR=0.574; P=.012). Family-based association tests suggested that a specific haplotype with a single short C4B in tight linkage disequilibrium with the -308A allele of TNFA was more likely to be transmitted to patients with SLE. This work demonstrates how gene CNV and its related polymorphisms are associated with the susceptibility to a human complex disease.

Abetimus sodium for renal flare in systemic lupus erythematosus: Results of a randomized, controlled phase III trial†

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a multisystem, autoimmune disease that predominantly affects women. Previous findings that duplicated Toll-like receptor 7 (Tlr7) promotes lupus-like disease in male BXSB mice prompted us to evaluate TLR7 in human SLE. By using a candidate gene approach, we identified and replicated association of a TLR7 3′UTR SNP, rs3853839 (G/C), with SLE in 9,274 Eastern Asians (Pcombined = 6.5 × 10−10), with a stronger effect in male than female subjects [odds ratio, male vs. female = 2.33 (95% CI = 1.64–3.30) vs. 1.24 (95% CI = 1.14–1.34); P = 4.1 × 10−4]. G-allele carriers had increased TLR7 transcripts and more pronounced IFN signature than C-allele carriers; heterozygotes had 2.7-fold higher transcripts of G-allele than C-allele. These data established a functional polymorphism in type I IFN pathway gene TLR7 predisposing to SLE, especially in Chinese and Japanese male subjects.

PARP alleles within the linked chromosomal region are associated with systemic lupus erythematosus

OBJECTIVE Women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have an increased risk of atherosclerosis. Identification of at-risk patients and the etiology underlying atherosclerosis in SLE remain elusive. The antioxidant capacity of normal high-density lipoproteins (HDLs) is lost during inflammation, and these dysfunctional HDLs might predispose individuals to atherosclerosis. The aim of this study was to determine whether dysfunctional proinflammatory HDL (piHDL) is associated with subclinical atherosclerosis in SLE. METHODS Carotid artery ultrasound was performed in 276 women with SLE to identify carotid plaques and measure intima-media thickness (IMT). The antioxidant function of HDL was measured as the change in oxidation of low-density lipoprotein after the addition of HDL cholesterol. Two antiinflammatory HDL components, paraoxonase 1 and apolipoprotein A-I, were also measured. RESULTS Among the SLE patients, 48.2% were determined to have piHDL on carotid ultrasound, while 86.7% of patients with plaque had piHDL compared with 40.7% of those without plaque (P<0.001). Patients with piHDL also had a higher IMT (P<0.001). After multivariate analysis, the only factors found to be significantly associated with plaque were the presence of piHDL (odds ratio [OR] 16.1, P<0.001), older age (OR 1.2, P<0.001), hypertension (OR 3.0, P=0.04), dyslipidemia (OR 3.4, P=0.04), and mixed racial background (OR 8.3, P=0.04). Factors associated with IMT measurements in the highest quartile were the presence of piHDL (OR 2.5, P=0.02), older age (OR 1.1, P<0.001), a higher body mass index (OR 1.07, P=0.04), a cumulative lifetime prednisone dose>or=20 gm (OR 2.9, P=0.04), and African American race (OR 8.3, P=0.001). CONCLUSION Dysfunctional piHDL greatly increases the risk of developing subclinical atherosclerosis in SLE. The presence of piHDL was associated with an increased prevalence of carotid plaque and with a higher IMT. Therefore, determination of piHDL may help identify patients at risk for atherosclerosis.

Association of genetic variants in complement factor H and factor H-related genes with systemic lupus erythematosus susceptibility

OBJECTIVE To investigate whether treatment with abetimus delays renal flare in patients with lupus nephritis. Secondary objectives included evaluation of the effect of abetimus on C3 levels, anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibody levels, use of high-dose corticosteroids and/or cyclophosphamide, and major systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) flare. METHODS We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled study of treatment with abetimus at 100 mg/week for up to 22 months in SLE patients. Three hundred seventeen patients with a history of renal flare and anti-dsDNA levels >15 IU/ml were randomized to a treatment group (158 abetimus, 159 placebo); 298 (94%) were enrolled in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (145 abetimus, 153 placebo), based on the presence of high-affinity antibodies for the oligonucleotide epitope of abetimus at baseline screening. RESULTS Abetimus did not significantly prolong time to renal flare, time to initiation of high-dose corticosteroid and/or cyclophosphamide treatment, or time to major SLE flare. However, there were 25% fewer renal flares in the abetimus group compared with the placebo group (17 of 145 abetimus-treated patients [12%] versus 24 of 153 placebo-treated patients [16%]). Abetimus treatment decreased anti-dsDNA antibody levels (P < 0.0001), and reductions in anti-dsDNA levels were associated with increases in C3 levels (P < 0.0001). More patients in the abetimus group experienced > or =50% reductions in proteinuria at 1 year, compared with the placebo group (nominal P = 0.047). Trends toward reduced rates of renal flare and major SLE flare were noted in patients treated with abetimus who had impaired renal function at baseline. Treatment with abetimus for up to 22 months was well tolerated. CONCLUSION Abetimus at 100 mg/week significantly reduced anti-dsDNA antibody levels but did not significantly prolong time to renal flare when compared with placebo. Multiple positive trends in renal end points were observed in the abetimus treatment group.

Association of a functional IRF7 variant with systemic lupus erythematosus

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is an autoimmune disease characterized by various autoantibodies that recognize autoantigens displayed on the surface of cells undergoing apoptosis. The genetic contribution to SLE susceptibility has been widely recognized. We previously reported evidence for linkage to SLE of the human chromosome 1q41-q42 region and have now narrowed it from 15 to 5 cM in an extended sample using multipoint linkage analysis. Candidate genes within this region include (a) PARP, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase, encoding a zinc-finger DNA-binding protein that is involved in DNA repair and apoptosis; (b) TGFB2, encoding a transforming growth factor that regulates cellular interactions and responses; and (c) HLX1, encoding a homeobox protein that may regulate T-cell development. Using a multiallelic, transmission-disequilibrium test (TDT), we found overall skewing of transmission of PARP alleles to affected offspring in 124 families (P = 0.00008), preferential transmission of a PARP allele to affected offspring (P = 0.0003), and lack of transmission to unaffected offspring (P = 0.004). Similar TDT analyses of TGFB2 and HLX1 polymorphisms yielded no evidence for association with SLE. These results suggest that PARP may be (or is close to) the susceptibility gene within the chromosome 1q41-q42 region linked to SLE.