metricas
covid
Buscar en
Revista Colombiana de Reumatología
Toda la web
Inicio Revista Colombiana de Reumatología Diagnosis and treatment of articular manifestations of systemic lupus erythemato...
Información de la revista
Vol. 28. Núm. S1.
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
Páginas 90-100 (junio 2021)
Compartir
Compartir
Descargar PDF
Más opciones de artículo
Visitas
9384
Vol. 28. Núm. S1.
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
Páginas 90-100 (junio 2021)
Review Article
Acceso a texto completo
Diagnosis and treatment of articular manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus
Diagnóstico y tratamiento de las manifestaciones articulares del lupus eritematoso sistémico
Visitas
9384
Beatriz Frade-Sosaa, Juan C. Sarmiento-Monroya, Tarek C. Salman-Monteb, Patricia Corzoa, José A. Gómez-Puertaa,
Autor para correspondencia
jagomez@clinic.cat

Corresponding author.
a Rheumatology Department, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain
b Rheumatology Department, Hospital del Mar, Parc de Salut Mar, Institut Hospital del Mar d’Investigacions Mèdiques (IMIM), Barcelona, Spain
Este artículo ha recibido
Información del artículo
Resumen
Texto completo
Bibliografía
Descargar PDF
Estadísticas
Figuras (4)
Mostrar másMostrar menos
Tablas (1)
Table 1. Prevalence of joint involvement in a cohort of SLE patients representing different geographic areas.
Material adicional (1)
Suplemento especial
Este artículo forma parte de:
Vol. 28. Núm S1

Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Más datos
Abstract

Articular involvement in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) is well recognized as one of the most common manifestations of the disease. This article reviews the recent knowledge of the clinical manifestations, diagnostic techniques and therapies used for the treatment of joint involvement in SLE. The degree of articular involvement is characterized by widespread heterogeneity in terms of clinical presentation and severity. It may range from minor arthralgia without erosions or deformity to erosive arthropathy and severe functional disability. Inflammatory musculoskeletal manifestations are described as a major cause of pain impacting daily activities and as a major determinant of quality-of-life impairment. Thus, physicians must be aware of articular involvement in SLE. Lupus arthritis diagnosis may be challenging, due to the frequently mild synovitis. The introduction of new more sensitive imaging techniques, such as ultrasound, and MRI have contributed significantly to improving the diagnosis of osteoarticular involvement in SLE. There are several treatment options for the management of joint manifestations in patients with SLE. The choice of treatment will depend on the type and pattern of joint involvement, its severity, and the characteristics of the patient.

Keywords:
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
Arthritis
Arthralgia
Synovitis
Magnetic resonance imaging
Ultrasonography
Resumen

El compromiso articular en lupus eritematoso sistémico (LES) es bien reconocido como una de las manifestaciones más comunes de la enfermedad. En el presente artículo se revisa la evidencia reciente sobre las manifestaciones clínicas, las técnicas de diagnóstico y los tratamientos utilizados para tratar el compromiso articular en el LES. El grado de compromiso articular se caracteriza por la amplia heterogeneidad en su presentación clínica y su gravedad. Puede variar desde artralgia leve sin erosiones o deformidad, hasta una artropatía erosiva y discapacidad funcional. Se describen las manifestaciones inflamatorias musculoesqueléticas como la principal causa de dolor que afecta las actividades de la vida cotidiana y como uno de los principales factores determinantes del deterioro de la calidad de vida. Por lo tanto, los médicos deben estar conscientes del compromiso articular en LES. El diagnóstico de la artritis lúpica puede ser difícil debido a la sinovitis, usualmente leve. El advenimiento de nuevas técnicas de imágenes más sensibles, como la ecografía y la resonancia magnética, ha contribuido significativamente a mejorar el diagnóstico del compromiso osteoarticular en LES. Existen varias opciones de tratamiento para las manifestaciones articulares en pacientes con LES. La opción de tratamiento dependerá del tipo y del patrón del compromiso articular, así como de las características del paciente.

Palabras clave:
Lupus eritematoso sistémico
Artritis
Artralgia
Sinovitis
Resonancia magnética
Ecografía
Texto completo
Introduction

Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) is a chronic autoimmune disease affecting different organs and systems. In its original description in 1872, Kaposi reported joint involvement in 53–95% of SLE patients.1 After that, articular involvement in lupus was generally thought to be of secondary importance until 1940.2–4 A review conducted by Slocumb from the Mayo Clinic included joint involvement as part of the systemic compromise of SLE.5 Articular involvement was definitively established as a diagnostic feature of SLE in 1950 following the publication by Daugherty and Baggenstoss.6

The relevance of SLE joint involvement led to its inclusion in the American College of Rheumatology classification criteria, proposed in 1982.7 Nowadays, articular involvement in SLE is well recognized as one of the most common manifestations of the disease.8–13 Despite it is not life-threatening, articular involvement is the most common and the earliest manifestation of SLE and significantly affects the quality of life of these patients.14

This article reviews the recent knowledge of the clinical manifestations, diagnostic techniques and treatments used to manage the joint involvement in SLE.

MethodsLiterature search

The bibliographic search was conducted in the MEDLINE database up to September 2020. Publications were identified using the following MeSH terms: “Systemic Lupus Erythematosus” and [“arthritis” or “arthralgia” or “joint”].

Inclusion criteria

Original articles that described articular manifestations of SLE, the impact of prognosis and quality of life, diagnostic techniques, and treatment were included. The inclusion criteria were as follows:

  • Type of studies: Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomized clinical trials, reviews, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and cross-sectional studies.

  • Population: Patients older than 18 years old with SLE and articular involvement.

  • Intervention: Studies describing the articular patterns, diagnostic techniques, prognosis, treatment, and complications.

Exclusion criteria

  • Articles without access to the full text.

  • Case reports.

  • Studies that were not conducted in humans.

Article selection and information extraction

Title and abstract screening was conducted to identify potentially relevant articles of interest, followed by full-text analysis. Data were extracted from full-text articles that met de inclusion criteria.

ResultsClinical manifestations

More than ninety percent of patients with SLE experience joint symptoms during their clinical follow-up and it is the clinical form of presentation in almost 50% of patients.14,15 The degree of articular involvement is characterized by a wide heterogeneity in terms of clinical presentation and severity.14 It may range from mild arthralgia without erosions or deformity to erosive arthropathy and severe functional disability. Table 1 shows the prevalence of joint involvement in different cohorts of lupus patients representing different geographic areas.

Table 1.

Prevalence of joint involvement in a cohort of SLE patients representing different geographic areas.

Cohort  RELESSER99  Euro-Lupus10  GLADEL9  LUMINA12  Mok et al.11  Wang et al.13  Faezi et al.100 
No. of patients  3679  1000  1214  554  442  539  2355 
Geographical area  Spain  Europe  Latin American  America  Asia (China)  Asia (Malaysia)  Iran 
Arthralgia and/or arthritis  77.9%  48.1%  93.2%  91%a  77%  50.5%  61.1% 
a

Arthralgia/arthritis, myalgia or myositis.

Arthralgia and arthritis

Arthralgia represents one of the most frequent symptoms of SLE, manifesting as persistent joint pain, transient or migratory, but without evidence of swelling. It involves mostly the hands and sometimes could be associated with morning stiffness.14

A high percentage of SLE patients have arthritis.16 It can affect large and small joints. SLE-associated arthritis is usually transient, migratory, reversible, and non-erosive.17 The most affected joints are the metacarpophalangeal (MCP), proximal interphalangeal (PIP), wrists and knees.18 Foot involvement includes hallux valgus, subluxation of the metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joints and increased plantar arch. On some occasions, atypical joints such as the temporomandibular and sacroiliac joints (particularly in men) can be affected.19 The joint involvement may present initially at the clinical onset of SLE or at any time during the course of the disease. The patient's symptoms (e.g., inflammatory pain and morning stiffness) are usually more prominent than the synovitis on physical examination, which is usually mild. In most patients, this inflammatory process is not associated with bone erosions and deformity development,20 but the use of more sensitive techniques such as ultrasound imaging or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has shown the presence of bone erosions in SLE patients.

SLE patients can also experience a more severe arthropathy, leading to joint deformities. Arthritis mutilans is a rare complication in SLE, which is characterized by sclerosis of the terminal part of the distal phalanges (i.e., acro-osteolysis) and is often associated with Raynaud's phenomenon. Sometimes, trophic tracts of the skin of the fingers and nails are present.21

Jaccoud's arthropathy (JA)

In 1867, François-Sigismond Jaccoud first described deforming, non-erosive, reversible arthropathy associated with rheumatic fever in a young patient.22 In 1962, Zvaifler described the characteristics of flexion contracture and ulnar deviation of the MCP joints in lupus.23 Later, Bywaters referred to Zvaifler's description as “Jaccoud's arthropathy” because of its similarity to the deformities described in 1867 following rheumatic fever.24

These deformities consist of reducible MCP joint dislocation, deviation, and occasional hyperextension of the interphalangeal (IP) joints of the thumb.8 JA corresponds to a form of deforming arthropathy proposed by Vugt et al. and is characterized by chronic non-erosive deformities.25 JA has been described in SLE patients24,26 with a prevalence of up to 42%.18,27 This arthropathy was also observed in other autoimmune diseases (e.g., systemic sclerosis, Sjögren's syndrome, polymyositis and vasculitis), as well as infections, and neoplasms.28

Joint deformities in JA may be limited to ulnar deviation of the MCP joints. JA may be widespread and can simulate evolved rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with lateral hyperlaxity of the distal interphalangeal (DIP) joints, swan neck deformities, boutonniere deformities, Z-shaped thumb, and carpal hyperlaxity29 (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Jaccoud-type arthropathy. 40-Year-old male patient with long-standing systemic lupus erythematosus (positive ANA, anti-dsDNA, and anti-nucleosome antibodies) and triple positive antiphospholipid syndrome. Rheumatoid factor and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies were negative. Hand deformities including ulnar drift at the metacarpophalangeal joints, swan neck and boutonnier deformities, and hyperextension of the interphalangeal joint of the thumb closely resemble those seen in rheumatoid arthritis. The absence of erosions on radiographs and their reducibility differentiates this condition from deforming arthritis of rheumatoid arthritis.

(0.1MB).

Recently, a new set of classification criteria for JA has been proposed.30 These criteria are intended to define the presence of Jaccoud-type lupus arthropathy (JLA) to differentiate it from Jaccoud-type deformities seen in RA, and other conditions, as well as ‘primary’ and ‘familial’ forms of arthropathy. JLA may be of two types: ‘classical’, when the deformities are ‘reducible’ by passive movement and ‘severe’, when the deformities are fixed.

The presence of JA in patients with SLE has been associated with certain HLA haplotypes (e.g., HLA-A11 and HLA-B61), older age, late-onset of the disease, polyautoimmunity (i.e., presence of more than one autoimmune disease in a single patient) with Sjögren's syndrome, and frequent tendon rupture.31,32

Rhupus

Overlap syndromes can be defined as multiple disease states occurring together to produce a unique clinical phenotype and disease behavior. The concomitant presence of two autoimmune diseases – SLE and RA – in the same patient is known as rhupus. The first reports of the coexistence of SLE and RA date back to 1963 by Toone, who described the presence of lupus erythematosus cells in the serum of 15 patients with RA. In the following years, case reports of SLE patients with RA-like arthritis and RA patients presenting with systemic manifestations of SLE were reported. But it was not until the 1970s when the term rhupus was first described by Peter Schur.33 He defined rhupus as a rare clinical condition in which patients show signs and symptoms characteristic of both autoimmune diseases (RA and SLE).

There is no official definition for rhupus. The most frequently accepted definition of rhupus is fulfilling the diagnostic criteria for both SLE and RA. However, some authors included as rhupus only patients with erosions, rheumatoid factor (RF), anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (anti-CCP) and antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) and anti-double stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibody. Although polyautoimmunity is a common phenomenon described in patients with systemic autoimmune diseases, only a relatively small series of patients has been described as rhupus so far.

The true prevalence of this overlap condition seems to be low (0.01–2%) (34,35). It is essentially a sequential disease in which RA and SLE features are rarely diagnosed simultaneously. RA is the first diagnosis in two-thirds of patients.36,37

Patients diagnosed with rhupus undergo a particular clinical course. Studies of rhupus patients show predominant signs and symptoms of RA over organic damage associated with SLE.18 Erosive arthropathy is the predominant feature in which the bone structural damage appears to resemble more to RA, with a higher frequency of bone erosions and synovial hypertrophy than in SLE.38,39 Nevertheless, patients can present any classic SLE manifestations. The prognosis of rhupus syndrome typically depends on the severity of the organ damage, and there is high-risk subset of patients with a worse long-term prognosis.40

Other overlap syndromes

Mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD) was first described in 1972 as an entity with mixed features of SLE, systemic sclerosis, polymyositis/dermatomyositis and RA.41 High titers of antibodies targeting the U1 small nuclear ribonucleoprotein particle (U1 U1-RNP) in peripheral blood are a sine qua non for the diagnosis of MCTD.42 Joint involvement varies from minimal arthralgias, arthritis of the small or large joints and erosions typical of RA to arthritis mutilans. In general, polyarthralgia is an early and common symptom in MCTD, occurs in approximately 60% of patients and may be accompanied by joint deformities with radiographic changes.41 Arthritis is included in all the criteria sets of MCTD, being polyarthritis, the most common pattern described.42 RF and anti-CCP may be positive.43

Other articular manifestations

Subcutaneous nodules like RA nodules are rarely found in SLE, and are usually present in the olecranon, MCP and PIP joints. The histopathological characteristics are like those found in RA patients.44 Tenosynovitis may be an early manifestation, and tendon rupture can occur. Between 10 and 13% of patients present tenosynovitis including epicondylitis, rotator cuff tendinitis, Achilles tendinitis, posterior tibial tendinitis, and plantar fasciitis.45

Damage accrual and prognosis

SLE Damage is primarily assessed using the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC)/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Damage Index (SDI),46 which has been extensively validated. SDI items represent irreversible damage that has occurred after the diagnosis of SLE and predicts future mortality and is highly associated with both overall physical health and the physical function measured by the patient-reported outcome measurement short-form 36 Health Survey (SF-36).47,48 Deforming or erosive arthritis is included under the musculoskeletal system subheading.

Inflammatory musculoskeletal manifestation is described as a major cause of pain. Joint pain, with or without arthritis, worsens the quality of life (HRQOL) in compromised patients, interferes with daily activities in 73% of SLE patients, and results in low productivity or work disability in 49% and 17% of these patients, respectively.49 It has been established that disease activity in the musculoskeletal system is a major determinant of HRQOL impairment in SLE.50,51

Diagnosis

Diagnosis of lupus arthritis may be challenging because of a frequently mild synovitis. Clinicians should be aware of making a diagnosis solely based on patient history when objective synovitis is not found at clinical examination.

Biomarkers

Around forty-five percent of patients with SLE are RF positive, usually at low titer, and no relationship has been found with the presence of erosive arthritis.14,52 It was first suggested in 2001 that anti-CCP could be a useful marker to discriminate patients with erosive disease in SLE.53 The presence of anti-CCP may account for an 18–20-fold increased risk of developing erosive arthritis in patients with SLE,54–56 supporting the idea that anti-CCP could be a predictor of erosive disease in patients with SLE.

Some authors have pointed out an association of JA with several biomarkers. However, many of these associations have not shown consistent results in different series. These laboratory markers include the presence of RF,57 higher levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) or Interleukin-6, increased anti-dsDNA,27 antiphospholipid antibodies (either lupus anticoagulant or anticardiolipin antibodies),25 and anti-U1-RNP antibodies.58 More recently, a significant association of anti-carbamylated proteins has been described in patients with SLE and joint involvement, compared with patients without joint involvement.59

Among rhupus patients, a clear difference between the positivity of the RA antibodies (anti-CCP and RF) in comparison with SLE has been described,35 supporting the idea that rhupus is a true overlap. No difference in the prevalence of anti-U1-RNP and other ENAs has been found between rhupus and SLE patients.34 Anti-U1-RNP occurrence in patients with lupus clinical features may be indicative of diagnostic issues. The presence of anti-U1-RNP antibodies in patients that meet the SLE criteria (but not the MCTD critreria) was associated with manifestations such as Raynaud phenomenon, musculoskeletal and lung impairment, some clinical features frequently encountered in MCTD patients and only rarely described in lupus populations.60

Imaging

Classically, a non-erosive inflammatory joint pattern has been described, but the advent of new more sensitive imaging techniques, such as MRI, and ultrasound (US) and even the use of the Power Doppler modality, have significantly contributed to improving the diagnosis of osteoarticular involvement in SLE.61

X-ray

In patients with lupus arthritis, plain radiographs may demonstrate soft tissue swelling of the involved joints. The presence of acral sclerosis, soft tissue calcification, periarticular osteoporosis, and cystic bone lesions has been widely described in SLE patients.14 Carpal instability may be seen in 15% of patients, characterized by an increase in the inter-articular space between the scaphoid and the lunate or other carpal bones. Wrist instability is demonstrated by radiographs performed with a radio-ulnar deviation of the wrist.61

Ultrasound

US today is probably the most productive and cost-effective method for detecting synovitis in SLE. It is widely accepted that musculoskeletal ultrasound detects a higher number of swollen joints and tendons than the clinical physical examination in inflammatory arthropathies. US has shown different results in terms of sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of SLE (synovitis 25–94%, Power Doppler positivity 5–82%, tenosynovitis 28–65%, erosions 2–41%)62–68 (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.

Standard ultrasound study with integration of a power Doppler module using a linear probe in a patient with SLE. Longitudinal examination at the level of the proximal interphalangeal joint indicates the presence of a discrete component of synovial effusion, irregularity and prominence of the articular component of the distal epiphysis of the proximal phalanx. The Power Doppler evaluation showed a moderate increase in vascular uptake at the joint level of synovial capsular distention and periarticular soft tissues in the distal epiphysis of the proximal phalanx. Findings suggestive of active synovitis with associated joint remodeling and active inflammatory and neovascular signs of the periarticular soft tissues.

(0.07MB).

Even though sometimes patients with SLE only report hand arthralgia without arthritis, subclinical synovitis can reach 38% in some series.65 The role of US in this area is essential for the early diagnosis of lupus. Furthermore, a prospective study with 6 years of follow-up69 showed that patients with arthralgia who had baseline US alterations had worse osteomuscular outcomes and prognosis and received more immunosuppressive therapy at the end of the follow-up. This finding highlights the possible predictive role of joint US.

It should also be noted that both US and MRI identify erosions in patients with SLE (excluding rhupus and other overlaps). Although there are studies that object that patients with SLE and erosions did not score worse on the HRQOL, further studies are needed to determine whether these erosions lead to accumulated irreversible joint damage in the long term in these patients. Another point to be highlighted is that the current use of US has enabled us to determine that tenosynovitis of the extensor carpal tendons is more prevalent than arthritis of the carpus or the MCP joints, as evidenced in numerous series.63,66,67

Finally, there are different studies that relate US alterations with SLE activity. Some examples include the study by Torrente-Segarra et al.64 where a significant relationship was found between the US alterations of the patients and the SLEDAI, or the study by Gabba et al.63 which found a significant relationship between power Doppler and the musculoskeletal domain of the BILAG.

Magnetic resonance imaging

The emergence of more sensitive imaging techniques, such as MRI, allows an early identification of joint involvement in patients with SLE including synovitis, erosions, bone edema and tenosynovitis.

Following similar principles developed by the OMERACT group for scoring system (RAMSIS),73 a systematic evaluation of the hands and wrists is also suggested for SLE patients.20,38,70,71

According to the RAMRIS criteria, MRI evaluation in SLE includes:

  • 1.

    Wrist: distal radioulnar joint, radiocarpal joint, intercarpal–carpometacarpal joints and proximal metacarpal epiphyses.

  • 2.

    Hand: Second–5th metacarpophalangeal joints, considering distal metacarpal head and proximal phalangeal base.

    • A)

      Synovitis: the scale is 0–3 where 0 is normal, 1–3 (mild, moderate, severe) are by thirds of the presumed maximum volume of enhancing tissue in the synovial compartment.

    • B)

      Erosions score in the range 0–10, with 10% increments based on the proportion of eroded bone.

    • C)

      Bone marrow edema scores in the range 0–3 according to the proportion of bone with edema (in increments of 33%).

Gadolinium enhanced-MRI showed to be the most sensitive imaging modality to study inflammatory joint involvement, including synovitis, erosions (particularly in wrist joints), bone edema and surrounding soft tissue. MRI also improved the accuracy of quantitative measurement of inflammatory joint burden, as well as our understanding of the pathogenesis of inflammatory joint disease and repair.72,73

MRI showed erosions in up to 98% of patients with SLE, particularly in the wrists; although wrist erosions have also been shown in healthy subjects, the prevalence is significantly higher in SLE patients as compared with to healthy controls (up to 47%), even after adjusting for age.71 The most affected areas are the distal side of the second and third MCP joints (phalangeal basis).38 When compared to RA, the second MCP joint is the only area where the prevalence of erosions is significantly higher than in SLE patients.20

Data show that erosive lupus arthritis can be independent of RF and anti-CCP status, but a small number of patients studied who were anti-CCP positive showed a higher burden of erosive disease.20 Regarding bone edema it can affect up to 35–55% of patients with SLE, with a higher frequency in the wrist joints, while it is 0% in healthy individuals.71 Synovitis can be present in up to 100% of SLE patients who complain of hand inflammatory pain of the wrists and hands.20,70 Tenosynovitis in SLE affected patients has been poorly evaluated using MRI. The tenosynovitis score system,74 has reported 20% and 10% evidence of tenosynovitis of the extensor and flexor tendons, respectively,20 though is smaller cohorts it has reached up to 85%.75

These new tools are just beginning to be used in SLE, both due to novelty and cost limitations. All these findings suggest the presence of subclinical inflammatory joint involvement, which could increase damage accrual over time, introducing different therapeutic strategies and maybe more intensive medical care; however, the actual correlation between function and clinical significance has not yet been studied (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3.

MRI of the hands and wrist. Coronal STIR sequence. Mild synovitis present in the second, third and fourth metacarpophalangeal joints and in the distal radioulnar joint. No structural or inflammatory bone damage (i.e., erosions or bone edema) was observed.

(0.05MB).
Synovial fluid

Synovial fluid is usually mildly inflammatory (between 2000 and 15,000cells), predominantly lymphocytic infiltrate, with normal glucose concentrations, normal or increased proteins, and normal or decreased complement concentrations. In joint fluid, ANAs can be positive with low titers, and lupus erythematosus cells can also be identified. The biochemical analysis of the synovial fluid does not differ from other inflammatory arthropathies, including RA or psoriatic arthritis.19,76

Synovial analysis has identified unique pathophysiological mechanisms in SLE arthritis, suggesting that it is distinct from RA. The synovial biopsy in SLE arthritis has shown a unique molecular signature, with upregulation of interferon-inducible genes while genes involved in extracellular matrix homeostasis are down-regulated. In contrast, in RA synovial tissue genes involved in T cell and B cell regulation are up-regulated.77

Treatment

There are several treatment options for the management of joint manifestations in patients with SLE. The therapeutic armamentarium currently available includes nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antimalarial, glucocorticoids, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs, e.g., methotrexate, MTX), and targeted therapies including B lymphocyte stimulator protein (BLyS)-specific inhibitor (belimumab), anti-CD20 (rituximab) and a costimulatory inhibitor (abatacept).78 The choice of treatment will depend on the type and pattern of joint involvement, its severity, and the characteristics of the patient.

Given the broad spectrum of beneficial effects and the safety profile, antimalarial drugs are recommended for all patients with SLE during the whole course of the disease, except for patients who reject treatment or have absolute contraindications to take them.79 Hydroxychloroquine should be administered to most SLE patients, regardless of the severity of the disease and should not be discontinued during pregnancy.80

Low-dose glucocorticoids (≤10mg/day of prednisone equivalent) are usually administered, and if high doses are needed, corticoid-sparing agents should be used. Direct injection of corticosteroids into joints can be useful in certain cases.81 NSAIDs could be used as adjunct therapy during any stage of treatment for non-erosive, nondeforming inflammatory polyarthritis.29 However, the current trend is to use low-dose glucocorticoids instead of NSAIDs. The EULAR guidelines recommend hydroxychloroquine or low-dose glucocorticoids for patients without major organ lesions but with symptoms such as arthritis, muscle pain, and fever.82

MTX is the csDMARD with more evidence in the treatment of musculoskeletal involvement in SLE.83 Some studies, including randomized, controlled double-blind and open-label trials suggested that MTX (10–20mg/week) is effective in controlling articular activity of SLE and resulted in prednisone dose reduction.81 Other immunosuppressants used are leflunomide, azathioprine, and mycophenolate mofetil, but their evidence in the literature is limited.81

Literature data suggest that belimumab may potentially be used in the treatment of severe joint symptoms in glucocorticoid-resistant lupus or in patients refractory to conventional treatment. According to pivotal studies, arthritis is one of the lupus manifestations most likely to respond to belimumab.84 Additionally, polyarthritis, high disease activity (SLEDAI10), and increased anti-dsDNA have been suggested as predictors of response to belimumab.85 Targeting CD20 with rituximab has been endorsed in several centers where it is used as an off-label therapeutic option in SLE, mostly for refractory renal disease, but also for other organ manifestations when conventional treatment has failed, including severe lupus polyarthritis.86,87

Literature data suggests the efficacy of abatacept to treat SLE patients with joint involvement.14 A multicenter exploratory phase II clinical trial involving 175 patients with non-life-threatening SLE evaluated abatacept efficacy. The proportion of new BILAG A/B flares over 12 months was 79.7% in the abatacept group and 82.5% in the placebo group. Although the primary/secondary endpoints were not met in this study, improvements in certain exploratory measures suggest some abatacept efficacy in patients with SLE.88 Therefore, new clinical trials on abatacept should be designed to further confirm its potential use in SLE.89 The use of TNF inhibitors in SLE has also been reported. However, this approach is not routine in SLE partly because of the risk of developing drug-induced lupus. Some success cases have been reported in renal lupus patients as well as in patients with ‘hard-to-treat’ joint disease and other manifestations.90

The guidelines for the treatment of SLE submitted by the Latin American Group for the Study of Lupus (GLADEL, Grupo Latino Americano de Estudio del Lupus)-Pan-American League of Associations of Rheumatology (PANLAR) suggested the use of glucocorticoids and antimalarials as the standard of care (SOC).79 If the disease remains active after SOC, adding either MTX, leflunomide, belimumab or abatacept besides other immunosuppressants should be considered. A significant proportion of patients will achieve adequate symptom control with SOC and could be spared the adverse effects/excess costs associated with those other options (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4.

Treatment of articular manifestations of SLE. The recommendations for management of articular manifestations of SLE are based on EULAR and GLADEL/PANLAR guidelines.79,82 The choice of treatment depends on the type of articular condition (arthralgia vs arthritis), its severity (activity and erosive phenotype), and the characteristics of each patient. AM: antimalarials; BEL: belimumab; csDMARDs: conventional synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs; GC: glucocorticoids; HCQ: hydroxychloroquine; JA: Jaccoud's arthropathy; NSAIDs: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; MTX: Methotrexate; SOC: standard of care; RTX: rituximab. *Other potential treatments for refractory disease: Anifrolumab and Baricitinib.

(0.25MB).

With regards to treatment for rhupus syndrome, there is little data available based on a few case studies and small series.91 Erosive progression of rhupus can result in severe disability. For this reason, affected patients are treated with csDMARDs, mainly MTX. However, some rhupus patients have shown inadequate responses. There are some studies on biological treatments in patients with rhupus, where rituximab and abatacept appear to be more promising options of treatment.92–94 An observational study in refractory rhupus patients showed that anti-TNF-alpha agents may also reduce disease activity and protect against the progression of structural damage.95

A post hoc analysis of the MUSE trial (phase IIb) compared anifrolumab (an anti-type I interferon receptor monoclonal antibody) against placebo at week 52 on rash and arthritis measures with different stringency in patients with moderate to severe SLE. This study shows that anifrolumab treatment was associated with improvements versus placebo in specific SLE features, including arthritis evaluated using SLEDAI-2K, BILAG and swollen and tender joint counts.96

A phase IIb clinical trial with baricitinib, a low-molecular-weight compound targeting Janus kinase 1/2, in patients with SLE revealed that baricitinib was significantly more effective for relieving arthritis and skin manifestations than placebo and the trial met the primary endpoint (resolution of SLEDAI-2000 arthritis or skin manifestations at week 24).97 New biologics and small molecule drugs for SLE are under development.98

Conclusions

Articular involvement is one of the most common manifestations of SLE, and on many occasions is the first manifestation of the disease. Physicians must be aware that articular involvement in SLE greatly affects the perceived HQoL and therefore should not be underestimated. Joint involvement could influence daily activities and affect the quality of life. Recent advances in imaging, with the introduction of new more sensitive imaging techniques have significantly contributed to improving the diagnosis of osteoarticular involvement in SLE. Joint US in SLE is a very safe and inexpensive technique, which can help in early diagnosis of joint involvement in SLE, even in the absence of inflammation during the physical examination and it can contribute to the early diagnosis of the disease itself. MRI detects characteristic signs of bony alterations; however, currently there is no specific validated pattern of articular involvement associated with this disease yet available, though some studies are underway. The choice of treatment will depend on the type and pattern of joint involvement, its severity, and the characteristics of the patient. Glucocorticoids and antimalarials are the standard of care for articular involvement. Refractory manifestations require treatment with immunosuppressants or biologics.

Key points

  • Articular involvement is one of the most common clinical manifestations in SLE.

  • Refractory articular manifestations impact patients’ quality of life.

  • Based on US and MRI studies new approaches for classification are needed.

  • Refractory arthritis requires treatment with immunosuppressants and biologics.

Conflict of interests

José A. Gómez-Puerta received speaker honoraria from BMS, GSK, Roche and Lilly.

Beatriz Frade-Sosa received speaker allowance from Abbvie.

Tarek C. Salman-Monte received speaker honoraria from GSK.

Appendix A
Supplementary material

The following are the supplementary data to this article:

References
[1]
M. Kaposi.
Neue Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Lupus erythematosus.
Arch Dermatol Syph, 4 (1892), pp. 36-79
[2]
H. Jadassohn.
Mracek's Handbuch der Hautkrankheiten. vol III. Berlin.
(1904), pp. 298-342
[3]
J.H.B.H. Sequeira.
Lupus erythematosus: a clinical study of seventy-one cases.
Br J Dermatol, 14 (1902), pp. 367-379
[4]
W. Osler.
On the visceral complications of erythema exudativum multiforme.
Am J Med Sci, 110 (1895), pp. 629-646
[5]
C.S. Slocumb.
Arthralgia and arthritis of lupus erythematosus.
Proc Staff Med Mayo Clin, 15 (1940), pp. 683-686
[6]
Daugherty Gw, A.H. Baggenstoss.
Syndrome characterized by glomerulonephritis and arthritis.
Arch Internal Med, 85 (1950), pp. 900
[7]
E.M. Tan, A.S. Cohen, J.F. Fries, A.T. Masi, D.J. Mcshane, N.F. Rothfield, et al.
The 1982 revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus.
Arthrit Rheum, 25 (1982), pp. 1271-1277
[8]
A. Fernández, G. Quintana, E.L. Matteson, J.F. Restrepo, F. Rondón, Á. Sánchez, et al.
Lupus arthropathy: historical evolution from deforming arthritis to rhupus.
Clin Rheumatol, 23 (2004), pp. 523-526
[9]
B.A. Pons-Estel, L.J. Catoggio, M.H. Cardiel, E.R. Soriano, S. Gentiletti, A.R. Villa, et al.
The GLADEL multinational Latin American prospective inception cohort of 1,214 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.
[10]
R. Cervera, M.A. Khamashta, G.R.V. Hughes.
The Euro-lupus project: epidemiology of systemic lupus erythematosus in Europe.
Lupus, 18 (2009), pp. 869-874
[11]
C.C. Mok, To Ch, Ho Ly, KlL. Yu.
Incidence and mortality of systemic lupus erythematosus in a Southern Chinese Population, 2000–2006.
J Rheumatol, 35 (2008), pp. 1978-1982
[12]
G.S. Alarcón, A.W. Friedman, K.V. Straaton, J.M. Moulds, J. Lisse, H.M. Bastian, et al.
Systemic lupus erythematosus in three ethnic groups: III. A comparison of characteristics early in the natural history of the LUMINA cohort. LUpus in MInority populations: NAture vs. Nurture.
[13]
F. Wang, C.L. Wang, C.T. Tan, M. Manivasagar.
Systemic lupus erythematosus in Malaysia: a study of 539 patients and comparison of prevalence and disease expression in different racial and gender groups.
[14]
F. Ceccarelli, C. Perricone, E. Cipriano, L. Massaro, F. Natalucci, G. Capalbo, et al.
Joint involvement in systemic lupus erythematosus: from pathogenesis to clinical assessment.
Semin Arthrit Rheum, 47 (2017), pp. 53-64
[15]
A. Fernández, G. Quintana, F. Rondón, J.F. Restrepo, A. Sánchez, A. Iglesias, et al.
Lupus arthropathy: a case series of patients with rhupus.
Clin Rheumatol, 25 (2006), pp. 164-167
[16]
R. Cervera, M. Abarca-Costalago, D. Abramovicz, F. Allegri, P. Annunziata, A.O. Aydintug, et al.
Systemic lupus erythematosus in Europe at the change of the millennium: lessons from the “Euro-Lupus Project”.
Autoimmun Rev, 5 (2006), pp. 180-186
[17]
P.A. Reilly, G. Evison, N.J. McHugh, P.J. Maddison.
Arthropathy of hands and feet in systemic lupus erythematosus.
J Rheumatol, 17 (1990), pp. 777-784
[18]
C. Pipili, A. Sfritzeri, E. Cholongitas.
Deforming arthropathy in systemic lupus erythematosus.
Eur J Internal Med, 19 (2008), pp. 482-487
[19]
D. Wallace, B. Hanh.
Dubois’ lupus erythematosus and related syndromes – 9th edition.
7th ed., Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, (2007),
[20]
E.M. Ball, A.L. Bell.
Lupus arthritis—do we have a clinically useful classification?.
Rheumatology (Oxford), 51 (2012), pp. 771-779
[21]
E. Martinez-Cordero, J. Lopez Zepeda, L. Andrade-Ortega, M. Selman.
Mutilans arthropathy in systemic lupus erythematosus.
Clin Exp Rheumatol, 7 (1989), pp. 427-429
[22]
F.S. Jaccoud.
Sur une forme de rhumatisme chronique: lecions de clinique medicale faites a l’Hopital de la Charite. Delahaye. Paris.
(1869), pp. 598-616
[23]
N.J. Zvaifler.
Chronic postrheumatic-fever (Jaccoud's) arthritis.
N Engl J Med, 267 (1962), pp. 10-14
[24]
E.G. Bywaters.
Jaccoud's syndrome: a sequel to the joint involvement of systemic lupus erythematosus.
Clin Rheum Dis, 1 (1975), pp. 125-148
[25]
R.M. Van Vugt, R.H.W.M. Derksen, L. Kater, J.W.J. Bijlsma.
Deforming arthropathy or lupus and rhupus hands in systemic lupus erythematosus.
Ann Rheum Dis, 57 (1998), pp. 540-544
[26]
R.G. Aptekar, O.J. Lawless, J.L. Decker.
Deforming non-erosive arthritis of the hand in systemic lupus erythematosus.
Clin Orthop Relat Res, 100 (1974), pp. 120-124
[27]
P.E. Spronk, E.J. ter Borg, C.G.M. Kallenberg.
Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and Jaccoud's arthropathy: a clinical subset with an increased C reactive protein response?.
Ann Rheum Dis, 51 (1992), pp. 358-361
[28]
M.B. Santiago.
Jaccoud's arthropathy.
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol, 25 (2011), pp. 715-725
[29]
Rossi D, Modena V, Bianchi G, Pellerito R, Roccatello D. Joint involvement in systemic lupus erythematosus. In: Roccatello D, Emmi L, editors. Connective tissue disease—a comprehensive guide. Vol. 1. Springer. p. 2282–6505.
[30]
M. Santiago.
Jaccoud-type lupus arthropathy: practical classification criteria.
Lupus Sci Med, 7 (2020), pp. e000405
[31]
M. Takeishi, A. Mimori, T. Suzuki.
Clinical and immunological features of systemic lupus erythematosus complicated by Jaccoud's arthropathy.
Mod Rheumatol, 11 (2001), pp. 47-51
[32]
E.M. Alves, J.C. MacIeira, E. Borba, F.A. Chiuchetta, M.B. Santiago.
Spontaneous tendon rupture in systemic lupus erythematosus: Association with Jaccouds arthropathy.
Lupus, 19 (2010), pp. 247-254
[33]
Schur PH. Systemic lupus erythematosus. 13th ed. Beeson PB, McDermott W, editors. Philadelphia: Cecil-Loeb Textbook of Medicine; 1971. p. 821.
[34]
L. Antonini, B. le Mauff, C. Marcelli, A. Aouba, H. de Boysson.
Rhupus: a systematic literature review.
Autoimmunity Rev, 19 (2020), pp. 102612
[35]
B. Frade-Sosa, J. Narváez, T.C. Salman-Monte, R. Castellanos-Moreira, V. Ortiz-Santamaria, V. Torrente-Segarra, et al.
A comparative study on clinical and serological characteristics between patients with rhupus and those with systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis.
Lupus, 29 (2020), pp. 1216-1226
[36]
T. Liu, G. Li, R. Mu, H. Ye, W. Li, Z. Li.
Clinical and laboratory profiles of rhupus syndrome in a Chinese population: a single-centre study of 51 patients.
Lupus, 23 (2014), pp. 958-963
[37]
C. Tani, D. D’Aniello, A.D. Sedie, L. Carli, M. Cagnoni, N. Possemato, et al.
Rhupus syndrome: assessment of its prevalence and its clinical and instrumental characteristics in a prospective cohort of 103 SLE patients.
Autoimmun Rev, 12 (2013), pp. 537-541
[38]
C. Tani, D. D’aniello, N. Possemato, A. Delle Sedie, D. Caramella, S. Bombardieri, et al.
MRI pattern of arthritis in systemic lupus erythematosus: a comparative study with rheumatoid arthritis and healthy subjects.
Skelet Radiol, 44 (2015), pp. 261-266
[39]
V. Torrente-Segarra, T.C.S. Monte, H. Corominas.
Musculoskeletal involvement and ultrasonography update in systemic lupus erythematosus: new insights and review.
Eur J Rheumatol, 5 (2018), pp. 127-130
[40]
M. Icen, P.J. Nicola, H. Maradit-Kremers, C.S. Crowson, T.M. Therneau, E.L. Matteson, et al.
Systemic lupus erythematosus features in rheumatoid arthritis and their effect on overall mortality.
J Rheumatol, 36 (2009), pp. 50-57
[41]
O.D. Ortega-Hernandez, Y. Shoenfeld.
Mixed connective tissue disease: an overview of clinical manifestations, diagnosis and treatment.
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol, 26 (2012), pp. 61-72
[42]
R. Gunnarsson, S.O. Hetlevik, V. Lilleby, Ø. Molberg.
Mixed connective tissue disease.
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol, 30 (2016), pp. 95-111
[43]
M. Ruiz Pombo, M. Labrador Horrillo, A. Selva O’Callaghan.
Undifferentiated, overlapping and mixed connective tissue diseases.
Mo Med, 123 (2004), pp. 712-717
[44]
M.G. Rivero, A.J. Salvatore, J.A. Gómez-Puerta, J.M. Mascaró, J.D. Cañete, J. Muñoz-Gómez, et al.
Accelerated nodulosis during methotrexate therapy in a patient with systemic lupus erythematosus and Jaccoud's arthropathy [1].
Rheumatology (Oxford), 43 (2004), pp. 1587-1588
[45]
B. Ostendorf, A. Scherer, C. Specker, U. Mödder, M. Schneider.
Jaccoud's arthropathy in systemic lupus erythematosus: differentiation of deforming and erosive patterns by magnetic resonance imaging.
Arthrit Rheum, 48 (2003), pp. 157-165
[46]
D. Gladman, E. Ginzler, C. Goldsmith, P. Fortin, M. Liang, M. Urowitz, et al.
The development and initial validation of the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology damage index for systemic lupus erythematosus.
Arthrit Rheum, 39 (1996), pp. 363-369
[47]
D.D. Gladman, C.H. Goldsmith, M.B. Urowitz, P. Bacon, P. Fortin, E. Ginzler, et al.
The Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology (SLICC/ACR) Damage Index for systemic lupus erythematosus international comparison.
J Rheumatol, 27 (2000), pp. 373-376
[48]
S. Khanna, H. Pal, R.M. Pandey, R. Handa.
The relationship between disease activity and quality of life in systemic lupus erythematosus.
Rheumatology, 43 (2004), pp. 1536-1540
[49]
M. Piga, A. Gabba, M. Congia, F. Figus, A. Cauli, A. Mathieu.
Predictors of musculoskeletal flares and Jaccoud's arthropathy in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a 5-year prospective study.
Semin Arthrit Rheum, 46 (2016), pp. 217-224
[50]
M. Piga, M. Congia, A. Gabba, F. Figus, A. Floris, A. Mathieu, et al.
Musculoskeletal manifestations as determinants of quality of life impairment in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.
Lupus, 27 (2018), pp. 190-198
[51]
A. Doria, S. Rinaldi, M. Ermani, F. Salaffi, L. Iaccarino, A. Ghirardello, et al.
Health-related quality of life in Italian patients with systemic lupus erythematosus II. Role of clinical, immunological and psychological determinants.
Rheumatology, 43 (2004), pp. 1580-1586
[52]
R. Cervera, M.A. Khamashta, J. Font, G.D. Sebastiani, A. Gil, P. Lavilla, et al.
Systemic lupus erythematosus: clinical and immunologic patterns of disease expression in a cohort of 1,000 patients. The European Working Party on Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.
Medicine (Baltimore), 72 (1993), pp. 113-124
[53]
R. Mediwake, D.A. Isenberg, G.A. Schellekens, W.J. van Venrooij.
Use of anti-citrullinated peptide and anti-RA33 antibodies in distinguishing erosive arthritis in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis.
Ann Rheum Dis, 60 (2001), pp. 67-68
[54]
F. Ceccarelli, C. Perricone, T. Colasanti, L. Massaro, E. Cipriano, M. Pendolino, et al.
Anti-carbamylated protein antibodies as a new biomarker of erosive joint damage in systemic lupus erythematosus.
Arthrit Res Therapy, 20 (2018), pp. 126
[55]
A. Budhram, R. Chu, S. Rusta-Sallehy, G. Ioannidis, J. Denburg, J. Adachi, et al.
Anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody as a marker of erosive arthritis in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Lupus, 23 (2014), pp. 1156-1163
[56]
K. Nishimura, D. Sugiyama, Y. Kogata, G. Tsuji, T. Nakazawa, S. Kawano, et al.
Meta-analysis: diagnostic accuracy of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody and rheumatoid factor for rheumatoid arthritis.
[57]
D. Alarcón-Segovia, C. Abud-Mendoza, E. Diaz-Jouanen, A. Iglesias, V. De los Reyes, J. Hernández-Ortiz.
Deforming arthropathy of the hands in systemic lupus erythematosus.
J Rheumatol, 15 (1988), pp. 65-69
[58]
P.A. Reilly, G. Evison, N.J. mcHugh, P.J. Maddison.
Arthropathy of hands and feet in systemic lupus erythematosus.
J Rheumatol, 17 (1990), pp. 777-784
[59]
L. Massaro, F. Ceccarelli, T. Colasanti, M. Pendolino, C. Perricone, E. Cipriano, et al.
Anti-carbamylated protein antibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus patients with articular involvement.
Lupus, 27 (2018), pp. 105-111
[60]
A. Dima, C. Jurcut, C. Baicus.
The impact of anti-U1-RNP positivity: systemic lupus erythematosus versus mixed connective tissue disease.
Rheumatol Int, 38 (2018), pp. 1169-1178
[61]
T.A. Lalani, J.P. Kanne, G.A. Hatfield, P. Chen.
Imaging findings in systemic lupus erythematosus.
Radiographics, 24 (2004), pp. 1069-1086
[62]
A.L.P. Buosi, J. Natour, F.S. Machado, R.D. Takahashi, R.N.V. Furtado.
Hand ultrasound: comparative study between “no rhupus” lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis.
Mod Rheumatol, 24 (2014), pp. 599-605
[63]
A. Gabba, M. Piga, A. Vacca, G. Porru, P. Garau, A. Cauli, et al.
Joint and tendon involvement in systemic lupus erythematosus: an ultrasound study of hands and wrists in 108 patients.
Rheumatology, 51 (2012), pp. 2278-2285
[64]
V. Torrente-Segarra, M.P. Lisbona, D. Rotés-Sala, J. Muñoz-Ortego, I. Padró-Blanch, J. Maymó-Guarch, et al.
Hand and wrist arthralgia in systemic lupus erythematosus is associated to ultrasonographic abnormalities.
Joint Bone Spine, 80 (2013), pp. 402-406
[65]
C.A. Guillén-Astete, M. Revenga-Martinez, A. Zea-Mendoza, E. Brito-Brito.
Prevalence of subclinical synovitis of the hand in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.
Lupus, 29 (2020), pp. 1423-1429
[66]
A. Delle Sedie, L. Riente, C.A. Scirè, A. Iagnocco, E. Filippucci, G. Meenagh, et al.
Ultrasound imaging for the rheumatologist XXIV Sonographic evaluation of wrist and hand joint and tendon involvement in systemic lupus erythematosus.
Clin Exp Rheumatol, 27 (2009), pp. 897-901
[67]
A. Iagnocco, A. Ossandon, G. Coari, F. Conti, R. Priori, C. Alessandri, et al.
Wrist joint involvement in systemic lupus erythematosus. An ultrasonographic study.
Clin Exp Rheumatol, 22 (2004), pp. 621-624
[68]
S. Wright, E. Filippucci, W. Grassi, A. Grey, A. Bell.
Hand arthritis in systemic lupus erythematosus: an ultrasound pictorial essay.
Lupus [Internet], 15 (2006), pp. 501-506
[69]
P. Corzo, T.C. Salman-Monte, V. Torrente-Segarra, L. Polino, S. Mojal, J. Carbonell-Abelló.
Joint ultrasound baseline abnormalities predict a specific long-term clinical outcome in systemic lupus erythematosus patients.
Lupus, 26 (2017), pp. 729-733
[70]
N. Boutry, E. Hachulla, R.M. Flipo, B. Cortet, A. Cotten.
MR imaging findings in hands in early rheumatoid arthritis: comparison with those in systemic lupus erythematosus and primary Sjögren syndrome.
Radiology, 236 (2005), pp. 593-600
[71]
M. Mosca, C. Tani, L. Carli, S. Vagnani, N. Possemato, A. Delle Sedie, et al.
The role of imaging in the evaluation of joint involvement in 102 consecutive patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.
Autoimmun Rev, 14 (2015), pp. 10-15
[72]
P.G. Conaghan, P. O’Connor, D. McGonagle, P. Astin, R.J. Wakefield, W.W. Gibbon, et al.
Elucidation of the relationship between synovitis and bone damage: a randomized magnetic resonance imaging study of individual joints in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis.
Arthrit Rheum, 48 (2003), pp. 64-71
[73]
D. McGonagle, A.L. Tan.
What magnetic resonance imaging has told us about the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis – the first 50 years.
Arthritis Res Ther, 10 (2008), pp. 222
[74]
E.A. Haavardsholm, M. Østergaard, B.J. Ejbjerg, N.P. Kvan, T.K. Kvien.
Introduction of a novel magnetic resonance imaging tenosynovitis score for rheumatoid arthritis: reliability in a multireader longitudinal study.
Ann Rheum Dis, 66 (2007), pp. 1216-1220
[75]
E.S. Zollars, M. Hyer, B. Wolf, R. Chapin.
Measuring lupus arthritis activity using contrasted high-field MRI Associations with clinical measures of disease activity and novel patterns of disease.
Lupus Sci Med, 5 (2018), pp. e000264
[76]
R. Lahita.
Systemic lupus erythematosus 4o.
Elsevier, (2004),
[77]
A. Nzeusseu Toukap, C. Galant, I. Theate, A.L. Maudoux, R.J.U. Lories, F.A. Houssiau, et al.
Identification of distinct gene expression profiles in the synovium of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.
Arthritis Rheum, 56 (2007), pp. 1579-1588
[78]
A. Fanouriakis, N. Tziolos, G. Bertsias, D.T. Boumpas.
Update on the diagnosis and management of systemic lupus erythematosus.
Ann Rheum Dis, 80 (2021), pp. 14-25
[79]
B.A. Pons-Estel, E. Bonfa, E.R. Soriano, M.H. Cardiel, A. Izcovich, F. Popoff, et al.
First Latin American clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus: Latin American Group for the Study of Lupus (GLADEL, Grupo Latino Americano de Estudio del Lupus)–Pan-American League of Associations of Rheumatology (PANLAR).
Ann Rheum Dis, 77 (2018), pp. 1549-1557
[80]
G. Ruiz-Irastorza, M. Ramos-Casals, P. Brito-Zeron, M.A. Khamashta.
Clinical efficacy and side effects of antimalarials in systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review.
Ann Rheum Dis, 69 (2010), pp. 20-28
[81]
C. Muangchan, R.F. van Vollenhoven, S.R. Bernatsky, C.D. Smith, M. Hudson, M. Inanç, et al.
Treatment algorithms in systemic lupus erythematosus.
Arthrit Care Res, 67 (2015),
[82]
A. Fanouriakis, M. Kostopoulou, A. Alunno, M. Aringer, I. Bajema, J.N. Boletis, et al.
2019 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus.
Ann Rheum Dis, 78. (2019),
[83]
J.M. Pego-Reigosa, T. Cobo-Ibáñez, J. Calvo-Alén, E. Loza-Santamaría, A. Rahman, S. Muñoz-Fernández, et al.
Efficacy and safety of nonbiologic immunosuppressants in the treatment of nonrenal systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review.
Arthrit Care Res, 65. (2013),
[84]
Y.J. Poh, B. Baptista, D.P. D’Cruz.
Subcutaneous and intravenous belimumab in the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus: a review of data on subcutaneous and intravenous administration.
Expert Rev Clin Immunol, 13 (2017),
[85]
A. Fanouriakis, G. Bertsias.
Changing paradigms in the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus.
Lupus Sci Med, 6 (2019),
[86]
T. Cobo-Ibáñez, E. Loza-Santamaría, J.M. Pego-Reigosa, A.O. Marqués, Í. Rúa-Figueroa, A. Fernández-Nebro, et al.
Efficacy and safety of rituximab in the treatment of non-renal systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review.
Semin Arthrit Rheum, 44 (2014),
[87]
I. Parodis, M. Stockfelt, C. Sjöwall.
B cell therapy in systemic lupus erythematosus: from rationale to clinical practice.
Front Med (Lausanne), 7 (2020), pp. 316
[88]
J.T. Merrill, R. Burgos-Vargas, R. Westhovens, A. Chalmers, D. D’Cruz, D.J. Wallace, et al.
The efficacy and safety of abatacept in patients with non-life-threatening manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus: results of a twelve-month, multicenter, exploratory, phase IIb, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
Arthritis Rheum, 62 (2010), pp. 3077-3087
[89]
B. Yang, M. Zhao, H. Wu, Q. Lu.
A comprehensive review of biological agents for lupus: beyond single target.
Front Immunol, 11 (2020), pp. 539797
[90]
A. Lorenzo-Vizcaya, D.A. Isenberg.
The use of anti-TNF-alpha therapies for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Where are we now?.
Expert Opin Biol Ther, (2021), pp. 1-9
[91]
J. Li, H. Wu, X. Huang, D. Xu, W. Zheng, Y. Zhao, et al.
Clinical analysis of 56 patients with rhupus syndrome: manifestations and comparisons with systemic lupus erythematosus: a retrospective case–control study.
[92]
K. Ikeda, Y. Sanayama, S. Makita, J. Hosokawa, M. Yamagata, D. Nakagomi, et al.
Efficacy of abatacept for arthritis in patients with an overlap syndrome between rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus.
Clin Dev Immunol, 2013 (2013), pp. 697525
[93]
F. Araújo, I. Silva, A. Sepriano, P. Nero, J.C. Branco.
Off-label use of rituximab in systemic rheumatic diseases: case series and review.
Acta Reumatol Port, 38 (2013), pp. 290-294
[94]
M. Piga, A. Gabba, A. Cauli, P. Garau, A. Vacca, A. Mathieu.
Rituximab treatment for ‘rhupus syndrome’: clinical and power-Doppler ultrasonographic monitoring of response. A longitudinal pilot study.
Lupus, 22 (2013), pp. 624-628
[95]
F. Danion, L. Sparsa, L. Arnaud, G. Alsaleh, F. Lefebvre, V. Gies, et al.
Long-term efficacy and safety of antitumour necrosis factor alpha treatment in rhupus: an open-label study of 15 patients.
RMD Open, 3 (2017),
[96]
J.T. Merrill, R. Furie, V.P. Werth, M. Khamashta, J. Drappa, L. Wang, et al.
Anifrolumab effects on rash and arthritis: impact of the type I interferon gene signature in the phase IIb MUSE study in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.
Lupus Sci Med, 5 (2018),
[97]
D.J. Wallace, R.A. Furie, Y. Tanaka, K.C. Kalunian, M. Mosca, M.A. Petri, et al.
Baricitinib for systemic lupus erythematosus: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.
Lancet, 392 (2018),
[98]
B. Yang, M. Zhao, H. Wu, Q. Lu.
A comprehensive review of biological agents for lupus: beyond single target.
Front Immunol, (2020), pp. 11
[99]
Í. Rúa-Figueroa, P. Richi, F.J. López-Longo, M. Galindo, J. Calvo-Alén, A. Olivé-Marqués, et al.
Comprehensive description of clinical characteristics of a large systemic lupus erythematosus cohort from the Spanish rheumatology society lupus registry (RELESSER) with emphasis on complete versus incomplete lupus differences.
Medicine (United States), 94 (2015), pp. e267
[100]
S.T. Faezi, M. Hosseini Almodarresi, M. Akbarian, F. Gharibdoost, M. Akhlaghi, A. Jamshidi, et al.
Clinical and immunological pattern of systemic lupus erythematosus in men in a cohort of 2355 patients.
Int J Rheum Dis, 17 (2014), pp. 394-399
Descargar PDF
Opciones de artículo