Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
    • 50th Volume Reprints
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services

User menu

  • My Cart
  • Log In

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Rheumatology
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services
  • My Cart
  • Log In
The Journal of Rheumatology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
    • 50th Volume Reprints
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • Follow jrheum on Twitter
  • Visit jrheum on Facebook
  • Follow jrheum on LinkedIn
  • Follow jrheum on YouTube
  • Follow jrheum on Instagram
  • Follow jrheum on RSS
Research ArticleCanadian Recommendations and Systematic Literature Reviews for the Assessment and Monitoring of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Using GRADE
Open Access

Monitoring of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Pregnancies: A Systematic Literature Review

Emily G. McDonald, Lyne Bissonette, Stephanie Ensworth, Natalie Dayan, Ann E. Clarke, Stephanie Keeling, Sasha Bernatsky and Evelyne Vinet
The Journal of Rheumatology October 2018, 45 (10) 1477-1490; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.171023
Emily G. McDonald
From the Division of General Internal Medicine, and the Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, McGill University Health Centre, Montréal; Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec; Division of Rheumatology, Mary Pack Arthritis Center, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia; Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton; Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lyne Bissonette
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephanie Ensworth
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Natalie Dayan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ann E. Clarke
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephanie Keeling
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sasha Bernatsky
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Evelyne Vinet
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: evelyne.vinet@mcgill.ca
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
  • eLetters
PreviousNext
Loading

Abstract

Objective. Few data exist to guide the frequency and type of monitoring in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) pregnancies. A systematic literature review was performed to address this gap in the literature.

Methods. A systematic review of original articles (1975–2015) was performed using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library. We included search terms for SLE, pregnancy, and monitoring. We also hand-searched reference lists, review articles, and grey literature for additional relevant articles.

Results. The search yielded a total of 1106 articles. After removing 117 duplicates, 929 articles that were evidently unrelated to our topic based on title and/or abstract, and 7 that were in a language other than English or French, 53 articles were included for full-text review. Following a more in-depth review, 15 were excluded: 6 did not use any measure of SLE activity and 6 did not specifically address SLE monitoring in pregnancy; 1 case series, 1 review, and 1 metaanalysis were removed. Among the 38 included studies, presence of active disease, antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies positivity, and abnormal uterine and umbilical artery Doppler studies predicted poor pregnancy outcomes. No studies evaluated an evidence-based approach to the frequency of monitoring.

Conclusion. Few existing studies address monitoring for optimal care during SLE pregnancies. The available data imply roles for aPL antibodies measurement (prior to pregnancy and/or during the first trimester), uterine and umbilical artery Doppler studies in the second trimester, and following disease activity. Optimal frequency of monitoring is not addressed in the existing literature.

Key Indexing Terms:
  • SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS
  • PREGNANCY
  • MONITORING
  • ADVERSE PREGNANCY OUTCOMES

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) predominantly affects women during their reproductive years, occurring in about 1/1000 women aged between 15 and 45 years1. SLE is associated with substantial maternal and fetal morbidity during pregnancy. Compared with the non-SLE population, SLE has been shown to be associated with an increased risk of preterm birth, cesarean delivery, preeclampsia, low birth weight, intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), congenital heart block (CHB), and intrauterine and neonatal death2,3,4,5. Preterm birth is the most common adverse pregnancy outcome in women with SLE, with incidence ranging from 15% to 50% (as opposed to 10% in unaffected women), with increased risk in women with lupus nephritis or high disease activity. In the general population, preterm birth is the leading cause of neonatal death and the second most common cause of death (after pneumonia) in children younger than 5 years6.

SLE has a waxing and waning course and it has been shown that if women conceive during a period of disease quiescence, this will minimize the risk of flare in pregnancy, but will not eliminate it, with rates of flare still ranging between 20% and 40% of pregnancies that are conceived during a period of remission7,8,9,10. In addition to a greater frequency of pregnancy complications, the SLE disease course itself can be negatively affected by pregnancy, with a greater number of women developing an SLE flare in the peripartum period11,12,13.

SLE pregnancies are considered high risk, being associated with higher maternal and fetal morbidity. Although the majority of SLE pregnancies end with live births, active disease and major organ involvement can affect the outcomes in both mother and fetus. In addition, major fetal issues such as IUGR and neonatal SLE syndromes make monitoring imperative in SLE pregnancies14.

Finally, some symptoms of SLE can be silent, such as renal flare or thrombocytopenia, emphasizing the need for closer monitoring in pregnancy; these silent flares can still increase the chance of obstetrical complications15.

Quality indicators pertaining to reproductive health in SLE have been developed but are limited only to the recommendation that anti-SSA/SSB and antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies be documented in the chart, prior to conception16. Optimal quality indicators remain undefined, and topics to be addressed include not only laboratory monitoring but also newer imaging modalities for monitoring high-risk pregnancies, such as umbilical and uterine artery Doppler studies. These are believed to be useful in monitoring pregnancies at high risk of placental insufficiency, which include SLE pregnancies17. Because the issue of how best to follow disease activity, and how often to monitor for disease flares, has not been systematically addressed in the literature, current practice is heterogeneous and not necessarily evidence-based18.

To address this important knowledge gap, a Canadian SLE working group was established, funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and endorsed by the Canadian Rheumatology Association. One of the aims of this group was to determine what investigations are needed to optimally monitor pregnancy in SLE, in the Canadian context (which includes universal healthcare access).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The systematic literature review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement19 (Table 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

PRISMA-P checklist for preferred reporting of systematic reviews.

The review was conducted through 3 search engines: Embase, Medline, and Cochrane. The search was performed on publications between 1975 and 2015, without any language restrictions. We used Medical Subject Heading and free text terms adapted for each database to identify original articles. We included search terms for SLE, pregnancy, and monitoring variables. All terms within each set were combined using the Boolean operator “OR” and then the 3 sets were combined using “AND.” This was supplemented by hand-searching reference lists, review articles, and grey literature for relevant articles not identified by the electronic searches, as well as including relevant articles published after completion of our review. Exclusion criteria then included any abstract in a language other than French or English, case reports, case series, and review articles.

Study selection

First, titles from the initial search were reviewed by 3 individuals (EGM, LB, and EV) to initially include any potential studies related to the study question, and to exclude any duplicates. Second, titles and abstracts were reviewed to identify relevant studies that met our inclusion criteria and to exclude case reports and studies unrelated to the systematic review. Third, 2 reviewers (EGM and LB) independently reviewed each full-text article for inclusion in the final set of articles, with a third reviewer (EV) settling discrepancies. Two reviewers (EGM and EV) summarized evidence on monitoring of SLE in pregnancy. None of the reviewers were blinded to the authors or journal titles.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Relevant data pertaining to monitoring were extracted from each article as well as general information such as country of the study, type of study, year of publication, and first author. Monitoring was divided into 4 categories: serological tests [which included anti-DNA, antiextractable nuclear antibody, IgG and IgM anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL), lupus anticoagulant (LAC), and complement levels]; measures of SLE activity using a validated scoring system [examples include the SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) and European Consensus Lupus Activity Measure scores; studies that did not use any type of scoring system to measure disease activity were not included]; obstetrical Doppler ultrasound monitoring (either uterine or umbilical artery Doppler studies); and other (monitoring variables not falling into one of the above categories). When applicable, we recorded whether the frequency of monitoring was addressed, as well as any associations with negative maternal or obstetrical outcomes. Maternal outcomes were classified as the development of preeclampsia, or worsening of SLE disease activity, including lupus nephritis. Obstetrical outcomes were classified as IUGR, spontaneous abortion (prior to 20 weeks of gestational age), small for gestational age (SGA) or low birth weight (SGA and low birth weight were defined within individual studies), preterm delivery (prior to 37 weeks gestational age), complete CHB, or intrauterine fetal demise. Relevant data were extracted, synthesized, and presented in tabular format.

Risk of bias in individual studies: the Newcastle-Ottawa scale

Final studies included in the systematic review were evaluated for quality of evidence and risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, which uses a star system whereby a study is judged on 3 measures: the selection of the study groups, the comparability of the groups, and how the exposure for case-control (or outcome of interest for cohort studies) was ascertained.

RESULTS

Study characteristics

A general description of the characteristics of each study is presented in Table 22,9,13,15,20–53 including first author, year of publication, study population, and study type, as well as monitoring variables studied. A description of the search process, including the reasons for excluded studies, is shown in Figure 1. In total, 1106 titles were evaluated from the initial search strategy, of which 117 were removed because they were duplicates, and 7 were removed because they were in a language other than French or English. Then, on initial review of the title and/or abstracts, 929 articles that did not address SLE monitoring in pregnancy and were removed, leaving 53 articles that were reviewed in depth. Upon full review of the 53 articles, it was found that 6 more did not address SLE monitoring in pregnancy, 6 did not use any scoring system for SLE disease activity, 1 was a review, 1 was a case series, and 1 was a metaanalysis. These were removed, leaving 38 original observational studies for review. Final studies were selected based on reporting of adverse obstetrical or maternal outcomes related to monitoring variables (Figure 1) in SLE.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Flowchart of the article selection process.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Study characteristics.

Participant characteristics

The majority of studies evaluated monitoring of SLE during pregnancy and immediately postpartum. Only a few studies looked specifically at lupus nephritis or focused solely on pregnancies in mothers who were anti-Ro- and/or La-antibody positive. The study populations were multiethnic, with patients from across the world including North America, Europe, Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East.

Monitoring variables characteristics

Of 38 final articles evaluated, 22/38 (58%) addressed the value of measuring serology, including the measurement of aPL antibodies prior to pregnancy and/or during the first trimester, and 18/38 (47%) assessed monitoring for SLE flare with a validated scoring system, such as the SLEDAI (Figure 2). The utility of umbilical and/or uterine artery Doppler monitoring for predicting poor obstetrical outcomes was evaluated in 5/38 (13%) articles. Disease activity scoring systems modified to account for the physiologic changes of pregnancy were observed in 4 articles, such as the SLE in Pregnancy Disease Activity Index54 and the Lupus Activity Index in Pregnancy55. Of note, none of them have been formally validated.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Histogram of the frequency of monitoring variables evaluated in the studies included in the systematic literature review. Serology = anti-DNA, antiextractable nuclear antibody, IgG and IgM anticardiolipin antibodies, lupus anticoagulant, and/or complement levels. Disease activity measured using a validated scoring system (examples include the SLEDAI and ECLAM scores; studies that did not use any type of scoring system to measure disease activity were not included). Renal = serum creatinine, urinalysis, urine microscopy and/or urine creatinine-to-protein ratio. Other = variables evaluated by only 1 included study (e.g., antifactor X11, C1q, and anti-PRL antibodies). AFP: alpha fetal protein; Hypo T4: hypothyroidism; CBC: complete blood count; PLT: platelets; BP: blood pressure; SLEDAI: Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index; ECLAM: European Consensus Lupus Activity Measure; PRL: prolactin.

Outcomes

Findings from each study are summarized and presented in Table 32,9,13,15,20–53; studies were evaluated for risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the quality of data is presented in Table 42,9,13,15,20–53. Across the studies included for full review, the presence of active disease (measured by various scoring systems), aPL antibodies positivity, and abnormal uterine and umbilical artery Doppler studies predicted poor pregnancy outcomes. Low complement and thrombocytopenia at the beginning of pregnancy were also predictors of poor obstetrical outcomes. No studies that assessed the value of serological and disease activity monitoring evaluated an evidence-based approach to the frequency of monitoring. Studies that addressed uterine and umbilical artery Doppler monitoring discussed the frequency at which these tests were performed but did not address the evidence behind the practice.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Outcomes related to monitoring variables.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Quality assessment by Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

DISCUSSION

Summary of findings

In this systematic review examining monitoring in SLE pregnancies, 38 articles were included, after an initial screening of 1106 abstracts and 53 articles that were reviewed in depth. Final articles addressed the monitoring of SLE-related pregnancy and focused on 3 main types of monitoring (blood and urine tests, SLE disease activity monitoring, and uterine or umbilical Doppler studies), as well as other types of monitoring. There have been no randomized controlled studies on this topic and so all articles were observational studies. The majority of studies were cohort studies that investigated predictors of poor maternal and fetal outcomes related to measures of SLE activity (both disease-specific and otherwise) throughout pregnancy. Studies included SLE women with varying degrees of disease activity, with some including only women with inactive or mildly active SLE, which might have influenced their findings.

Possible recommendations

Based on our systematic review of the literature, there may be a role for monitoring aPL (LAC and aCL), dsDNA, complement, and anti-Ro and anti-La antibodies prior to conception and early in pregnancy. Complement and dsDNA are likely helpful measures when a flare is suspected because these tests were shown in numerous studies that we examined to be predictive of poor outcomes (20/37 or 54% of studies addressed the predictive value of 1 or more of these monitoring variables). Because patients with quiescent SLE (i.e., with no or low disease activity) have fewer negative outcomes in pregnancy, if these autoantibodies and blood tests are measured prior to conception, it might help physicians stratify pregnancy risk in pregnant women and/or women planning a pregnancy. However, dsDNA, for example, does not always correlate with disease flare and/or activity in all patients and so this is not universally true, but might still contribute useful information. In addition, complement levels normally increase during pregnancy, which might further complicate its role as a reliable disease activity marker27.

The available literature also suggests that laboratory testing should be combined with evidence of increased disease activity index as measured by a validated scoring system, such as the SLEDAI, which has also shown to be associated with poor maternal and obstetrical outcomes in numerous studies included in this systematic review (18/38 or 47%). However, no study has directly compared the predictive value of laboratory or clinical data alone as compared to SLEDAI (which combines clinical activity as well as laboratory data).

One expanding area of monitoring in SLE pregnancies relates to the role of uterine and umbilical Doppler studies. Absent end-diastolic velocities of the umbilical artery predict early pregnancy-induced hypertension/preeclampsia and fetal or neonatal death in non-SLE pregnancies56,57. Abnormalities demonstrating increased resistive indices, notching of the arteries, or in very severe cases, reversal of end-diastolic flow, are highly predictive of poor fetal outcomes in SLE pregnancies28,32. This type of monitoring is minimally invasive and could be considered in the second and third trimester if the expertise exists in the center where the patient’s pregnancy is followed. This monitoring could therefore be used at the time of a suspected flare, or at the discretion of the maternal-fetal medicine or obstetrical medicine specialist who is involved in the patient’s care.

Four studies looked at alternative or novel tests for predicting poor outcomes in pregnancy such as anti-C1q antibodies, antiprolactin antibodies, antifactor X11, and alpha-fetal protein. Given that these studies have not been reproduced, and many of these serological tests are not widely available, we would not recommend their routine use at this time for monitoring of SLE pregnancies.

Regarding other tests, it is reasonable to measure thyroid stimulating hormone levels early in pregnancy, because hypothyroidism was found to be associated with an increased risk of prematurity in pregnant women from the general population as well as pregnant women with SLE, and was associated with an increased incidence of complete CHB among the offspring of mothers with anti-Ro antibodies40,53.

Prior to our study and the meeting of the Canadian SLE Working Group, guidelines did not exist regarding what monitoring variables should be measured in SLE pregnancies and at what frequency. A systematic review of the literature revealed there is no evidence to guide the frequency of routine monitoring of complete blood count, chemistry profile including liver enzymes, and urinalysis (routine or microscopy) or urine protein to creatinine levels, during pregnancy with SLE. There is some evidence for a role for measuring anti-Ro and anti-La antibodies prior to conception and early in SLE-related pregnancy, to risk-stratify pregnancies regarding the development of complete CHB. Similarly, the presence of aPL is predictive of poor outcomes, particularly preeclampsia and fetal loss, and so may be reasonable to measure prior to conception or early in pregnancy. Monitoring SLE disease activity should be done, potentially with a validated scoring system such as the SLEDAI because it relies on assessment of different clinical aspects of the disease (i.e., clinical manifestations and specific blood tests). If a flare is suspected, measuring anti-dsDNA antibodies and complement levels may be helpful. Women with SLE should be considered for referral to an expert in maternal-fetal medicine for fetal monitoring with umbilical artery Doppler studies, given that Doppler abnormalities are predictive of adverse outcomes; among pregnant populations without SLE, this monitoring modality has improved fetal outcomes. This systematic review will inform guidelines for the type of and frequency of monitoring of SLE in pregnancy, which are being developed by the Canadian SLE Working Group.

Footnotes

  • EV received salary funding from the Fonds de Recherches Santé Québec (FRSQ). EGM received funding from an FRSQ Master’s award and the McGill Clinician Investigator Program. SK received funding through a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Dissemination Grant.

  • Full Release Article. For details see Reprints and Permissions at jrheum.org

  • Accepted for publication January 25, 2018.

Free online via JRheum Full Release option

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Fessel WJ
    . Epidemiology of systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 1988;14:15–23.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Buyon JP,
    2. Kim MY,
    3. Guerra MM,
    4. Laskin CA,
    5. Petri M,
    6. Lockshin MD,
    7. et al.
    Predictors of pregnancy outcomes in patients with lupus: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2015;163:153–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Wallenius M,
    2. Salvesen KA,
    3. Daltveit AK,
    4. Skomsvoll JF
    . Systemic lupus erythematosus and outcomes in first and subsequent births based on data from a national birth registry. Arthritis Care Res 2014;66:1718–24.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Clowse ME,
    2. Jamison M,
    3. Myers E,
    4. James AH
    . A national study of the complications of lupus in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;199:127.e121–6.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Lockshin MD,
    2. Sammaritano LR
    . Lupus pregnancy. Autoimmunity 2003;36:33–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. World Health Organization
    . Preterm birth. [Internet. Accessed March 15, 2018.] Available from: www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs363/en/
  7. 7.↵
    1. Zhang W,
    2. Chen SL
    . An overview on systemic lupus erythematosus pregnancy. Mod Rheumatol 2003;13:293–300.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    1. Koh JH,
    2. Ko HS,
    3. Kwok SK,
    4. Ju JH,
    5. Park SH
    . Hydroxychloroquine and pregnancy on lupus flares in Korean patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus 2015;24:210–17.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Clowse ME,
    2. Wallace DJ,
    3. Weisman M,
    4. James A,
    5. Criscione-Schreiber LG,
    6. Pisetsky DS
    . Predictors of preterm birth in patients with mild systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:1536–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Ko HS,
    2. Ahn HY,
    3. Jang DG,
    4. Choi SK,
    5. Park YG,
    6. Park IY,
    7. et al.
    Pregnancy outcomes and appropriate timing of pregnancy in 183 pregnancies in Korean patients with SLE. Int J Med Sci 2011;8:577–83.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Singh AG,
    2. Chowdhary VR
    . Pregnancy-related issues in women with systemic lupus erythematosus. Int J Rheum D 2015;18:171–81.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    1. Yasmeen S,
    2. Wilkins EE,
    3. Field NT,
    4. Sheikh RA,
    5. Gilbert WM
    . Pregnancy outcomes in women with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Matern Fetal Med 2001;10:91–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Molad Y,
    2. Borkowski T,
    3. Monselise A,
    4. Ben-Haroush A,
    5. Sulkes J,
    6. Hod M,
    7. et al.
    Maternal and fetal outcome of lupus pregnancy: A prospective study of 29 pregnancies. Lupus 2005;14:145–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Lateef A,
    2. Petri M
    . Managing lupus patients during pregnancy. Best practice & research. J Clin Rheumatol 2013;27:435–47.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    1. Liu J,
    2. Zhao Y,
    3. Song Y,
    4. Zhang W,
    5. Bian X,
    6. Yang J,
    7. et al.
    Pregnancy in women with systemic lupus erythematosus: a retrospective study of 111 pregnancies in Chinese women. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012;25:261–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Gillis JZ,
    2. Panopalis P,
    3. Schmajuk G,
    4. Ramsey-Goldman R,
    5. Yazdany J
    . Systematic review of the literature informing the systemic lupus erythematosus indicators project: reproductive health care quality indicators. Arthritis Care Res 2011;63:17–30.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    1. Campbell S,
    2. Griffin DR,
    3. Pearce JM,
    4. Diaz-Recasens J,
    5. Cohen-Overbeek TE,
    6. Willson K,
    7. et al.
    New doppler technique for assessing uteroplacental blood flow. Lancet 1983;1:675–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Demas KL,
    2. Costenbader KH
    . Disparities in lupus care and outcomes. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2009;21:102–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Moher D,
    2. Shamseer L,
    3. Clarke M,
    4. Ghersi D,
    5. Liberati A,
    6. Petticrew M,
    7. et al.
    Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015;4:1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Al Arfaj AS,
    2. Khalil N
    . Pregnancy outcome in 396 pregnancies in patients with SLE in Saudi Arabia. Lupus 2010;19:1665–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.
    1. Alshohaib S
    . Outcome of pregnancy in patients with inactive systemic lupus erythromatosus and minimal proteinuria. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 2009;20:802–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. 22.
    1. Bertolaccini ML,
    2. Mepani K,
    3. Sanna G,
    4. Hughes GR,
    5. Khamashta MA
    . Factor XII autoantibodies as a novel marker for thrombosis and adverse obstetric history in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis 2007;66:533–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.
    1. Brucato A,
    2. Doria A,
    3. Frassi M,
    4. Castellino G,
    5. Franceschini F,
    6. Faden D,
    7. et al.
    Pregnancy outcome in 100 women with autoimmune diseases and anti-Ro/SSA antibodies: a prospective controlled study. Lupus 2002;11:716–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.
    1. Clowse ME,
    2. Magder LS,
    3. Petri M
    . The clinical utility of measuring complement and anti-dsDNA antibodies during pregnancy in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol 2011;38:1012–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.
    1. Cortés-Hernández J,
    2. Ordi-Ros J,
    3. Paredes F,
    4. Casellas M,
    5. Castillo F,
    6. Vilardell-Tarres M
    . Clinical predictors of fetal and maternal outcome in systemic lupus erythematosus: a prospective study of 103 pregnancies. Rheumatology 2002;41:643–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.
    1. Daskalakis GJ,
    2. Kontessis PS,
    3. Papageorgiou IS,
    4. Paraskevopoulos AP,
    5. Digenis GE,
    6. Karaiskakis PT,
    7. et al.
    Lupus nephritis and pregnancy. Hyperten Preg 2009;17:23–30.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    1. Derksen RH,
    2. Bruinse HW,
    3. de Groot PG,
    4. Kater L
    . Pregnancy in systemic lupus erythematosus: a prospective study. Lupus 1994;3:149–55.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Farine D,
    2. Granovsky-Grisaru S,
    3. Ryan G,
    4. Seaward PGR,
    5. Teoh TG,
    6. Laskin C,
    7. et al.
    Umbilical artery blood flow velocity in pregnancies complicated by systemic lupus erythematosus. J Clin Ultrasound 1998;26:379–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.
    1. Surita FG,
    2. Parpinelli MA,
    3. Yonehara E,
    4. Krupa F,
    5. Cecatti JG
    . Systemic lupus erythematosus and pregnancy: clinical evolution, maternal and perinatal outcomes and placental findings. Sao Paulo Med J 2007;125:91–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. 30.
    1. Gaballa HA,
    2. El-Shahawy EE,
    3. Atta DS,
    4. Gerbash EF
    . Clinical and serological risk factors of systemic lupus erythematosus outcomes during pregnancy. Egypt Rheumatologist 2012;34:159–65.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.
    1. Gheita TA,
    2. Gamal SM,
    3. El-Kattan E
    . Uterine-umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry and pregnancy outcome in SLE patients: Relation to disease manifestations and activity. Egypt Rheumatologist 2011;33:187–93.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.↵
    1. Le Thi Huong D,
    2. Wechsler B,
    3. Vauthier-Brouzes D,
    4. Duhaut P,
    5. Costedoat N,
    6. Andreu MR,
    7. et al.
    The second trimester Doppler ultrasound examination is the best predictor of late pregnancy outcome in systemic lupus erythematosus and/or the antiphospholipid syndrome. Rheumatology 2006;45:332–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.
    1. Ideguchi H,
    2. Ohno S,
    3. Uehara T,
    4. Ishigatsubo Y
    . Pregnancy outcomes in Japanese patients with SLE: retrospective review of 55 pregnancies at a university hospital. Clin Rev Allergy 2013;44:57–64.
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.
    1. Jaeggi E,
    2. Laskin C,
    3. Hamilton R,
    4. Kingdom J,
    5. Silverman E
    . The importance of the level of maternal anti-Ro/SSA antibodies as a prognostic marker of the development of cardiac neonatal lupus erythematosus: a prospective study of 186 antibody-exposed fetuses and infants. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:2778–84.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  35. 35.
    1. Jara LJ,
    2. Pacheco-Reyes H,
    3. Medina G,
    4. Angeles U,
    5. Cruz-Cruz P,
    6. Saavedra MA
    . Prolactin levels are associated with lupus activity, lupus anticoagulant, and poor outcome in pregnancy. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2007;1108:218–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.
    1. Mokbel A,
    2. Geilan AM,
    3. AboElgheit S
    . Could women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have successful pregnancy outcomes? Prospective observational study. Egypt Rheumatologist 2013;35:133–9.
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.
    1. Moroni G,
    2. Quaglini S,
    3. Banfi G,
    4. Caloni M,
    5. Finazzi S,
    6. Ambroso G,
    7. et al.
    Pregnancy in lupus nephritis. Am J Kidney Dis 2002;40:713–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.
    1. Petri M,
    2. Ho AC,
    3. Patel J,
    4. Demers D,
    5. Joseph JM,
    6. Goldman D
    . Elevation of maternal alpha-fetoprotein in systemic lupus erythematosus: a controlled study. J Rheumatol 1995;22:1365–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  39. 39.
    1. Salazar-Páramo M,
    2. Jara LJ,
    3. Ramos A,
    4. Barile L,
    5. Machado G,
    6. García-De La Torre I
    . Longitudinal study of antinuclear and anticardiolipin antibodies in pregnant women with systemic lupus erythematosus and antiphospholipid syndrome. Rheumatol Int 2002;22:142–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Stagnaro-Green A,
    2. Akhter E,
    3. Yim C,
    4. Davies TF,
    5. Magder L,
    6. Petri M
    . Thyroid disease in pregnant women with systemic lupus erythematosus: increased preterm delivery. Lupus 2011;20:690–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.
    1. Andrade RM,
    2. McGwin G Jr,
    3. Alarcon GS,
    4. Sanchez ML,
    5. Bertoli AM,
    6. Fernandez M,
    7. et al.
    Predictors of post-partum damage accrual in systemic lupus erythematosus: data from LUMINA, a multiethnic US cohort (XXXVIII). Rheumatology 2006;45:1380–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.
    1. Clark CA,
    2. Spitzer KA,
    3. Nadler JN,
    4. Laskin CA
    . Preterm deliveries in women with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol 2003;30:2127–32.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. 43.
    1. Mavragani CP,
    2. Dafni UG,
    3. Tzioufas AG,
    4. Moutsopoulos HM
    . Pregnancy outcome and anti-Ro/SSA in autoimmune diseases: a retrospective cohort study. Br J Rheumatol 1998;37:740–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.
    1. Ogasawara M,
    2. Aoki K,
    3. Hayashi Y
    . A prospective study on pregnancy risk of antiphospholipid antibodies in association with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Reprod Immunol 1995;28:159–64.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.
    1. Salomonsson S,
    2. Dorner T,
    3. Theander E,
    4. Bremme K,
    5. Larsson P,
    6. Wahren-Herlenius M
    . A serologic marker for fetal risk of congenital heart block. Arthritis Rheum 2002;46:1233–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.
    1. Tandon A,
    2. Ibanez D,
    3. Gladman DD,
    4. Urowitz MB
    . The effect of pregnancy on lupus nephritis. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50:3941–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.
    1. Leanos-Miranda A,
    2. Cardenas-Mondragon G,
    3. Ulloa-Aguirre A,
    4. Isordia-Salas I,
    5. Parra A,
    6. Ramirez-Peredo J
    . Anti-prolactin autoantibodies in pregnant women with systemic lupus erythematosus: Maternal and fetal outcome. Lupus 2007;16:342–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.
    1. Mosca M,
    2. Strigini F,
    3. Doria A,
    4. Pratesi F,
    5. Tani C,
    6. Iaccarino L,
    7. et al.
    Anti-C1q antibodies in pregnant patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2007;25:449–52.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  49. 49.
    1. Zhao C,
    2. Zhao J,
    3. Huang Y,
    4. Wang Z,
    5. Wang H,
    6. Zhang H,
    7. et al.
    New-onset systemic lupus erythematosus during pregnancy. Clin Rheumatol 2013;32:815–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.
    1. Giancotti A,
    2. Spagnuolo A,
    3. Bisogni F,
    4. D’Ambrosio V,
    5. Pasquali G,
    6. Panici PB
    . Pregnancy and systemic lupus erythematosus: role of ultrasound monitoring. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011;154:233–4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  51. 51.
    1. Gladman G,
    2. Silverman ED,
    3. Luy L,
    4. Boutin C,
    5. Laskin C,
    6. Smallhorn JF
    . Fetal echocardiographic screening of pregnancies of mothers with anti-Ro and/or anti-La antibodies. Am J Perinatol 2002;19:73–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.
    1. Lockshin MD,
    2. Kim M,
    3. Laskin CA,
    4. Guerra M,
    5. Branch DW,
    6. Merrill J,
    7. et al.
    Prediction of adverse pregnancy outcome by the presence of lupus anticoagulant, but not anticardiolipin antibody, in patients with antiphospholipid antibodies. Arthritis Rheum 2012;64:2311–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    1. Spence D,
    2. Hornberger L,
    3. Hamilton R,
    4. Silverman ED
    . Increased risk of complete congenital heart block in infants born to women with hypothyroidism and anti-Ro and/or anti-La antibodies. J Rheumatol 2006;33:167–70.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. 54.↵
    1. Ruiz-Irastorza G,
    2. Khamashta MA
    . Evaluation of systemic lupus erythematosus activity during pregnancy. Lupus 2004;13:679–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    1. Ruiz-Irastorza G,
    2. Khamashta MA,
    3. Gordon C,
    4. Lockshin MD,
    5. Johns KR,
    6. Sammaritan L,
    7. et al.
    Measuring systemic lupus erythematosus activity during pregnancy: validation of the lupus activity index in pregnancy scale. Arthritis Rheum 2004;51:78–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    1. Alfirevic Z,
    2. Neilson JP
    . Doppler ultrasonography in high-risk pregnancies: systematic review with meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;172:1379–87.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. Chavez M,
    2. Guzman ER,
    3. Benito C,
    4. Yeo L,
    5. Vintzileos A
    . The clinical significance of absence of end-diastolic velocities of the umbilical artery detected in the severely preterm fetus. Obst Gynecol 2001;97:S45.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 45, Issue 10
1 Oct 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by Author
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Rheumatology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Monitoring of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Pregnancies: A Systematic Literature Review
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Rheumatology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Rheumatology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Monitoring of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Pregnancies: A Systematic Literature Review
Emily G. McDonald, Lyne Bissonette, Stephanie Ensworth, Natalie Dayan, Ann E. Clarke, Stephanie Keeling, Sasha Bernatsky, Evelyne Vinet
The Journal of Rheumatology Oct 2018, 45 (10) 1477-1490; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.171023

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

 Request Permissions

Share
Monitoring of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Pregnancies: A Systematic Literature Review
Emily G. McDonald, Lyne Bissonette, Stephanie Ensworth, Natalie Dayan, Ann E. Clarke, Stephanie Keeling, Sasha Bernatsky, Evelyne Vinet
The Journal of Rheumatology Oct 2018, 45 (10) 1477-1490; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.171023
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
  • eLetters

Keywords

SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS
PREGNANCY
MONITORING
ADVERSE PREGNANCY OUTCOMES

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Canadian Rheumatology Association Recommendations for the Assessment and Monitoring of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
  • Practice Variations in the Diagnosis, Monitoring, and Treatment of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus in Canada
Show more Canadian Recommendations and Systematic Literature Reviews for the Assessment and Monitoring of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Using GRADE

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • systemic lupus erythematosus
  • pregnancy
  • MONITORING
  • ADVERSE PREGNANCY OUTCOMES

Content

  • First Release
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Collections
  • Audiovisual Rheum
  • COVID-19 and Rheumatology

Resources

  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Author Payment
  • Reviewers
  • Advertisers
  • Classified Ads
  • Reprints and Translations
  • Permissions
  • Meetings
  • FAQ
  • Policies

Subscribers

  • Subscription Information
  • Purchase Subscription
  • Your Account
  • Terms and Conditions

More

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • My Alerts
  • My Folders
  • Privacy/GDPR Policy
  • RSS Feeds
The Journal of Rheumatology
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
Copyright © 2022 by The Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Co. Ltd.
Print ISSN: 0315-162X; Online ISSN: 1499-2752
Powered by HighWire