Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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 ArticleSystemic Lupus Erythematosus

Persistent Disease Activity Remains a Burden for Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Christine A. Peschken, Yishu Wang, Michal Abrahamowicz, Janet Pope, Earl Silverman, Amyn Sayani, Sandra Iczkovitz, Jorge Ross, Michel Zummer, Lori Tucker, Christian Pineau, Deborah Levy, Marie Hudson, Carol A. Hitchon, Adam M. Huber, C. Douglas Smith, Antonio Avina-Zubieta, Hector Arbillaga, Gaëlle Chédeville, Willy Wynant, Paul R. Fortin and on behalf of CaNIOS 1000 Faces Investigators
The Journal of Rheumatology February 2019, 46 (2) 166-175; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.171454
Christine A. Peschken
From the Departments of Internal Medicine and Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg; Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec; University of Western Ontario and St. Joseph’s Health Care London, London; Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto; University of Toronto, Toronto; Medical Affairs, GlaxoSmithKline Inc., Mississauga, Ontario; CH Maisonneuve-Rosemont, Montreal; BC Children’s Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia; McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec; Jewish General Hospital, Lady Davis Institute and McGill University, Montreal, Quebec; IWK Health Centre and Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia; University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario; Division of Rheumatology, Arthritis Research Canada, University of British Columbia; Rheumatology Clinic, Calgary, Alberta; Montreal Children’s Hospital, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal; Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, CHU de Québec–Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada; GlaxoSmithKline Inc., King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, USA.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: christine.peschken@umanitoba.ca
Yishu Wang
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michal Abrahamowicz
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Janet Pope
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Earl Silverman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Amyn Sayani
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sandra Iczkovitz
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jorge Ross
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michel Zummer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lori Tucker
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christian Pineau
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Deborah Levy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marie Hudson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carol A. Hitchon
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Adam M. Huber
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
C. Douglas Smith
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Antonio Avina-Zubieta
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hector Arbillaga
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gaëlle Chédeville
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Willy Wynant
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul R. Fortin
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • eLetters
PreviousNext
Loading

Abstract

Objective. Persistent systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) disease activity is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. In a multicenter cohort of patients with prevalent SLE, we described persistence, patterns, and predictors of change in disease activity over time.

Methods. Based on SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI)-2K scores at cohort entry, patients were classified into 4 groups: low (score < 4; LOW), moderate (4 to < 6; MOD), moderately high (6 to ≤ 10; MHIGH), and very high (> 10; VHIGH). Multivariable linear and longitudinal mixed linear regression models were used to identify predictors of change over time in SLEDAI-2K.

Results. There were 2019 participants, with declining followup data over 5 years (1326, 580, 274, 186, and 148 patients, respectively). At cohort entry, mean (± SD) age was 42 (± 17) years, disease duration 11 (± 10) years, and 90% were female. The 4 groups included 44% LOW (n = 891), 20% MOD (n = 400), 22% MHIGH (n = 442), and 14% VHIGH (n = 286); therefore, 36% had clinically important SLE activity. The proportion of patients in the LOW group at entry who moved to a higher activity level varied from 30% (167/557) at 1 year, to 49% (41/83) at 3 years, and 54% (30/56) at 5 years. Among 181 patients with MOD to VHIGH entry activity and 3 years of followup, 116 (64.1%) remained active. In all analyses, only higher SLEDAI-2K at cohort entry remained a significant predictor of higher SLEDAI-2K in subsequent years.

Conclusion. Higher SLEDAI-2K at study entry was the single major independent predictor of higher SLEDAI-2K over time, reflecting frequent persistence of active disease, even in patients with longstanding disease. This highlights gaps in the optimal treatment of SLE.

Key Indexing Terms:
  • SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS
  • DISEASE ACTIVITY

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a complex auto-immune disease that manifests itself in many different organs in the body, primarily affecting women. SLE is a difficult disease to treat because of its heterogeneous features: no two patients are the same. Treatment aims to control disease activity and prevent damage. Damage reflects the accumulated and irreversible loss of organ function owing to either the disease itself or its treatment. Treating physicians must therefore offer patients the best treatment options that will balance the tradeoffs between risk of treatment side effects from intensive immunosuppressive therapy versus poor control of the disease, with the potential for irreversible critical organ damage.

While modern treatments for SLE have led to decreased mortality rates overall, mortality still remains unacceptably high compared to the general population1, and many patients have ongoing active disease in spite of treatment2. Persistent high disease activity over time has been clearly linked to both morbidity and mortality and is associated with accelerated damage accrual3,4. Similarly, treatments used commonly in SLE, in particular corticosteroids, also contribute to an accrual of both global and specific organ damage over time1,5,6. It is recognized that control of disease activity for many patients is suboptimal; only a small percentage achieve longterm remission that is sustained with no or minimal treatment7. While multiple treatments have been investigated in recent years, many have failed8–14 and many treatment options to reduce disease activity and limit corticosteroid use are not fully effective.

The aim of our study is to describe the distribution of levels of disease activity, both at cohort entry, in cross-sectional analyses, and longitudinally, in a cohort of prevalent patients with SLE, and to assess its associations with clinical characteristics. In addition, we examined changes in disease activity over time, and predictors of these changes. Suboptimal disease control, or persistently active SLE, has been identified as an ongoing burden for patients with SLE1,15. Information from this cohort will provide a clearer understanding of the burden of persistently active SLE.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The 1000 Canadian Faces of Lupus study is a prospective multicenter study of SLE in Canada, enrolling patients from 2005 to 2008. Patients were enrolled at 14 sites across Canada, 10 adult and 4 pediatric rheumatology clinics. A detailed description of enrollment criteria and variables collected has been previously published16. Patients were eligible if they were identified by the site investigator(s) as having a clinical diagnosis of SLE. Both incident and prevalent cases were included. Because funding terminated shortly after the enrollment period ended, the number of annual followup visits available for analysis gradually declined.

Study variables

At the initial visit, all available medical records were reviewed by the site investigators, and clinical data were abstracted and entered onto a comprehensive standard form. Clinical manifestations of SLE were recorded, including those forming the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria17 and those included in the revised Systemic Lupus Activity Measure (SLAM-R) and the revised SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI-2K)18,19. In addition, autoantibody status was recorded for anti-dsDNA, anti-Sm, anti-RNP, anti-Ro/SSA, anti-La/SSB, and antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL; includes anticardiolipin antibodies and lupus anticoagulant). “Ever positive” results were collected from the medical record at the initial visit, while blood was tested at entry and annually to determine current status for antinuclear antibodies (ANA; anti-dsDNA, anti-Sm, anti-RNP, anti-Ro/SSA, anti-La/SSB, and aPL). Disease activity was measured at entry and annually using the SLEDAI-2K validated SLE activity scale18,19. Patients also filled out the Systemic Lupus Activity Questionnaire (SLAQ)20, a validated self-reported measure of disease activity, at entry and each followup visit, which includes a visual analog scale for global disease activity and fatigue. Current and past medication use were recorded and updated at each visit, and patients filled out a generic health status measure, the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-3621. Components of the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/ACR Damage Index22,23 were abstracted from the medical records and reviewed with the patients during the interview, and updated annually. Detailed sociodemographic data were collected including age, sex, highest education achieved, total household income, and self-reported ethnicity based on the format and categories used by Statistics Canada24. For the purposes of our analysis, patients were categorized according to the main self-chosen ethnic category.

Statistical analyses

Initially, data at cohort entry (Year 0) were analyzed, and 4 groups were created based on their SLEDAI-2K score: low (< 4), moderate (4 to < 6), moderately high (6 to < 10), and very high (> 10). These groupings were chosen by the investigators based on a SLEDAI score ≥ 6 as the standard definition of active SLE requiring treatment changes, with some investigators suggesting a score of 3 or 4 should define active disease25,26. We performed cross-sectional comparisons of the entry characteristics of the 4 groups, corresponding to different disease activity levels, using bivariate analyses: chi-square tests for categorical variables, as well as 1-way ANOVA and tests for trend for continuous variables. Patients who had sufficient followup duration were then classified into 4 similar disease activity groups at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years after the initial visit. The results of the 6 groupings (years 0–5) were then cross-tabulated to estimate the probabilities of longitudinal transitions between activity levels at different times.

To determine cohort entry predictors of changes in disease activity during the first year after cohort entry, we relied on multivariable linear regression. SLEDAI-2K score (log-transformed because of the highly skewed distribution) at 1 year after cohort entry was used as the outcome variable. Potential predictors included cohort entry values of sociodemographic variables, ACR criteria, extractable nuclear antigens, aPL, current use of treatment, and the cohort entry (Year 0) SLEDAI-2K score. The final model was selected based on stepwise backward selection, with the p > 0.15 criterion for variables elimination, corresponding roughly to the Akaike information criterion27. Multiple Imputations by Chained Equation (MICE) was used to deal with missing data28 (section A1 of Supplementary Data 1, available with the online version of this article).

In separate, longitudinal analyses, we assessed predictors of SLE activity during the followup. In these analyses, SLEDAI-2K scores at years 1–5 were used as repeated measures of the outcome. Entry predictors included sociodemographic variables, ACR criteria, serology and current treatment, as well as the cohort entry SLEDAI-2K score. To account for both the between-subjects variation in the values of SLEDAI-2K scores and within-subject correlation of the repeated-over-time scores, we used linear mixed models in all longitudinal analyses, with a random intercept, and the first order autoregressive correlation structure29. Section A2 of Supplementary Data 1 (available with the online version of this article) describes handling of missing data in longitudinal analyses.

Two different repeated-measures linear mixed models were estimated, each addressing a different research question. The 2 models differed in the way that years of followup, corresponding to consecutive measurements of the SLEDAI-2K score, were analyzed. The first model included only the main effect of followup time as an adjustment covariate, and thus assessed the ability of cohort entry characteristics to predict the average-over-time level of disease activity during the followup. Similar to the linear regression analyses, the final model was selected through backward elimination, with p > 0.15 criterion for elimination. The second mixed linear model helped assess whether and how the associations between individual entry characteristics and post-entry repeated measures of SLEDAI-2K score varied with increasing followup time. To this end, the model included a series of 2-way interactions between (1) each of the entry variables, and (2) a time-varying covariate representing the followup time, in years since cohort entry. Then, we used backward elimination, with a p > 0.05 cutoff, to select statistically significant interactions with followup time, while forcing the main effects of all entry predictors and the followup time. A significant interaction with a given entry predictor would indicate whether its association with post-entry SLEDAI-2K score becomes either weaker or stronger, with increasing time since cohort entry, depending on the sign of the interaction coefficient30.

The 1000 Faces of Lupus study was approved by the regional Research Ethics Boards at each participating site, and this secondary analysis was approved by the University of Manitoba Health Research Ethics Board [HS14458(H2005:104)]. All patients provided informed written and verbal consent. Statistical analyses were conducted using RStudio 0.99.90331.

RESULTS

The cohort included 2019 patients. Mean age at cohort entry was 42 (SD 17) years; 90% were female, 63% were white, with a mean age at diagnosis of 31 (SD 15) years. Followup data were available for 1326, 580, 274, 186, and 148 patients at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years, respectively. During the 5 years of observation, the median times between consecutive pre-scheduled yearly visits did not vary systematically either across the 4 disease activity groups or the followup time, and always ranged from about 11 to about 13 months (336–399 days). Demographic data for the 4 disease activity groups are presented in Table 1. Mean disease duration at cohort entry was 11.1 (SD 10.1) years, but was slightly less in those with very high disease activity, at 9.1 years, compared to 11.7 in those with low disease activity (p < 0.001). Patients with very high disease activity were also more likely to have lower incomes (Table 1), with 37.3% having incomes < $30,000 compared to 25.0% in the low disease activity group (p = 0.006). As expected, those in the higher disease activity groups also had higher physician’s global assessment (PGA) disease activity scores, SLAM-R, and SLAQ scores, had met a higher number of ACR classification criteria, and were more likely to have had renal involvement (Table 2).

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

Demographics of patients with SLE at cohort entry, by disease activity group.

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

Disease activity, clinical manifestations, and damage.

There were no differences in antimalarial use across disease activity groups, with close to 70% of patients taking these medications at their baseline visit. As expected, prednisone use at cohort entry was highest in the very highly active group at 64%, but was markedly high at about 40% even in those with low disease activity (p < 0.001; Table 3). Azathioprine and mycophenolate use did not differ between groups, while cyclophosphamide use, though infrequent, was most common in those with very highly active disease (p < 0.001). As expected, the overall proportion of patients taking immunosuppressants was highest in those with very highly active disease.

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

Treatment (at cohort entry).

Prednisone dose was available for only a subset of patients (Table 3). Mean daily prednisone dose was 24 mg in the very highly active group, and about half that dose (11–13 mg) in each of the other groups (p = 0.001). Daily doses > 7.5 mg were prescribed to one-third of very highly active patients and about 15% of those with low or moderate disease activity (p < 0.001).

Table 4 shows probabilities of a patient transitioning from 1 disease activity group to another, based on the SLEDAI-2K scores over 2 consecutive yearly visits. For example, patients with low disease activity at cohort entry had a 71% probability of having low activity 1 year later, and only a 5% probability of becoming very highly active. In contrast, a patient with very high initial disease activity had a probability of < 20% of attaining low disease activity 1 year later, and a 36% probability of continued very high disease activity. Across the years, patients with moderately high disease activity had about 50% probability of continued moderately high or very high disease activity 1 year later, whereas patients with low disease activity had about 14–25% probability of progressing to at least moderately high disease activity (Table 4). Figure 1 shows patients categorized by level of disease activity at cohort entry and describes their transitioning to specific disease activity groups across the followup time. For example, close to half of the initial low activity patients remained in this category throughout the followup (Figure 1a), whereas patients whose SLE was initially very highly active had about equal (15–35%) probabilities of moving into each of the 4 categories during the subsequent years of followup (Figure 1d).

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

Proportions (y-axis) of patients transitioning to specific disease activity groups across followup time (x-axis), depending on disease activity at cohort entry. SLEDAI: Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index.

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

Transition matrices: probabilities of transitioning between different categories of disease activity over 2 consecutive visits, based on SLEDAI-2K score*.

In multivariable linear regression analyses, we used quantitative SLEDAI-2K scores rather than the 4 groups of disease activity to increase precision. Among SLE patients with the same entry SLEDAI-2K score, those with longer disease duration at cohort entry (p = 0.020) and highest income category (p = 0.015), patients without arthritis (p = 0.049) and women (p = 0.057) had lower SLE activity at 1 year after study entry (Table 5). However, as expected, the initial SLEDAI-2K score had by far the strongest association with the 1-year score (t statistic = 16.3, p < 0.0001, vs t statistics < 2.9 for all other entry predictors). For each additional 1-point increase of the initial SLEDAI-2K score, the SLEDAI-2K score at 1 year increased by 0.37 points (95% CI 0.32–0.42).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5.

Multivariable linear regression analysis of changes in disease activity in the first year after cohort entry*.

In the first multivariable repeated measures linear mixed model, among all entry characteristics, only higher initial SLEDAI-2K score (t statistic = 15.15, p < 0.0001) and lower initial income (t statistic = 1.67, p = 0.095) were at least marginally statistically significant predictors of average overtime SLEDAI-2K during the followup. A 1-unit increase of the entry SLEDAI-2K score was associated, on average, with a 0.32-unit increase of the SLEDAI-2K score during the followup (95% CI 0.28–0.36; data not shown).

In the second multivariable mixed linear model, the only significant interaction with followup time involved the initial SLEDAI-2K score (p < 0.001). The estimated interaction coefficient indicated that the strength of the association between the entry and post-entry values of SLEDAI-2K score gradually decreased with increasing followup time. For example, after 4 years of followup, the effect of the entry SLEDAI-2K decreases to about one-half of its effect on the SLEDAI-2K score at 1 year. However, even after 4 years of followup, higher entry score predicts a significantly higher updated score (data not shown).

DISCUSSION

Disease activity in SLE is generally thought to be highest early in the course of the disease, declining somewhat over time32. This premise is consistent with the overall mean SLEDAI-2K score of 4.7 that we found in this cohort of prevalent patients with longstanding disease. Other authors have reported similar scores: in a Czech study, mean SLEDAI was 3.7 after nearly 8 years33, while in the Hopkins Lupus cohort, mean SLEDAI was 3.5 after 5 years of disease5. However, in spite of low mean disease activity, 36% of the participants had active SLE at cohort entry, with > 20% of those with followup data remaining active over the followup period, and at least one-third of patients had active disease at any given followup visit, as indicated by SLEDAI-2K ≥ 6. Moreover, > 40% of our patients with inactive disease (SLEDAI-2K < 6) were taking prednisone, and more than one-third required immunosuppression, reflecting rates generally similar to patients with active or very active disease. Among 600 patients from sites where prednisone dose was recorded, ∼15% of the patients in the low to moderately high disease groups were taking > 7.5 mg/day, and one-third of highly active patients were taking > 7.5 mg of prednisone per day. Prednisone doses > 7.5 mg/day are known to predict increased damage accrual over time34. A large Spanish cohort study has reported similar findings: 15% of 3568 patients had active disease (as defined by the SLEDAI ≥ 6), after a mean of about 8 years of disease, and more than half of all patients were taking prednisone2. This high frequency of prednisone and immunosuppressive treatment in these patients suggests that significant ongoing treatment is required to maintain even a relatively low level of disease activity.

We also found that the probability of a patient with quiescent disease becoming active, or flaring, at some time during the followup, was substantial. Those in the lowest disease activity group, SLEDAI-2K < 4, had a 30–50% likelihood of transitioning to more active disease in the next year (Table 4). Only a minority of patients achieved lasting low disease activity states, even with treatment (Figures 1a and 1b). Conversely, those with active disease (SLEDAI-2K > 6, and SLEDAI-2K > 10) had about 30% probability of remaining active over the followup period (Figures 1c and 1d). Other authors have reported similar findings. In 1999, Barr, et al also reported that the long-quiescent pattern (clinical SLEDAI = 0 for at least 1 year) was uncommon, seen in only 16% of patients, while about half were persistently active for at least 1 year35. Zen, et al found that only about 21% of patients achieved prolonged (≥ 5 yrs) remission while not taking corticosteroids36. These results emphasize the difficulty SLE clinicians and their patients experience in maintaining persistent control of disease.

We found that a higher SLEDAI score was the best predictor of high disease activity in subsequent years, in both linear and more complex mixed model multivariate analyses. No clinical or treatment variables (e.g., nephritis or immunosuppressive treatment) predicted longitudinal disease activity. Among demographic variables, only higher income was independently associated with lower disease activity at subsequent visits. The better longterm evolution of SLE disease activity for patients with higher income might be partly explained by their better access to care. Indeed, the proportion of patients reporting additional private insurance coverage for prescription drugs increased from 38.1% in the lowest income group to 88.6% in the highest income group (p < 0.0001). Similarly, at cohort entry, 84.7% of patients in the highest income group reported having no problem with the cost of their SLE medications compared to only 49.6% in the lowest income group (p < 0.0001). This finding has not been previously reported, although a multinational study found lower disease activity in countries with higher national social wealth37. In addition, Alarcon, et al reported that poverty was predictive of higher disease activity, especially among African Americans38. Lower incomes or socioeconomic status have been previously associated with increased damage accrual39,40,41,42, including in this cohort16. We had previously also found that lower educational attainment was associated with higher disease activity in this same cohort in cross-sectional analysis43. The relationship between socioeconomic status and SLE is not well understood, although it has become clear that the effect goes beyond access to care44. Because damage is thought to accrue from ongoing active disease as well as treatment, our findings most likely reflect a higher burden of disease experienced by those with lower incomes, but may also reflect better access to care. We were not, however, able to measure whether income had any effect on treatment delays or adherence in this cohort. No other demographic variables were predictive.

Persistent disease activity despite standard of care therapy is an important theme in SLE research and clinical care. Previous studies have shown that persistent disease activity is associated with increased damage accrual4,45,46. Gilboe, et al reported that higher disease activity early in the disease course predicts later active disease and damage45, and in another inception cohort, 25% of patients failed to achieve low disease activity within the first year; almost half of these continued to have persistent active disease throughout the 5-year followup period4. This points to our lack of ability to achieve sustained low disease activity or clinical remission, resulting in a combination of ongoing disease activity and damage accrual over time. Zen, et al recently found that a sustained 2-year remission was the minimal duration of remission associated with reduced damage46, emphasizing the need for more prolonged disease control to improve outcomes.

There are a number of limitations to this study. While the data were collected prospectively, patients entered the cohort at a mean of 11 years of disease, meaning that we had no information on disease activity earlier in their disease course. In addition, data were collected annually; this makes it possible that disease activity was underestimated (because flares may have occurred between annual visits) and direct correlations between disease activity and treatment decisions are difficult. Conversely, it is also possible that patients with low disease activity were more likely to be lost to followup, resulting in an overestimation of disease activity. Nonetheless, this cohort is large, multiethnic, and extends across Canada, with rigorously collected data, thus providing reliable, generalizable results.

Investigators had begun previously to define low disease activity in SLE, with development of the Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS), analogous to the low disease activity target long in use for rheumatoid arthritis47. LLDAS was defined as a SLEDAI ≤ 4, no new SLE activity compared to previous visit, prednisone dosage ≤ 7.5 mg/day, Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus: National Assessment–SLEDAI PGA ≤ 1, and standard, well-tolerated doses of immunosuppressant and biologics. Although our dataset does not have all the elements needed to determine LLDAS (i.e., doses and tolerability of immunosuppressives), we do collect several of these elements. In our cohort, only half of the patients had a SLEDAI < 4 at cohort entry, and even in those patients it was generally not sustained, with about 30–40% probability of increased disease activity at subsequent visits (Table 4). Further, in a subset analysis, more than 15% of patients with SLEDAI < 4 were taking ≥ 7.5 mg/day of prednisone. Thus, only a small proportion of our cohort would meet the criteria for sustained LLDAS.

Glucocorticoids, most commonly prednisone, continue to be the “go-to” medication for both disease flares and active disease unresponsive to other therapies. This is not because clinicians fail to recognize the overwhelming evidence for the risk of damage from cumulative prednisone dosing5,48,49, but because of lack of effective therapeutic alternatives1,8,50. Our data, similar to others’, suggest that optimal control of disease activity is often not achieved with available steroid-sparing treatment options, with more than half of patients taking prednisone, often at substantial doses. This highlights gaps in the optimal treatment of SLE and the need for additional therapies.

ONLINE SUPPLEMENT

Supplementary material accompanies the online version of this article.

Acknowledgment

We thank Mellissa Moyen, national coordinator for CaNIOS (Canadian Network for Improved Outcomes in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus), the many site coordinators, and all the patients who participated in this study.

Footnotes

  • The 1000 Canadian Faces of Lupus study was funded by a grant from The Arthritis Society and supported by grants from Lupus Canada and the Lupus Society of Manitoba. This updated analysis was funded by GlaxoSmithKline (201364). AS and JR are employees of, and hold stock in, GlaxoSmithKline. SI was an employee of GlaxoSmithKline at the time of development of this manuscript.

  • Accepted for publication June 28, 2018.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Lateef A,
    2. Petri M
    . Unmet medical needs in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Res Ther 2012;14 Suppl 4:S4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Pego-Reigosa JM,
    2. Rua-Figueroa I,
    3. Lopez-Longo FJ,
    4. Galindo-Izquierdo M,
    5. Calvo-Alen J,
    6. Olive-Marques A,
    7. et al,
    8. RELESSER Group, from the Spanish Society of Rheumatology Systemic Autoimmune Diseases Study Group (EASSER)
    . Analysis of disease activity and response to treatment in a large Spanish cohort of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus 2015;24:720–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Nossent J,
    2. Cikes N,
    3. Kiss E,
    4. Marchesoni A,
    5. Nassonova V,
    6. Mosca M,
    7. et al.
    Current causes of death in systemic lupus erythematosus in Europe, 2000—2004: relation to disease activity and damage accrual. Lupus 2007;16:309–17.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Nossent J,
    2. Kiss E,
    3. Rozman B,
    4. Pokorny G,
    5. Vlachoyiannopoulos P,
    6. Olesinska M,
    7. et al.
    Disease activity and damage accrual during the early disease course in a multinational inception cohort of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus 2010;19:949–56.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Al Sawah S,
    2. Zhang X,
    3. Zhu B,
    4. Magder LS,
    5. Foster SA,
    6. Iikuni N,
    7. et al.
    Effect of corticosteroid use by dose on the risk of developing organ damage over time in systemic lupus erythematosus-the Hopkins Lupus Cohort. Lupus Sci Med 2015;2:e000066.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Bruce IN,
    2. O’Keeffe AG,
    3. Farewell V,
    4. Hanly JG,
    5. Manzi S,
    6. Su L,
    7. et al.
    Factors associated with damage accrual in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: results from the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) Inception Cohort. Ann Rheum Dis 2015;74:1706–13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Steiman AJ,
    2. Urowitz MB,
    3. Ibanez D,
    4. Papneja A,
    5. Gladman DD
    . Prolonged clinical remission in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol 2014;41:1808–16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Lazaro E,
    2. Scherlinger M,
    3. Truchetet ME,
    4. Chiche L,
    5. Schaeverbeke T,
    6. Blanco P,
    7. et al.
    Biotherapies in systemic lupus erythematosus: new targets. Joint Bone Spine 2017;84:267–74.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.
    1. Furie R,
    2. Nicholls K,
    3. Cheng TT,
    4. Houssiau F,
    5. Burgos-Vargas R,
    6. Chen SL,
    7. et al.
    Efficacy and safety of abatacept in lupus nephritis: a twelve-month, randomized, double-blind study. Arthritis Rheum 2014;66:379–89.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.
    1. Merrill JT,
    2. Burgos-Vargas R,
    3. Westhovens R,
    4. Chalmers A,
    5. D’Cruz D,
    6. Wallace DJ,
    7. 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 2010;62:3077–87.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.
    1. Merrill JT,
    2. Neuwelt CM,
    3. Wallace DJ,
    4. Shanahan JC,
    5. Latinis KM,
    6. Oates JC,
    7. et al.
    Efficacy and safety of rituximab in moderately-to-severely active systemic lupus erythematosus: the randomized, double-blind, phase II/III systemic lupus erythematosus evaluation of rituximab trial. Arthritis Rheum 2010;62:222–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.
    1. Rovin BH,
    2. Furie R,
    3. Latinis K,
    4. Looney RJ,
    5. Fervenza FC,
    6. Sanchez-Guerrero J,
    7. et al,
    8. LUNAR Investigator Group
    . Efficacy and safety of rituximab in patients with active proliferative lupus nephritis: the Lupus Nephritis Assessment with Rituximab study. Arthritis Rheum 2012;64:1215–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.
    1. Clowse ME,
    2. Wallace DJ,
    3. Furie RA,
    4. Petri MA,
    5. Pike MC,
    6. Leszczynski P,
    7. et al.
    Efficacy and safety of epratuzumab in moderately to severely active systemic lupus erythematosus: results from two phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Arthritis Rheum 2017;69:362–75.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Mysler EF,
    2. Spindler AJ,
    3. Guzman R,
    4. Bijl M,
    5. Jayne D,
    6. Furie RA,
    7. et al.
    Efficacy and safety of ocrelizumab in active proliferative lupus nephritis: results from a randomized, double-blind, phase III study. Arthritis Rheum 2013;65:2368–79.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Nikpour M,
    2. Urowitz MB,
    3. Ibañez D,
    4. Gladman DD
    . Frequency and determinants of flare and persistently active disease in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2009;61:1152–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Peschken CA,
    2. Katz SJ,
    3. Silverman E,
    4. Pope JE,
    5. Fortin PR,
    6. Pineau C,
    7. et al,
    8. Canadian Network for Improved Outcomes in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (CaNIOS)
    . The 1000 Canadian faces of lupus: determinants of disease outcome in a large multiethnic cohort. J Rheumatol 2009;36:1200–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Hochberg MC
    . Updating the American College of Rheumatology revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 1997;40:1725.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Bombardier C,
    2. Gladman DD,
    3. Urowitz MB,
    4. Caron D,
    5. Chang CH
    . Derivation of the SLEDAI. A disease activity index for lupus patients. The Committee on Prognosis Studies in SLE. Arthritis Rheum 1992;35:630–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Gladman DD,
    2. Ibañez D,
    3. Urowitz MB
    . Systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity index 2000. J Rheumatol 2002;29:288–91.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Karlson EW,
    2. Daltroy LH,
    3. Rivest C,
    4. Ramsey-Goldman R,
    5. Wright EA,
    6. Partridge AJ,
    7. et al.
    Validation of a Systemic Lupus Activity Questionnaire (SLAQ) for population studies. Lupus 2003;12:280–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Ware JE Jr,
    2. Sherbourne CD
    . The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Gladman D,
    2. Ginzler E,
    3. Goldsmith C,
    4. Fortin P,
    5. Liang M,
    6. Urowitz M,
    7. et al.
    Systemic lupus international collaborative clinics: development of a damage index in systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol 1992;19:1820–1.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Gladman DD,
    2. Urowitz MB,
    3. Goldsmith CH,
    4. Fortin P,
    5. Ginzler E,
    6. Gordon C,
    7. et al.
    The reliability of the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 1997;40:809–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Statistics Canada
    . 2001 census dictionary Internet version. [Internet. Accessed August 15, 2018.] Available from: www12.statcan.gc.ca/english/census01/Products/Reference/dict/index.htm
  25. 25.↵
    1. Abrahamowicz M,
    2. Fortin PR,
    3. du Berger R,
    4. Nayak V,
    5. Neville C,
    6. Liang MH
    . The relationship between disease activity and expert physician’s decision to start major treatment in active systemic lupus erythematosus: a decision aid for development of entry criteria for clinical trials. J Rheumatol 1998;25:277–84.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Yee CS,
    2. Farewell VT,
    3. Isenberg DA,
    4. Griffiths B,
    5. Teh LS,
    6. Bruce IN,
    7. et al.
    The use of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index-2000 to define active disease and minimal clinically meaningful change based on data from a large cohort of systemic lupus erythematosus patients. Rheumatology 2011;50:982–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Akaike H
    . A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Automat Contr 1974;19:716–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. 28.↵
    1. White IR,
    2. Royston P,
    3. Wood AM
    . Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med 2011;30:377–99.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Diggle PJ
    . An approach to the analysis of repeated measurements. Biometrics 1988;44:959–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Kleinbaum DG,
    2. Kupper L,
    3. Nizam A,
    4. Rosenberg E
    . Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods. Boston: Cenngage Learning; 2014.
  31. 31.↵
    1. RStudio Team
    (2015). RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio Inc., Boston, Massachusetts, USA. [Internet. Accessed August 23, 2018.] Available from: www.rstudio.com
  32. 32.↵
    1. Zhang J,
    2. Gonzalez LA,
    3. Roseman JM,
    4. Vila LM,
    5. Reveille JD,
    6. Alarcon GS
    . Predictors of the rate of change in disease activity over time in LUMINA, a multiethnic US cohort of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: LUMINA LXX. Lupus 2010;19:727–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Závada J,
    2. Uher M,
    3. Svobodová R,
    4. Olejárová M,
    5. Hušáková M,
    6. Ciferská H,
    7. et al.
    Serum tenascin-C discriminates patients with active SLE from inactive patients and healthy controls and predicts the need to escalate immunosuppressive therapy: a cohort study. Arthritis Res Ther 2015;17:341.
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.↵
    1. Ruiz-Arruza I,
    2. Ugarte A,
    3. Cabezas-Rodriguez I,
    4. Medina JA,
    5. Moran MA,
    6. Ruiz-Irastorza G
    . Glucocorticoids and irreversible damage in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheumatology 2014;53:1470–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Barr SG,
    2. Zonana-Nacach A,
    3. Magder LS,
    4. Petri M
    . Patterns of disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 1999;42:2682–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Zen M,
    2. Iaccarino L,
    3. Gatto M,
    4. Bettio S,
    5. Nalotto L,
    6. Ghirardello A,
    7. et al.
    Prolonged remission in Caucasian patients with SLE: prevalence and outcomes. Ann Rheum Dis 2015;74:2117–22.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    1. Golder V,
    2. Kandane-Rathnayake R,
    3. Hoi AY,
    4. Huq M,
    5. Louthrenoo W,
    6. An Y,
    7. et al.
    Frequency and predictors of the lupus low disease activity state in a multi-national and multi-ethnic cohort. Arthritis Res Ther 2016;18:260.
    OpenUrl
  38. 38.↵
    1. Alarcon GS,
    2. McGwin G Jr,
    3. Sanchez ML,
    4. Bastian HM,
    5. Fessler BJ,
    6. Friedman AW,
    7. et al.
    Systemic lupus erythematosus in three ethnic groups. XIV. Poverty, wealth, and their influence on disease activity. Arthritis Rheum 2004;51:73–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Lotstein DS,
    2. Ward MM,
    3. Bush TM,
    4. Lambert RE,
    5. van Vollenhoven R,
    6. Neuwelt CM
    . Socioeconomic status and health in women with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol 1998;25:1720–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Sutcliffe N,
    2. Clarke AE,
    3. Gordon C,
    4. Farewell V,
    5. Isenberg DA
    . The association of socio-economic status, race, psychosocial factors and outcome in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheumatology 1999;38:1130–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Mendoza-Pinto C,
    2. Mendez-Martinez S,
    3. Soto-Santillan P,
    4. Galindo Herrera J,
    5. Perez-Contreras I,
    6. Macias-Diaz S,
    7. et al.
    Socioeconomic status and organ damage in Mexican systemic lupus erythematosus women. Lupus 2015;24:1227–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Petri M,
    2. Purvey S,
    3. Fang H,
    4. Magder LS
    . Predictors of organ damage in systemic lupus erythematosus: the Hopkins Lupus Cohort. Arthritis Rheum 2012;64:4021–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. George A,
    2. Wong-Pak A,
    3. Peschken CA,
    4. Silverman E,
    5. Pineau C,
    6. Smith CD,
    7. et al,
    8. 1000 Canadian Faces of Lupus Investigators
    . Influence of education on disease activity and damage in systemic lupus erythematosus: data from the 1000 Canadian Faces of Lupus. Arthritis Care Res 2017;69:124–32.
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.↵
    1. Ward MM
    . Examining health disparities in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2001;44:2711–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Gilboe IM,
    2. Kvien TK,
    3. Husby G
    . Disease course in systemic lupus erythematosus: changes in health status, disease activity, and organ damage after 2 years. J Rheumatol 2001;28:266–74.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 46.↵
    1. Zen M,
    2. Iaccarino L,
    3. Gatto M,
    4. Bettio S,
    5. Saccon F,
    6. Ghirardello A,
    7. et al.
    The effect of different durations of remission on damage accrual: results from a prospective monocentric cohort of caucasian patients. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:562–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. 47.↵
    1. Franklyn K,
    2. Lau CS,
    3. Navarra SV,
    4. Louthrenoo W,
    5. Lateef A,
    6. Hamijoyo L,
    7. et al,
    8. Asia-Pacific Lupus Collaboration
    . Definition and initial validation of a Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS). Ann Rheum Dis 2016;75:1615–21.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. 48.↵
    1. Apostolopoulos D,
    2. Kandane-Rathnayake R,
    3. Raghunath S,
    4. Hoi A,
    5. Nikpour M,
    6. Morand EF
    . Independent association of glucocorticoids with damage accrual in SLE. Lupus Sci Med 2016;3:e000157.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    1. Thamer M,
    2. Hernan MA,
    3. Zhang Y,
    4. Cotter D,
    5. Petri M
    . Prednisone, lupus activity, and permanent organ damage. J Rheumatol 2009;36:560–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. 50.↵
    1. Furie R,
    2. Toder K,
    3. Zapantis E
    . Lessons learned from the clinical trials of novel biologics and small molecules in lupus nephritis. Semin Nephrol 2015;35:509–20.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 46, Issue 2
1 Feb 2019
  • 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.
Persistent Disease Activity Remains a Burden for Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
(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
Persistent Disease Activity Remains a Burden for Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
Christine A. Peschken, Yishu Wang, Michal Abrahamowicz, Janet Pope, Earl Silverman, Amyn Sayani, Sandra Iczkovitz, Jorge Ross, Michel Zummer, Lori Tucker, Christian Pineau, Deborah Levy, Marie Hudson, Carol A. Hitchon, Adam M. Huber, C. Douglas Smith, Antonio Avina-Zubieta, Hector Arbillaga, Gaëlle Chédeville, Willy Wynant, Paul R. Fortin, on behalf of CaNIOS 1000 Faces Investigators
The Journal of Rheumatology Feb 2019, 46 (2) 166-175; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.171454

Citation Manager Formats

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

 Request Permissions

Share
Persistent Disease Activity Remains a Burden for Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
Christine A. Peschken, Yishu Wang, Michal Abrahamowicz, Janet Pope, Earl Silverman, Amyn Sayani, Sandra Iczkovitz, Jorge Ross, Michel Zummer, Lori Tucker, Christian Pineau, Deborah Levy, Marie Hudson, Carol A. Hitchon, Adam M. Huber, C. Douglas Smith, Antonio Avina-Zubieta, Hector Arbillaga, Gaëlle Chédeville, Willy Wynant, Paul R. Fortin, on behalf of CaNIOS 1000 Faces Investigators
The Journal of Rheumatology Feb 2019, 46 (2) 166-175; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.171454
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

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

Keywords

SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS
DISEASE ACTIVITY

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Risk in Pregnant Women With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
  • High Systemic Type I Interferon Activity Is Associated With Active Class III/IV Lupus Nephritis
  • Efficacy and Safety of Ustekinumab in Patients With Active Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Results of a Phase II Open-label Extension Study
Show more Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • systemic lupus erythematosus
  • disease activity

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