Comparison of the SLE Risk Probability Index (SLERPI) scale against the European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology (ACR/EULAR) and Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) criteria.

INTRODUCTION: Timely diagnosis and proper recognition of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) is essential to establish early management in inpatients and outpatients. There are different classification scales to identify SLE, which include various clinical and serological aspects. In 2021, the SLE Risk Probability Index (SLERPI) was published, which focuses predominantly on the clinical characteristics of patients with suspected SLE and uses a simple algorithm for early recognition of the disease. The aim of this study is to compare the European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology (ACR/EULAR) classification criteria, the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) criteria, and the SLERPI criteria in a cohort of Colombian patients with SLE and to analyze the correlations observed between their absolute scores. METHODS: A registry of SLE patients from two referral hospitals in Bogotá, Colombia, was used. 2021 SLERPI, 2019 ACR/EULAR, and 2012 SLICC scores were calculated for each patient and the correlations found between the scales were analyzed. The sensitivities of each were compared, and frequency analyses were conducted among different clinical and laboratory variables. RESULTS: Between 2016 and 2019, 146 patients diagnosed with SLE were registered, including inpatients and outpatients. The median age was 36 years (interquartile range 26-51), and 82.2% were women. According to the SLERPI criteria, a high prevalence of antinuclear antibodies (92%), immunological disorders (71%), and arthritis (64%) were observed. The most used treatments were corticosteroids (87.6%) and chloroquine (67.8%). A Spearman evaluation analysis was performed, with a moderately strong correlation of 0.76 (p = .000) between the SLERPI and ACR/EULAR scales and very strong correlation of 0.80 (p = .000) between the SLERPI and SLICC. Patients classified with SLE according to the SLERPI scale exhibited a higher incidence of hematological compromise, along with elevated levels of serological markers such as anti-DNA antibodies. Additionally, this group more commonly received treatments involving corticosteroids and azathioprine, and displayed a higher prevalence of hypertension. CONCLUSION: The SLERPI scale could be useful in the diagnosis of SLE, especially in early stages, given its good correlation with other classification scales and its good sensitivity.

Efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin in patients with lupus nephritis: A systematic review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) is an anti-inflammatory drug with an unclear role in the treatment of patients with lupus nephritis (LN). This systematic review evaluates the evidence for IVIg in the care of patients with LN. METHODOLOGY: A systematic search was done in the PubMed, EMBASE, BVS and OVID databases - All EBM Reviews following the PRISMA methodology (registration in PROSPERO CRD42021236662). The variables were extracted: indications for use, dosage, partial or complete response, adverse reactions, initiation of renal replacement therapy, reduction of proteinuria, and mortality. The quality assessment was done with the "The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal tools for use in Systematic Reviews Checklist". In addition, synthesis reports were prepared through the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis - SWiM guide. RESULTS: A total of 2328 articles were obtained (28 were considered for inclusion). When the studies were evaluated, IVIg therapy was found to be between 60% to 70% effective (except for patients with class V LN) with overall responses (complete + partial) even for patients who are refractory to first line treatment. Normalization (<0.5 g) of nephrotic proteinuria occurred in 24% of cases with infrequent adverse events and a mortality plus dialysis composite of 11.5% and 24.1% (most representative study). CONCLUSION: In patients with LN refractory to conventional treatment or co-infection situations, the reported data seem to demonstrate effectiveness of IVIg therapy. There are few adverse reactions and caution is exercised when using it on patients with class V NL. However, given the lack of controlled studies with long-term follow-up, these data should be interpreted cautiously thus encouraging the development of high-quality RCTs.

Comparison of the sensitivity of the EULAR / ACR 2019 and SLICC 2012 classification criteria in a Colombian population with systemic lupus erythematosus.

BACKGROUND: /Objective: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a multisystem autoimmune disease with a wide range of clinical manifestations. The latest classification criteria, EULAR/ACR 2019, have not been validated in a Latin American population of Amerindian ancestry. The objective of this study is to compare the sensitivity of the EULAR/ACR 2019 and SLICC 2012 classification criteria in a group of SLE patients with the above ancestry. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was done. Data were obtained from the review of medical records of patients who met the inclusion criteria. The overall sensitivity of the criteria was calculated and compared to each other using the McNemar test. RESULTS: 146 medical records of patients from two referral centers were included. There were no differences in the sensitivity of the EULAR/ACR and SLICC 2012 criteria (84.9% versus 85.6% p = 0.79) nor were differences found when the groups based on disease duration were compared: less than 5 years (91.0% versus 92.5% p = 0.70), between 5 and 10 years (82.8% versus 82.8% p = 1), and 10 years or more (76.7% versus 76.7% p = 1). However, SLICC 2012 criteria was found to better classify patients with a less than 5-year disease duration compared to those with 10-year duration or more (92.5% versus 76.4% p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: There are no statistically significant differences between the EULAR/ACR and SLICC 2012 criteria in the population studied. Nor were differences found when evaluating them by age at diagnosis and duration of the disease except when the group with less than 5 years of duration was compared to those with 10 years or more using the SLICC 2012 criteria.

[SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) in Patients with some Degree of Immunosuppression]. / SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) en pacientes con algún grado de inmunosupresión.

BACKGROUND: It is not clear whether patients with some degree of immunosuppression have worse outcomes in SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared to healthy people. OBJECTIVE: To carry out a narrative review of the information available on infection by SARS-CoV-2 in immunosuppressed patients, especially patients with cancer, transplanted, neurological diseases, primary and secondary immunodeficiencies. RESULTS: Patients with cancer and recent cancer treatment (chemotherapy or surgery) and SARS-CoV-2 infection have a higher risk of worse outcomes. In transplant patients (renal, cardiac and hepatic), with neurological pathologies (multiple sclerosis [MS], neuromyelitis optica [NMODS], myasthenia gravis [MG]), primary immunodeficiencies and infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in association with immunosuppressants, studies have shown no tendency for worse outcomes. CONCLUSION: Given the little evidence we have so far, the behaviour of SARS-CoV-2 infection in immunosuppressed patients is unclear, but current studies have not shown worse outcomes, except for patients with cancer.

SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) in patients with some degree of immunosuppression.

BACKGROUND: It is not clear whether patients with some degree of immunosuppression have worse outcomes in SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared to healthy people. OBJECTIVE: To carry out a narrative review of the information available on infection by SARS-CoV-2 in immunosuppressed patients, especially patients with cancer, transplanted, neurological diseases, primary and secondary immunodeficiencies. RESULTS: Patients with cancer and recent cancer treatment (chemotherapy or surgery) and SARS-CoV-2 infection have a higher risk of worse outcomes. In transplant patients (renal, cardiac and hepatic), with neurological pathologies (multiple sclerosis (MS), neuromyelitis optica (NMODS), myasthenia gravis (MG)), primary immunodeficiencies and infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in association with immunosuppressants, studies have shown no tendency for worse outcomes. CONCLUSION: Given the little evidence we have so far, the behaviour of SARS-CoV-2 infection in immunosuppressed patients is unclear, but current studies have not shown worse outcomes, except for patients with cancer.