Trends of anticardiolipin antibodies after low-dose methylprednisolone and cyclophosphamide treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus

Cyclophosphamide versus methylprednisolone for treating neuropsychiatric involvement in systemic lupus erythematosus

BACKGROUND

Neuropsychiatric involvement in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is complex and it is an important cause of morbidity and mortality. Management of nervous system manifestations of SLE remains unsatisfactory. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2000 and previously updated in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of cyclophosphamide and methylprednisolone in the treatment of neuropsychiatric manifestations of SLE.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, SCOPUS and WHO up to and including June 2012. We sought additional articles through handsearching in relevant journals as well as contact with experts. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials that compared cyclophosphamide to methylprednisolone in patients with SLE of any age and gender and presenting with any kind of neuropsychiatric manifestations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted, assessed and cross-checked data. We produced a 'Summary of findings' table. We presented dichotomous data as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We did not include any new trials in this update. One randomised controlled trial of 32 patients is included. Concerning risk of bias, generation of the allocation sequence was at low risk; however, allocation concealment, blinding and selective reporting were at high risk. Treatment response, defined as 20% improvement from basal conditions by clinical, serological and specific neurological measures, was found in 94.7% (18/19) of patients using cyclophosphamide compared with 46.2% (6/13) in the methylprednisolone group at 24 months (RR 2.05, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.73). This was statistically significant and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of treatment response is three. We found no statistically significant differences between the groups in damage index measurements (Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC)). The median SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) rating favoured the cyclophosphamide group. Cyclophosphamide use was associated with a reduction in prednisone requirements. All the patients in the cyclophosphamide group had electroencephalographic improvement but there was no statistically significant difference in decrease between groups in the number of monthly seizures. No statistically significant differences in adverse effects, including mortality, were reported between the groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review found one randomised controlled trial with a small number of patients in the different clinical subgroups of neurological manifestation. There is very low-quality evidence that cyclophosphamide is more effective in reducing symptoms of neuropsychiatric involvement in SLE compared with methylprednisolone. However, properly designed randomised controlled trials that involve large numbers of individuals, with explicit clinical and laboratory diagnostic criteria, sufficient duration of follow-up and description of all relevant outcome measures, are necessary to guide practice. As we did not find any new trials to include in this review at update, the conclusions of the review did not change.

Reevaluation of predictive value of ACL and anti-β2GP1 antibody for thrombosis in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: from a perspective of a practical world

Detection of ACL (anticardiolipin, ACL) and anti-β2GP1 (beta2 glycoprotein1, β2GP1) antibody has been widely used, and the criteria of APS (Antiphospholipid syndrome, APS) have been used for the prediction of thrombosis in patients with SLE. What is the exact predictive value of these two antibodies? Is it really necessary to apply the criteria of APS to each patient just for the purpose of prediction of thrombosis? The aim of this retrospective study is to reevaluate the predictive value of different combination of ACL and anti-β2GP1 antibody for thrombosis formation in Chinese patients with SLE. Patients fulfilling the 1997 ACR classification criteria for SLE were enrolled and retrospectively analyzed. Thrombosis was confirmed by ultrasound, cerebral MRI, computed tomography pulmonary angiogram and angiography. Both IgG and IgM isotype of ACL and anti-β2GP1 antibody were detected with ELISA kit. ROC curves and other parameters of diagnostic test for different combination of ACL and anti-β2GP1 were analyzed and compared. 175 patients were recruited and thrombosis was diagnosed in 49 patients. In patients with thrombosis, 95.9% had been treated with glucocorticoids before detection of the two antibodies, 44.9% had hypertension and 53.1% had hyperlipidemia. ACL was positive in 28 patients (16%), and anti-β2GP1 antibody was positive in 21 patients (12%). The presence of a low or higher titer of either ACL (>12 RU/ml) or anti-β2GP1 antibody (>20 RU/ml) once has the highest predictive accuracy. The sensitivity, the specificity, the Youden's index and the area under ROC curve are 61.11%, 81.11%, 0.4222 and 0.711 respectively. A transient low or higher titer of ACL or anti-β2GP1 antibody had a good predictive value for thrombosis in patients with SLE, especially in those with other traditional risk factors for thrombosis and those treated with glucocorticoids.

Autoantibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus: comparison of historical and current assessment of seropositivity

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is characterized by multiple autoantibodies and complement activation. Recent studies have suggested that anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) positivity may disappear over time in some SLE patients. Anti-double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) antibody titers and complement levels may vary with time and immunosuppressive treatment, while the behavior of anti-extractable nuclear antigen (ENA) over time is less well understood. This study sought to determine the correlation between historical autoantibody tests and current testing in patients with SLE. Three hundred and two SLE patients from the ACR Reclassification of SLE (AROSE) database with both historical and current laboratory data were selected for analysis. The historical laboratory data were compared with the current autoantibody tests done at the reference laboratory and tested for agreement using percent agreement and Kappa statistic. Serologic tests included ANA, anti-dsDNA, anti-Smith, anti-ribonucleoprotein (RNP), anti-Ro, anti-La, rheumatoid factor (RF), C3 and C4. Among those historically negative for immunologic markers, a current assessment of the markers by the reference laboratory generally yielded a low percentage of additional positives (3-13%). However, 6/11 (55%) of those historically negative for ANA were positive by the reference laboratory, and the reference laboratory test also identified 20% more patients with anti-RNP and 18% more with RF. Among those historically positive for immunologic markers, the reference laboratory results were generally positive on the same laboratory test (range 57% to 97%). However, among those with a history of low C3 or C4, the current reference laboratory results indicated low C3 or C4 a low percentage of the time (18% and 39%, respectively). ANA positivity remained positive over time, in contrast to previous studies. Anti-Ro, La, RNP, Smith and anti-dsDNA antibodies had substantial agreement over time, while complement had less agreement. This variation could partially be explained by variability of the historical assays, which were done by local laboratories over varying periods of time. Variation in the results for complement, however, is more likely to be explained by response to treatment. These findings deserve consideration in the context of diagnosis and enrolment in clinical trials.

Anticoagulation Strategies for Treatment of Ischemic Stroke and Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Case Report and Review of the Literature

A 49-year-old Caucasian man with antiphospholipid syndrome who experienced an ischemic stroke required multidisciplinary decisions regarding acute and long-term care. The patient first received warfarin and unfractionated heparin, followed by low-molecular-weight heparin. However, he developed complications from these drugs (warfarin-induced necrosis and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia), resulting in thigh necrosis and multiple additional cerebral and peripheral infarcts. His condition improved after warfarin and the heparins were discontinued, and a direct thrombin inhibitor, argatroban, was given intravenously for acute treatment. Argatroban is the only anticoagulant known to be safe in patients who experience an acute ischemic stroke in the setting of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. For long-term anticoagulation, fondaparinux, an indirect, selective factor Xa inhibitor, was given subcutaneously. The patient received intravenous dexamethasone, later changed to azathioprine, for immunomodulatory treatment. He had significant improvement in his neurologic deficits without recurrent events over the next 18 months. Management of anticoagulation therapy in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome is complex and challenging, and therapeutic strategies need to be evaluated further.

Cyclophosphamide versus methylprednisolone for treating neuropsychiatric involvement in systemic lupus erythematosus

BACKGROUND

Neuropsychiatric involvement in systemic lupus erythematosus is complex and several clinical presentations are related to this disease such as: convulsions, chronic headache, transverse myelitis, vascular brain disease, psychosis and neural cognitive dysfunction. This systematic review is an update of a review performed in 2000.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of cyclophosphamide and methylprednisolone in the treatment of neuropsychiatric manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched EMBASE, LILACS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and MEDLINE up to and including May 2005. Additional articles were sought through handsearching in relevant journals. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials that compared cyclophosphamide to methylprednisolone were included. Patients of any age and gender were included as long as they fulfilled the criterion of the American College of Rheumatology for the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus and presented with any one of the following neuropsychiatric events: convulsions, organic brain syndrome and cranial neuropathy. Outcome measures included the following: a) overall mortality (primary event); b) motor and psychiatric deficit (primary event); c) clinical improvement (secondary event).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data was independently extracted by two reviewers and cross-checked. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed by the same two reviewers. Details of the randomisation (generation and concealment), blinding, and the number of patients lost to follow-up were recorded. Dichotomous data was presented as relative risks with corresponding 95% confidence intervals and a clinical relevance table was produced.

MAIN RESULTS

We found one randomised controlled trial of 32 patients comparing cyclophosphamide versus methylprednisolone for the treatment of neuropsychiatric involvement in the systemic lupus erythematosus. A significantly greater number of people responded to treatment in the cyclophosphamide group. Treatment response was found in 94.7% (18/19) of patients using cyclophosphamide compared with 46.2% (6/13) in the methylprednisolone group at 24 months (RR 2.05, 95% CI 1.13, 3.73) The NNT for response to treatment is 2. Cyclophosphamide use was associated with a reduction in prednisone requirements. A significant decrease in the number seizures per month was observed in the cyclophosphamide group. All the patients in the cyclophosphamide group had electroencephalographic improvement. No significant differences in adverse effects between the groups were found. It was not possible to extract more data from the study because there was a small number of patients in the others clinical subgroups of neurological manifestations and the authors did not provide sufficient information for data extraction.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review found one randomised controlled trial with a small number of patients in the different clinical subgroups of neurological manifestation. It seems that cyclophosphamide is more effective in the treatment of neuropsychiatric involvement in systemic erythematosus lupus compared with methylprednisolone. However, properly designed randomised controlled trials that involve large, representative numbers of individuals, with explicit clinical and laboratory diagnosis criteria, sufficient duration of follow-up and description of all relevant outcome measures are necessary to guide practice.