Treat-to-target Endpoint Definitions in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: More Is Less?

The communication GAP between patients and clinicians and the importance of patient reported outcomes in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) imposes a great burden on the lives of patients. Patients' and physicians' concerns about the disease diverge considerably. Physicians focus on controlling disease activity to prevent damage accrual, while patients focus on symptoms that impact on Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL). We explored the physicians' and patients' perspective and the potential role of Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs). Physicians are aware of the theoretical usefulness of PROs to collect information deriving from the patients' perspective. However, they often do not know how to interpret and use these questionnaires in a real shared therapeutic strategy. For the patients, it's important to be seen as a whole person with a true consideration of how they feel and function. Strategies to help bridge the communication gap could include: better use of time during visits, preparing for the consultation, a more understandable lay language used by the doctor, a dedicated nurse.

Treat-to-Target in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Reality or Pipe Dream

Treat-to-target is a therapeutic approach based on adjustments to treatment at set intervals in order to achieve well-defined, clinically relevant targets. This approach has been successfully applied to many chronic conditions, and in rheumatology promising results have emerged for rheumatoid arthritis. For systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), defining the most meaningful treatment targets has been challenging, due to disease complexity and heterogeneity. Control of disease activity, the reduction of damage accrual and the patient's quality of life should be considered as the main targets in SLE, and several new drugs are emerging to achieve these targets. This review is focused on describing the target to achieve in SLE and the methods to do so, and it is also aimed at discussing if treat-to-target could be a promising approach also for this complex disease.

Clinician-reported outcome measures in lupus trials: a problem worth solving

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) remains a disease of high unmet clinical need. Because of substantial patient heterogeneity, the execution of clinical trials that successfully determine the efficacy of novel therapeutics compared with placebo is a continuous challenge. Clinician-reported outcome measures of treatment response used in SLE trials have evolved from the use of individual disease activity indices, including the SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) and British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG), to composite responder definitions such as the SLE Responder Index (SRI) and BILAG-Based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA), which are based on these indices. However, these approaches have notable drawbacks and defining the optimal clinical trial outcome measure for SLE remains a research goal. In this Viewpoint, we explore the strengths and limitations of existing indices and composite assessments, illustrating features which should be investigated in future analysis of trial data. Further, we provide a platform from which to advance new approaches to endpoint design, which is crucial to improve the interpretability and success of subsequent clinical trials in SLE.

Validity of systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity score (SLE-DAS) for definition of lupus low disease activity state (LLDAS)

INTRODUCTION

SLE disease activity score (SLE-DAS) is a novel, rapid, continuous and comprehensive score that overcomes the drawbacks of SLEDAI-2 K. Low lupus disease activity state (LLDAS) has been targeted as an endpoint in many clinical trials and as a favourable outcome in clinical practice. Therefore, our objective in the current study is to evaluate the validity of SLE-DAS for defining LLDAS as an objective in the treat-to-target strategy.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was carried out on 117 SLE patients who were diagnosed according to Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) classification criteria for SLE. Patients were evaluated for disease activity by both SLEDAI-2 K and SLE-DAS. Additionally, patients were divided according to the SLEDAI-2 K-derived LLDAS definition into two groups: low disease activity (LDA) group and high disease activity (HDA) group. The validity of SLE-DAS for the definition of LLDAS was evaluated in comparison to SLEDAI-2 K.

RESULTS

SLE-DAS shows highly significant positive correlation (r = 0.743, p < 0.001) with SLEDAI-2 K. The ROC curve revealed that SLE-DAS is valid for the assessment of activity with the best detection of LLDAS was at 6.62 with 95.5% sensitivity, 79.3% specificity and 89.6% accuracy. Moreover, it had a good agreement with the SLEDAI-2 K-derived definition of LLDAS (k = 0.765, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

SLE-DAS is a valid score for the definition of LLDAS which can be used in the clinical practice as a simple and precise standalone criterion. Key Points • Correlation between SLEDAI-2K and SLE-DAS revealed a high significance. • Identify SLE-DAS cut-off 6.62 for the definition of LLDAS. • There is a good agreement between SLEDAI-2K-derived definition of LLDAS and SLE-DAS definition.

Articular involvement, steroid treatment and fibromyalgia are the main determinants of patient-physician discordance in systemic lupus erythematosus

Background

Remission or the lowest possible disease activity is the main target in the management of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Anyway, conflicting data are present in the literature regarding the correlation between physician-driven definitions and patient perception of the disease. The objective of this study is to evaluate the relationship between the definition of lupus low disease activity state (LLDAS) and patient’s health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

Methods

This is a cross-sectional, monocentric study. Adult SLE patients were included. For each patient, demographics, disease duration, medications, comorbidities, organ damage, active disease manifestations and SELENA-SLEDAI were assessed. Patients have been categorised as follows: LLDAS, remission and active disease. Each patient completed the following patient-reported outcomes (PROs): SF-36, LIT, FACIT-Fatigue and SLAQ. A SLAQ score < 6 (25° percentile of our cohort) was used as the cut-off value to define a low disease activity state according to patient self-evaluation.

Results

We enrolled 259 consecutive SLE patients (mainly female and Caucasian, mean age 45.33 ± 13.14 years, median disease duration 14 years). 80.3% were in LLDAS, of whom 82.2% were in remission; 19.7% were active. No differences emerged for any of the PROs used between the LLDAS and the active group.

Considering the LLDAS subgroup, we identified 56 patients with a subjective low disease activity (SLAQ < 6) and we defined them as “concordant”; the remaining 152 patients in LLDAS presented a subjective active disease (SLAQ ≥ 6) and were defined “discordant”. Discordant patients presented more frequently ongoing and past joint involvement (p < 0.05) and a diagnosis of fibromyalgia (p < 0.01); furthermore, they were more likely to be on glucocorticoid therapy (p < 0.01). Discordant patients showed a significantly poorer HRQoL, assessed by all PROs (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Joint involvement, glucocorticoid therapy and comorbid fibromyalgia resulted to be the most important variables determining the poor concordance between patient and physician perspective on the disease.