Impact of low disease activity, remission, and complete remission on flares following tapering of corticosteroids and immunosuppressive therapy in patients with systemic lupus erythematous: a multinational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Targets of treatment for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) include the Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS), remission, and complete remission. Whether treatment can be tapered after attaining these targets and whether tapering is safer in patients in complete remission compared with LLDAS are unknown. We aimed to assess the odds of disease flares after treatment tapering in stable disease, versus continuing the same therapy. We also aimed to examine whether tapering in complete remission resulted in fewer flares or longer time to flare compared with tapering in LLDAS or remission.

METHODS

This multinational cohort study was conducted at 25 sites across 13 Asia-Pacific countries. We included adult patients aged 18 years or older with stable SLE who were receiving routine clinical care, had two or more visits and had attained stable disease at one or more visits. We categorised stable disease into: LLDAS (Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 [SLEDAI-2K] score ≤4, Physician Global Assessment [PGA] ≤1, and prednisolone ≤7·5 mg/day); Definitions of Remission in SLE (DORIS) remission (clinical SLEDAI-2K score 0, PGA <0·5, and prednisolone ≤5 mg/day); or complete remission on therapy (SLEDAI-2K score 0, PGA <0·5, and prednisolone ≤5 mg/day). Stable disease categories were mutually exclusive. Tapering was defined as any decrease in dose of corticosteroids or immunosuppressive therapy (mycophenolate mofetil, calcineurin inhibitors, azathioprine, leflunomide, or methotrexate). Using multivariable generalised estimating equations, we compared flares (SELENA-SLEDAI Flare Index) at the subsequent visit after drug tapering. We used generalised estimating equations and Cox proportional hazard models to compare tapering attempts that had begun in LLDAS, remission, and complete remission.

FINDINGS

Between May 1, 2013, and Dec 31, 2020, 4106 patients were recruited to the cohort, 3002 (73·1%) of whom were included in our analysis. 2769 (92·2%) participants were female, 233 (7·8%) were male, and 2636 (88·1%) of 2993 with ethnicity data available were Asian. The median age was 39·5 years (IQR 29·0-50·0). There were 14 808 patient visits for patients in LLDAS, or remission or complete remission, of which 13 140 (88·7%) entered the final multivariable model after excluding missing data. Among the 9863 visits at which patients continued the same therapy, 1121 (11·4%) flared at the next visit, of which 221 (19·7%) were severe flares. Of the 3277 visits at which a patient received a tapering of therapy, 557 (17·0%) flared at the next visit, of which 120 (21·5%) were severe flares. Tapering was associated with higher odds of flare compared with continuing the same therapy (odds ratio [OR] 1·24 [95% CI 1·10-1·39]; p=0·0005). Of 2095 continuous tapering attempts, 860 (41·1%) were initiated in LLDAS, 596 (28·4%) in remission, and 639 (30·5%) in complete remission. Tapering initiated in LLDAS (OR 1·37 [95% CI 1·03-1·81]; p=0·029) or remission (1·45 [1·08-1·94]; p=0·013) had higher odds of flare in 1 year compared with complete remission. Tapering in LLDAS (hazard ratio 1·24 [95% CI 1·04-1·48]; p=0·016) or remission (1·30 [1·08-1·56]; p=0·0054) had a significantly shorter time to first flare than tapering initiated in complete remission. Attaining sustained LLDAS, remission, or complete remission for at least 6 months just before the time of taper was associated with lower odds of flare at next visit, flares in 1 year, and longer time to flare.

INTERPRETATION

Tapering of corticosteroids or immunosuppressive therapy in patients with stable SLE was associated with excess flares. Our findings suggest that drug tapering should be carefully considered, weighing the risks and benefits, and is best exercised in complete (clinical and serological) remission and after maintaining stable disease for at least 6 months.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lily, Janssen, Merck Serono, GSK, and UCB.

MO973PRE-IMPLANTATION BIOPSY FINDINGS AND IMPACT ON LIVE DONOR KIDNEY TRANSPLANT RECIPIENT OUTCOMES - A SINGLE CENTRE STUDY

Background and Aims

Live donor kidney transplantation remains the mainstay of renal replacement therapy in Sri Lanka. The basic universal pre surgical investigations, human leucocyte antigen (HLA) matching and cross matching are routinely performed, however due to high rates chronic kidney disease (CKD) as well as increasing numbers of, chronic kidney disease unknown etiology (CKDu) in Sri Lanka, there is a possibility of subclinical kidney disease being present in donor kidneys which go undiagnosed. A study of pre-implantation biopsy along with follow-up outcomes of kidney transplant recipients is conducted to identify presence of subclinical kidney disease in a Sri Lankan cohort of patients.

Method

We collected thirty three (33) live donor pre-implantation biopsies during 4 consecutive months in 2020 as well as 1 month follow-up data. This is part of an ongoing follow-up study which is conducted at National Hospital, Kandy, Sri Lanka.

Results

Thirty three (33) live donor recipients and their pre-implantation renal biopsy samples were studied. The mean age of the study participants’ was 37.6 (SD 12.5, range 13 - 59) years. A predominant number of male patients were in the sample (n=21, 63.6%). Underlying aetiology of end stage renal disease (ESRD), was predominantly due to chronic hypertension (39.3%; n=13) and diabetic kidney disease (21.2%, n=7) accounting for nearly 60% of the study participants. Among the 33 live donors 1st degree, 2nd degree and non-relative donors were 54.4% (n=18), 18.2% (n=6) and 27.3% (n=9) respectively. Pre-implantation renal biopsy results reported 36.4% (n=12) with abnormal biopsy findings including chronic interstitial nephritis (n=4, 12.1%), interstitial fibrosis (n=6, 18.18%) and acute tubular necrosis (n=2, 6%). Follow-up revealed delayed graft function occurring in 18.2% (n=6) of recipients with 50% (n=3) of them showing abnormalities in the pre-operative donor biopsy sample. At one month follow-up, 48.5% (n=16) reported complications which included graft failure 3% (n=1), all-cause mortality 3% (n=1), acute rejection 39.4% (n=13) and infections 24.2% (n=8). Overall, 37.5% (n=6) of these recipients had abnormal donor biopsy findings, however no significant statistical association was identified.

Conclusion

Our study identified subclinical kidney disease in donor kidneys despite standard pre-transplant screening. Even though, statistically not significant, recipients with abnormal pre-implantation biopsy findings had adverse short term post-transplant complications.