Long‐term remission in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus

Abstract

Background Remission has been introduced as a desirable outcome and the primary target of treatment in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The purpose of this study was to identify the number of patients in remission and the long‐term outcome of the disease and their predictors. Method Of the 379 patients in our SLE Database, a total of 193 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Remission was definition according to the definitions of remission in SLE. Three levels of remission were defined, including remission on‐treatment, remission off‐treatment and complete remission. In addition, we have defined a sustained remission for each level of remission in which the remission should last at least 5 years. Results During a median follow‐up of 96 months, remission on‐treatment and off‐treatment, and complete remission were obtained in 49.2%, 38.9% and 19.2% of patients, respectively. Predictors of remission on‐treatment in multivariate regression analysis were adherence to therapy and remission induction during 6 months after treatment. Predictors of remission off‐treatment were age ≥40 at the time of analysis and remission induction during 6 months after treatment. Poor outcome (SLE Damage Index ≥1) was observed in 28% of the patients. Age at disease onset <30, kidney and nervous system involvement and SLEDAI‐2K ≥ 11 at the cohort entry were the risk factors of poor outcome in multivariate analysis. However, sustained remission on‐treatment had a negative association with poor outcome. Conclusion Treatment with glucocorticoids, antimalarials, immunosuppressants and biologics in sequential or in combination may cause durable remission. Patients with durable remission have significantly lower organ damage.

Remission and low disease activity (LDA) prevent damage accrual in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: results from the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) inception cohort

“…DORIS Remission off-and on-treatment, LDA-TC and LLDAS have been associated with lower probability of damage accrual in several cohorts (4,(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21); however, the independent impact of each state has rarely been evaluated. Therefore, it is possible that at least part of the protective effect of a less stringent definition resulted from the inclusion of patients fulfilling a more stringent definition of a disease activity state.…”