AB0516 Therapeutic strategies and prognosis in chinese patients with serologically active clinically quiescent systemic lupus erythematosus. (12th June 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Huang, H.; Mou, L.; Hao, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Zhou, W.
• Is Part Of: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. Volume 77(2018)Supplement 2
• Page Start: 1416
• Page End: 1416
• Publication Date: 2018-06-12
• Subjects: Rheumatism -- Periodicals; 616.723005
• DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-eular.4624
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0003-4967

Abstract

Abstract : Background: SACQ patients with SLE appears to account for 6%–12% of all patients with SLE, but there is disagreement about whether such patients are indeed clinically stable, especially in Chinese patients. And there is no conclusion as to what kind of treatment should be taken for such patients. Objectives: The aim of our study was to identify the frequency and outcome of SACQ patients with SLE. And we tried to find out potential predictors of flare. Methods: 682 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus who were followed up for more than 6 months at Peking University First Hospital from January 2007 to December 2015 were summarised. SACQ was defined as an at least a 6 month period with persistent serologic activity and without clinical activity and could be taking a daily dose of prednisone or equivalent less than 7.5 mg. Serologically quiescent clinically quiescent (SQCQ) patients and serologically active clinically active (SACA) patients served as control groups. Data including demographics, initial symptoms, duration to SACQ, treatments before and after SACQ, and characteristics of the flare group were analysed. Results: Of the 682 patients, 170 were SACQ patients (24.9%), 187 were SQCQ patients, and 325 were SACA patients (47.7%). SQCQ patients (38.61±15.08 years old) were older at study start than did SACQ patients (38.61±15.08 years vs. 32.09±14.35 years, p=0.000), but there was no significant difference between that of SACQ and SACA patients. 56 of the 170 SACQ patients (32.9%) experienced flare. Corticosteroids (OR 1.323, 95% CI 1.135 to 1.542; p=0.000) was an independent risk factor for flare, while antimalarials (OR 0.040, 95% CI 0.004 to 0.418; p=0.007) and immunosuppressants (OR 0.321, 95% CI 0.153 to 0.673; p=0.003) were protective factors. Conclusions: SLE patients with SACQ remained relatively stable, with 32.9% of patients relapsed. The group of flare patients took greater use of corticosteroids than non-flare ones, whereas antimalarials and immunosuppressants agents were protective factors. References: [1] Gladman DD, Urowitz MB, Keystone EC. Serologically active clinically quiescent systemic lupus erythematosus: a discordance between clinical and serologic features. Am J Med1979;66:210–5. [2] Huang WN, Tso TK, Wu HC, Yang HF, Tsay GJ. Impaired phagocytosis of apoptotic cell material in serologically active clinically quiescent patients with systemic lupus erythematosis. Int J Rheum Dis2016;19:1310–6. [3] Steiman AJ, Gladman DD, Ibañez D, Urowitz MB. Prolonged serologically active clinically quiescent systemic lupus erythematosus: frequency and outcome. J Rheumatol2010;37:1822–7. Disclosure of Interest: None declared