The impact of small fiber damage on somatosensory disturbances in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE): A clinical, neurophysiological and skin biopsy study

2021 ◽  
Vol 429 ◽  
pp. 118632
Author(s):  
Eleonora Galosi ◽  
Pietro Falco ◽  
Giuseppe Di Pietro ◽  
Gianfranco De Stefano ◽  
Nicoletta Esposito ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Eman M. Khedr ◽  
Rania M. Gamal ◽  
Sounia M. Rashad ◽  
Mary Yacoub ◽  
Gellan K. Ahmed

Abstract Background Depression is common in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and is an unmeasured risk factor, yet its symptoms can be neglected in standard disease evaluations. The purpose of this study was to assess the frequency and the impact of depression on quality of life in SLE patients. We recruited 32 patients with SLE and 15 healthy control volunteers in the study. The following investigations were undertaken in each patient: clinical and rheumatologic assessment, SLE Disease Activity Index-2k (SLEDAI-2k), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) questionnaire, and routine laboratory tests. Results There was a high percentage of depression (46.9%) in the SLE patients. Regarding quality of life (SF-36), there were significant affection of the physical and mental composite summary domains (PCS and MCS) scores in lupus patients compared with controls (P < 0.000 for both) with the same significant in depressed compared with non-depressed patients. SF-36 subscales (physical function, limit emotional, emotional wellbeing, and social function) were significantly affected in depressed lupus patients compared with non-depressed patients. There was a significant negative correlation between the score of MCS domain of SF-36 with BDI (P < 0.000) while positive correlation between SLEDAI score with depression score. In contrast, there were no significant correlations between MCS or PCS with age, duration of illness, or SLEDAI-2K. Conclusions Depression is common in SLE patients and had a negative impact on quality of life particularly on MCS domain and positive correlation with disease severity score. Trial registration This study was registered on clinical trial with registration number: NCT03165682 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03165682 on 24 May 2017.


Lupus ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 096120332110047
Author(s):  
Ibrahim Almaghlouth ◽  
Sindhu R Johnson ◽  
Eleanor Pullenayegum ◽  
Dafna Gladman ◽  
Murray Urowitz

Immunoglobulins play a fundamental role in the protection of the human body against internal and external threats. They also contribute to the immune system homeostasis and maintenance of self-tolerance. Hypogammaglobulinemia is occasionally encountered in routine clinical practice by rheumatologists. Low levels of immunoglobulins can occur as primary or secondary issues and may predispose patients to various forms of infection. However, the impact of the low immunoglobulin level abnormality varies with the underlying condition. In this narrative review, we shed light on the overall types and functions of immunoglobulins for clinicians. We discuss important principles of immunoglobulin measurements. We then consider the primary and secondary causes of low immunoglobulins with a special focus on hypogammaglobulinemia in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 641.1-641
Author(s):  
Y. B. Joo ◽  
Y. J. Park

Background:Infections have been associated with a higher risk of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) flares, but the impact of influenza infection on SLE flares has not been evaluated.Objectives:We evaluated the association between influenza infection and SLE flares resulting in hospitalization.Methods:SLE flares resulting in hospitalization and influenza cases were ascertained from the Korean national healthcare insurance database (2014-2018). We used a self-controlled case series design. We defined the risk interval as the first 7 days after the influenza index date and the control interval was defined as all other times during the observation period of each year. We estimated the incidence rates of SLE flares resulting in hospitalization during the risk interval and control interval and compared them using a Poisson regression model.Results:We identified 1,624 influenza infections among the 1,455 patients with SLE. Among those, there were 98 flares in 79 patients with SLE. The incidence ratio (IR) for flares during the risk interval as compared with the control interval was 25.75 (95% confidence interval 17.63 – 37.59). This significantly increased the IRs for flares during the risk interval in both women (IR 27.65) and men (IR 15.30), all age groups (IR 17.00 – 37.84), with and without immunosuppressive agent (IR 24.29 and 28.45, respectively), and with and without prior respiratory diseases (IR 21.86 and 26.82, respectively).Conclusion:We found significant association between influenza infection and SLE flares resulting in hospitalization. Influenza infection has to be considered as a risk factor for flares in all SLE patients regardless of age, sex, medications, and comorbidities.References:[1]Kwong, J. C. et al. Acute Myocardial Infarction after Laboratory-Confirmed Influenza Infection. N Engl J Med 2018:378;345-353.Table 1.Incidence ratios for SLE flares resulting in hospitalization after influenza infectionRisk intervalIncidence ratio95% CIDuring risk interval for 7 days / control interval25.7517.63 – 37.59Days 1-3 / control interval21.8114.71 – 32.35Days 4-7 / control interval7.563.69 – 15.47SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus; CI, confidence intervalDisclosure of Interests:None declared


Author(s):  
Gerard Espinosa ◽  
Sergio Prieto-González ◽  
Mireia Llevadot ◽  
Javier Marco-Hernández ◽  
Antonio Martínez-Artuña ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 260
Author(s):  
Luke J Maxfield ◽  
Laura S Tanner ◽  
Chelsea Schwartz

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a multi-system disease with a myriad of mucocutaneous and systemic findings. One of the atypical cutaneous manifestations is palisaded neutrophilic granulomatous dermatitis (PNGD). This uncommon condition presents as tender or asymptomatic, flesh-colored, red to violaceous subcutaneous nodules. The diagnosis may be suspected clinically but is confirmed by biopsy. The impact of the disease may be the direct result of pain, psychosocial, cosmetic concerns, or be the initial presentation of an underlying systemic disease. We present a patient with known SLE who developed PNGD. We also review similar clinical and microscopic disease entities with a summative comparison of neutrophilic dermatoses in patients with autoimmune connective tissue diseases. 


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (17) ◽  
pp. 3996
Author(s):  
Lou Kawka ◽  
Aurélien Schlenckerv ◽  
Philippe Mertz ◽  
Thierry Martin ◽  
Laurent Arnaud

Fatigue is a complex and multifactorial phenomenon which is often neglected by clinicians. The aim of this review was to analyze the impact, determinants and management of fatigue in patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE). Fatigue is one of the most prevalent symptoms in SLE, reported by 67% to 90% of patients. It is also described as the most bothersome symptom, considering that it may impair key aspects of health-related quality of life, while also leading to employment disability. It is a multifactorial phenomenon involving psychological factors, pain, lifestyle factors such as reduced physical activity, whereas the contribution of disease activity remains controversial. The management of fatigue in patients with SLE should rely upon a person-centered approach, with targeted interventions. Some pharmacological treatments used to control disease activity have demonstrated beneficial effects upon fatigue and non-pharmacological therapies such as psychological interventions, pain reduction and lifestyle changes, and each of these should be incorporated into fatigue management in SLE.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shimol JB ◽  

Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) is more frequent in women, with a female-to-male ratio ranging from 2-6:1 prior to puberty and 3-8:1 following menopause up to 8-15:1 during their fertile years [1]. SLE commonly begins when women are in their 20s, during the prime of their child-bearing years when they are often beginning to plan their families [2], and may have enormous impact on their childrearing. Although rates of infertility are not felt to be elevated among women with SLE, secondary amenorrhea has been identified in 13-17% of women with SLE who are naïve to cyclophosphamide, compared with a prevalence 1-5% in a healthy population [3]. One reason may be related lower levels of anti-Mullerian hormone [4] and higher levels of elevated anti-corpus luteum antibody levels in female patients with SLE [5]. According to one study, 64% women with SLE had fewer children than originally planned. This is likely a result of many factors including disease and medication impact on fertility and fear of disease flare-up with pregnancy. Moreover, many socioeconomic challenges accompany the disease, particularly concerns about the impact of SLE on child welfare and family life, a feature shared by many other chronic illnesses. One study reported that patients with SLE who chose to have less children than they had previously desired described concerns about inability to care for a child, damage from medications, and genetic transmission of their disease leading to the decision to pursue fewer pregnancies [6,7]. Anxieties regarding transmission and impaired ability to take care of children are among the primary worries of patients with lupus [8]. Nevertheless, this generally does not reflect a major concern of medical practitioners, leading to gaps in communication and discordant goals of care [9]. Despite intact fertility among SLE patients, there is morbidity associated with pregnancy. One study of 13,555 participants illustrated a maternal mortality 20-fold higher among women with SLE compared with healthy age-matched controls [10]. The rate of miscarriage is reported as 21.2% compared with 14% in a normal population. While the percentage of live births ranges from 85 to 90, pregnancy is considered a high-risk situation for female SLE patients [11]. Rate of stillbirth is 5 to 10 fold higher in patients with SLE than in the general population [12]. Preeclampsia is more common in SLE and may occur in up to 20% of lupus related pregnancies [13]. There is also increased risk for fetal morbidity, particularly preterm birth (12%) among SLE pregnancies compared with 4% in controls), intrauterine growth restriction, and neonatal lupus [11,14]. One third of pregnancies end in caesarian section [15]. Pregnancy morbidity is most strongly associated with increased disease activity in the six to 12 months prior to and during pregnancy, especially in cases with renal involvement [16,17]. Other risk factors in pregnancy include presence of hypocomplementemia, elevated levels of anti-DNA antibodies, antiphospholipid antibodies, and thrombocytopenia [18,19]. Moreover, pregnancy and the period immediate following delivery is a well-known time for lupus flare-ups [20]. While the hormonal influence on pregnancy is not fully understood due to the complicated interwoven hormonalinflammatory pathways, a disruption in the balance of Treg’s and Th17 helper cells and elevated IFN-γ appear to be players in generating poorer pregnancy outcomes [21,22]. Other maternal complications are related to the hypercoagulability of pregnancy augmented to the increased coagulation risk in SLE in general. During pregnancy, the risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with SLE is 62 out of 10,000 compared with 7.22 of 10,000 in the general population. Moreover, the risk of pulmonary embolism is significantly increased with an odds ratio of 9.76 [23]. In addition, the risk for stroke is 6.5-fold higher than that of healthy pregnant women [24]. In addition to the effect that SLE itself may impose on pregnancy and delivery, certain related medications are teratogenic. Moreover, cyclophosphamide can actually impair fertility, primarily by causing premature ovarian failure [25,26]. Accordingly, providers are advised to offer child-bearing women GnRH analogue therapy prior to initiation of cyclophosphamide [27]. Furthermore, observational studies have shown that most assisted reproductive techniques are safe and equally effective among women with SLE. There are no official guidelines regarding any specific protocol to be used among SLE patients aside from antithrombotic prophylaxis among women with antiphospholipid antibodies [28,29]. Among those patients who seek contraception, most options are available to women with SLE. Women with antiphospholipid lipid antibodies, even without a history of clotting or obstetric complication, and women with additional clotting risk factors including migraines and smoking, should be advised against use of combined hormones. However, aside from this advisement, most other contraceptive methods have proven to be safe in patients with SLE [30]. Nonetheless, despite vigorous research demonstrated the safety and benefits of contraception in patients with SLE, effective methods of birth control are widely underused. One study reported 55% of SLE patients had unprotected sex occasionally and another 23% engaged in unprotected sex most of the time [31]. Another glaring study found that 55% of patients with SLE using contraceptives regularly were using less-effective barrier methods only, even while on teratogenic medications [32]. These findings highlight the immense obstacle that patients with SLE face in receiving comprehensive care that meets their needs during their fertile years. Over the last decade, there is a growing understanding of the importance of early, open, and continual discussions on the topic of family planning between providers and patients. The ACR and EULAR have devised recommendations for providers to help stratify patients and offer appropriate counseling regarding contraception, conception, and assisted reproduction [33,34]. Despite the progress that has been achieved, future studies are warranted to determine how to best approach these patients and best counsel them through the complicated, interrelated pyschologic and medical issues that accompany SLE during the child-bearing stage.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document