SLE classification criteria: Science-based icons or algorithmic distractions – an intellectually demanding dilemma

Why is it so difficult to understand why we don't understand human systemic lupus erythematosus? Contemplating facts, conflicts, and impact of "the causality cascade paradigm"

In attempts to understand systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), we find ourselves in the intellectual cross-point between nosology, pathogenicity-oriented science, philosophy, empiricism, and qualified conjectures. A vital consequence in science theory is that scientific hypotheses that are not critically investigated are in danger of being transformed into scientific dogmas. This statement has consequences for this study. Two central problematic aspects are discussed. For the first, we have to consider new selection principles for classification criteria-implying integration of the causality principle. Second, central historical data must be implemented if we aim to understand SLE. These data comprise famous descriptions of distinct, dynamically changing DNA structures linked to the genetic machinery. These unique structures have since their discoveries decades ago mostly been ignored in SLE research. Likewise, inconclusive dogmatic data indicate that different glomerular ligands are recognized by nephritogenic anti-dsDNA antibodies-exposed chromatin fragments or inherent membrane ligands. These incongruent models have not been comparatively and systematically investigated. Three research areas will be critically discussed: (i) selection and role of SLE classification criteria, a process that must imply the causality principle; (ii) definition and impact of anti-dsDNA structure-specific antibodies; (iii) incongruent pathogenic models that account for lupus nephritis. A precise and critically important question is if SLE itself is a response to a dominant unified cause that initiates a cascade of downstream effects (criteria) or if SLE represents combined responses to a random interplay of multiple cause-effect events. These principally different explanations are formally not excluded or accepted today. Currently, SLE may be regarded as a disease with phenotypic diversity, independently segregated manifestations with unresolved etiologies that are not unique to a single SLE phenotype. The focus for the present discussion is basically how we, by critical hypotheses, can re-consider science-based selection of SLE classification criteria in order to delimitate and rationalize SLE. Classification criteria, autoimmunity, DNA structures, and anti-dsDNA antibodies are integrated aspects in this discussion.

Chemokines and chemokine receptors: Potential therapeutic targets in systemic lupus erythematosus

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is an autoimmune disease that affects connective tissue and can lead to multisystem organ damage. Chemokines are a class of small proteins that interact with receptors and participate in a variety of physiological functions, including cell growth, differentiation, apoptosis and distribution. They also play important roles in pathological processes, such as the inflammatory response, wound repair, tumor formation and metastasis. Previous studies have shown that the levels of chemokines and their receptors are elevated in the blood and inflamed tissues of SLE patients. In addition, chemokine ligand-receptor interactions control the recruitment of leukocytes into tissues, suggesting that chemokines and their receptors may be biomarkers and therapeutic targets for SLE. This review summarizes the causative role of chemokines and their receptors in SLE, as well as their clinical values and challenges as potential biomarkers and therapeutic targets.

SLE: a cognitive step forward-a synthesis of rethinking theories, causality, and ignored DNA structures

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is classified by instinctual classification criteria. A valid proclamation is that these formally accepted SLE classification criteria legitimate the syndrome as being difficult to explain and therefore enigmatic. SLE involves scientific problems linked to etiological factors and criteria. Our insufficient understanding of the clinical condition uniformly denoted SLE depends on the still open question of whether SLE is, according to classification criteria, a well-defined one disease entity or represents a variety of overlapping indistinct syndromes. Without rational hypotheses, these problems harm clear definition(s) of the syndrome. Why SLE is not anchored in logic, consequent, downstream interdependent and interactive inflammatory networks may rely on ignored predictive causality principles. Authoritative classification criteria do not reflect consequent causality criteria and do not unify characterization principles such as diagnostic criteria. We need now to reconcile legendary scientific achievements to concretize the delimitation of what SLE really is. Not all classified SLE syndromes are "genuine SLE"; many are theoretically "SLE-like non-SLE" syndromes. In this study, progressive theories imply imperative challenges to reconsider the fundamental impact of "the causality principle". This may offer us logic classification and diagnostic criteria aimed at identifying concise SLE syndromes as research objects. Can a systems science approach solve this problem?

SLE criteria are by necessity still based on clinical (and immunological) criteria items

INTRODUCTION

The 2019 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology (EULAR/ACR) classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) rely on clinical and routine immunological items. The criteria have anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA) as an obligatory entry criterion; items are weighted and ordered in domains. While demonstrating good sensitivity and specificity, the lack of a more molecular approach to some came as a disappointment.

AREAS COVERED

Based on a non-systematic literature search, this review covers items investigated in the EULAR/ACR classification criteria project, but not included in the set of criteria. It demonstrates data on the importance of the criteria and analyses implications of multiomics studies started around the same time as the criteria project. We also discuss data on the type-I interferon signature and on other cytokines, as well as on complement proteins and their split products. The final part deals with the variability in disease and the apparently random pattern of autoantibodies and organ manifestations in individual patients.

EXPERT OPINION

We believe that the EULAR/ACR criteria are a relevant step toward the right direction. A more uniform molecular approach will not be feasible as long as the molecular mechanisms underlying the tendency toward producing multiple autoantibodies are not better understood.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Lupus Erythematosus

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are the standard of care for a growing number of malignancies. Unfortunately, they are associated with a broad range of unique toxicities that mimic the presentations of primary autoimmune conditions. These adverse events are termed immune-related adverse events (irAEs), of which ICI-lupus erythematosus (ICI-LE) constitutes a small percentage. Our review aims to describe the available literature on ICI-LE and ICI treatment for patients with pre-existing lupus. Most diagnoses of ICI-LE had findings of only cutaneous lupus; four diagnoses of ICI-LE had systemic lupus manifestations. Over 90% (27 of 29) of cases received anti-PD-1/PDL-1 monotherapy, 1 received combination therapy, and 1 received only anti-CTLA-4 treatment. About three-fourths (22 of 29 or 76%) of patients with ICI-lupus were managed with topical steroids, 13 (45%) received hydroxychloroquine, and 10 (34%) required oral corticosteroids. In our case series, none of the patients with pre-existing lupus receiving ICI therapy for cancer had a flare of their lupus, but few had de novo irAE manifestations, all of which were characterized as low-grade. The review of the literature yielded seven ICI-LE flares from a total of 27 patients with pre-existing lupus who received ICI. Most flares were manageable without need for ICI cessation.

The greatest contribution to medical science is the transformation from studying symptoms to studying their causes-the unrelenting legacy of Robert Koch and Louis Pasteur-and a causality perspective to approach a definition of SLE

The basic initiative related to this study is derived from the fact that systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a unique and fertile system science subject. We are, however, still far from understanding its nature. It may be fair to indicate that we are spending more time and resources on studying the complexity of classified SLE than studying the validity of classification criteria. This study represents a theoretical analysis of current instinctual SLE classification criteria based on "the causality principle." The discussion has its basis on the radical scientific traditions introduced by Robert Koch and Louis Pasteur. They announced significant changes in our thinking of disease etiology through the implementation of the modern version of "the causality principle." They influenced all aspects of today's medical concepts and research: the transformation of medical science from studies of symptoms to study their causes, relevant for monosymptomatic diseases as for syndromes. Their studies focused on bacteria as causes of infectious diseases and on how the immune system adapts to control and prevent contagious spreading. This is the most significant paradigm shift in the modern history of medicine and resulted in radical changes in our view of the immune system. They described acquired post-infection immunity and active immunization by antigen-specific vaccines. The paradigm "transformation" has a great theoretical impact also on current studies of autoimmune diseases like SLE: symptoms and their cause(s). In this study, the evolution of SLE classification and diagnostic criteria is discussed from "the causality principle" perspective, and if contemporary SLE classification criteria are as useful as believed today for SLE research. This skepticism is based on the fact that classification criteria are not selected based on cogent causal strategies. The SLE classification criteria do not harmonize with Koch's and Pasteur's causality principle paradigms and not with Witebsky's Koch-derived postulates for autoimmune and infectious diseases. It is not established whether the classification criteria can separate SLE as a "one disease entity" from "SLE-like non-SLE disorders"-the latter in terms of SLE imitations. This is discussed here in terms of weight, rank, and impact of the classification criteria: Do they all originate from "one basic causal etiology"? Probably not.

SLE classification criteria: Is "The causality principle" integrated and operative - and do the molecular and genetical network, on which criteria depend on, support the definition of SLE as "a one disease entity" - A theoretical discussion

Molecular and cellular aspects of the autoimmune pathophysiology in SLE is linked to the "The causality principle". SLE Classification Criteria identify per definition disease measures (here: synonymous with classification criteria), but not diagnostic criteria within a classical framework. These two mostly theoretical criteria collections represent a salient conflict between phenomenology and the causality principle - between disease measures and molecular interactions that promote such measures, in other words their cause(s). Essentially, each criterion evolves from immunogenic and inflammatory signals - some are interconnected, some are not. Disparate signals instigated by disparate causes. These may promote clinically heterogenous SLE cohorts with respect to organ affection, autoimmunity, and disease course. There is today no concise measures or arguments that settle whether SLE cohorts evolve from one decisive etiological factor (homogenous cohorts), or if disparate patho-biological factors promote SLE (heterogenous cohorts). Current SLE cohorts are not ideal substrates to serve as study objects if the research aims are to describe etiology, and molecular interactions that cause - and link - primary and secondary pathophysiological events together - events that account for early and progressive SLE. We have to develop SLE criteria allowing us to identify definable categories of SLE in order to describe etiology, pathophysiology and diagnostic criteria of delimitated SLE versions. In this regard, the causality principle is central to define dominant etiologies of individual SLE categories, and subsequent and consequent down-stream diagnostic disease measures. In this sense, we may whether we like it or not identify different SLE categories like "genuine SLE" and "SLE-like non-SLE" syndromes. Many aspects of this problem are thoroughly discussed in this study.

Identification of potential therapeutic drugs targeting core genes for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and coexisting COVID-19: Insights from bioinformatic analyses

OBJECTIVE

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients are at risk during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet the underlying molecular mechanisms remain incompletely understood. This study sought to analyze the potential molecular connections between COVID-19 and SLE, employing a bioinformatics approach to identify effective drugs for both conditions.

METHODS

The data sets GSE100163 and GSE183071 were utilized to determine share differentially expressed genes (DEGs). These DEGs were later analyzed by various bioinformatic methods, including functional enrichment, protein-protein interaction (PPI) network analysis, regulatory network construction, and gene-drug interaction construction.

RESULTS

A total of 50 common DEGs were found between COVID-19 and SLE. Gene ontology (GO) functional annotation revealed that "immune response," "innate immune response," "plasma membrane," and "protein binding" were most enriched in. Additionally, the pathways that were enriched include "Th1 and Th2 cell differentiation." The study identified 48 genes/nodes enriched with 292 edges in the PPI network, of which the top 10 hub genes were CD4, IL7R, CD3E, CD5, CD247, KLRB1, CD40LG, CD7, CR2, and GZMK. Furthermore, the study found 48 transcription factors and 8 microRNAs regulating these hub genes. Finally, four drugs namely ibalizumab (targeted to CD4), blinatumomab (targeted to CD3E), muromonab-CD3 (targeted to CD3E), and catumaxomab (targeted to CD3E) were found in gene-drug interaction.

CONCLUSION

Four possible drugs that targeted two specific genes, which may be beneficial for COVID-19 patients with SLE.

A Comprehensive Literature Review on Managing Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Addressing Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Females and Its Autoimmune Disease Associations

This review aimed to evaluate the mechanism of premature cardiovascular disease (CVD) in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients, particularly in the female population, and emphasize the need for early management interventions; explore the association between SLE and two autoimmune diseases, myasthenia gravis (MG) and antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS), and their management strategies; and evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions in managing SLE, focusing on premenopausal females, females of childbearing age, and pregnant patients. We conducted a comprehensive literature review to achieve these objectives using various databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane. The collected data were analyzed and synthesized to provide an evidence-based overview of SLE, its management strategies as an independent disease, and some disease associations. The treatment should be focused on remission, preventing organ damage, and improving the overall quality of life (QOL). Extensive emphasis should also be focused on diagnosing SLE and concurrent underlying secondary diseases timely and managing them appropriately.

Autoantibodies to dsDNA in the diagnosis, classification and follow-up of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus

Autoantibodies, in particular anti-dsDNA antibodies, are increasingly used for diagnosis, classification and follow-up of patients with SLE. Since standardization of autoantibody assays is a major challenge, more attention should be paid to harmonization initiatives and better definition of required test characteristics in classification criteria. For diagnosis and follow-up separate multi-center studies are required to establish test characteristics of distinct immuno-assays for both purposes. Finally, such studies should consider not to evaluate SLE as a single disease, but as a disease with distinct subtypes.