Differences in management approaches for lupus nephritis within the UK

Objectives

Outcomes of therapy for LN are often suboptimal. Guidelines offer varied options for treatment of LN and treatment strategies may differ between clinicians and regions. We aimed to assess variations in the usual practice of UK physicians who treat LN.

Methods

We conducted an online survey of simulated LN cases for UK rheumatologists and nephrologists to identify treatment preferences for class IV and class V LN.

Results

Of 77 respondents, 48 (62.3%) were rheumatologists and 29 (37.7%) were nephrologists. A total of 37 (48.0%) reported having a joint clinic between nephrologists and rheumatologists, 54 (70.0%) reported having a multidisciplinary team meeting for LN and 26 (33.7%) reported having a specialized lupus nurse. Of the respondents, 58 (75%) reported arranging a renal biopsy before starting the treatment. A total of 20 (69%) of the nephrologists, but only 13 (27%) rheumatologists, reported having a formal departmental protocol for treating patients with LN (P < 0.001). The first-choice treatment of class IV LN in pre-menopausal patients was MMF [41 (53.2%)], followed by CYC [15 (19.6%)], rituximab [RTX; 12 (12.5%)] or a combination of immunosuppressive drugs [9 (11.7%)] with differences between nephrologists' and rheumatologists' choices (P = 0.026). For class V LN, MMF was the preferred initial treatment, irrespective of whether proteinuria was in the nephrotic range or not. RTX was the preferred second-line therapy for non-responders.

Conclusion

There was variation in the use of protocols, specialist clinic service provision, biopsies and primary and secondary treatment choices for LN reported by nephrologists and rheumatologists in the UK.

Real world treatment of juvenile-onset systemic lupus erythematosus: Data from the UK JSLE cohort study

BACKGROUND

In the absence of clinical trials evidence, Juvenile-onset Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (JSLE) treatment plans vary.

AIM

To explore 'real world' treatment utilising longitudinal UK JSLE Cohort Study data.

METHODS

Data collected between 07/2009-05/2020 was used to explore the choice/sequence of immunomodulating drugs from diagnosis. Multivariate logistic regression determined how organ-domain involvement (pBILAG-2004) impacted treatment choice.

RESULT

349 patients met inclusion criteria, median follow-up 4-years (IQR:2,6). Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) was most commonly used for the majority of organ-domains, and significantly associated with renal involvement (OR:1.99, 95% CI:1.65-2.41, pc < 0.01). Analyses assessing the sequence of immunomodulators focused on 197/349 patients (meeting relevant inclusion/exclusion criteria). 10/197 (5%) solely recieved hydroxychloroquine/prednisolone, 62/197 (31%) received a single-immunomodulator, 69/197 (36%) received two, and 36/197 patients (28%) received ≥three immunomodulators. The most common first and second line immunomodulator was MMF. Rituximab was the most common third-line immunomodulator.

CONCLUSIONS

Most UK JSLE patients required ≥two immunomodulators, with MMF used most commonly.

P232 In the absence of idiopathic inflammatory myopathy, is the presence of anti-transcriptional intermediary factor-1 gamma clinically relevant for malignancy?

Background/Aims

The idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) are associated with a number of antibodies which are linked to certain clinical phenotypes. The presence of anti-transcriptional intermediary factor-1 gamma (TIF-1y) is strongly associated with malignancy. However, it is uncertain whether the presence of this antibody, in the absence of IIM, should prompt further investigations to exclude an underlying malignancy.

Methods

Patients were identified who had undergone myositis immunoblot testing at Liverpool University Foundation Trust laboratories as part of their clinical care between January 2015 and January 2020. Adult patients were included if they tested TIF-1y antibody positive but had no evidence of IIM. Data was collected on patient demographics, whether this was a weak or strong antibody finding and whether there was the presence of other antibodies on the immunoblot panel. The clinical notes were then used to assess whether the patient was known to have a malignancy or went on to develop a malignancy during the follow up period.

Results

The presence of TIF-1y antibody occurred in 66 patients. Four patients were excluded from analysis, three due to a diagnosis of IIM and one due to a lack of clinical information. The average age was 69 years (range 35 - 88 years) and 59% were female. A strongly positive TIF-1y antibody was found in 19 patients, of which eight were associated with another positive antibody available on the immunoblot panel. There were five malignancies identified, two were historic diagnoses, one patient was found to have a lung malignancy at the time the panel was sent and two patients subsequently developed pancreatic malignancy. A weakly positive TIF-1y antibody was found in 43 patients, of which 16 results were associated with another positive antibody on immunoblot analysis, excluding three patients with a positive anti-Ro antibody. Of 11 patients with malignancy, five had a historic diagnosis and six patients developed malignancy over the follow up period.

Conclusion

The myositis immunoblot is a useful tool in patients with IIM. However, when used outside of this context can produce a number of positive results, the significance of which are unclear. In the case of TIF-1y and its known association with malignancy, this can lead to unnecessary investigations and increase patient anxiety. This data has obvious limitations as there may have been incomplete information if patients were managed elsewhere and the presence of TIF-1y did not lead to investigation for underlying malignancy in the majority of patients, meaning some cancers may have been present but remained undetected. The results do not suggest the presence of this antibody increases the likelihood of malignancy in patients without IIM but further studies are recommended.

Disclosure

C.V. Cotton: None. C. Keymer: None. Z. McLaren: None.

Attainment of Low Disease Activity and Remission Targets reduces the risk of severe flare and new damage in Childhood Lupus

Objectives

To assess the achievability and effect of attaining low disease activity (LDA) or remission in childhood-onset SLE (cSLE).

Methods

Attainment of three adult-SLE derived definitions of LDA (LLDAS, LA, Toronto-LDA), and four definitions of remission (clinical-SLEDAI-defined remission on/off treatment, pBILAG-defined remission on/off treatment) was assessed in UK JSLE Cohort Study patients longitudinally. Prentice–Williams–Petersen gap recurrent event models assessed the impact of LDA/remission attainment on severe flare/new damage.

Results

LLDAS, LA and Toronto-LDA targets were reached in 67%, 73% and 32% of patients, after a median of 18, 15 or 17 months, respectively. Cumulatively, LLDAS, LA and Toronto-LDA was attained for a median of 23%, 31% and 19% of total follow-up-time, respectively. Remission on-treatment was more common (61% cSLEDAI-defined, 42% pBILAG-defined) than remission off-treatment (31% cSLEDAI-defined, 21% pBILAG-defined). Attainment of all target states, and disease duration (>1 year), significantly reduced the hazard of severe flare (P < 0.001). As cumulative time in each target increased, hazard of severe flare progressively reduced. LLDAS attainment reduced the hazard of severe flare more than LA or Toronto-LDA (P < 0.001). Attainment of LLDAS and all remission definitions led to a statistically comparable reduction in the hazards of severe flare (P > 0.05). Attainment of all targets reduced the hazards of new damage (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

This is the first study demonstrating that adult-SLE-derived definitions of LDA/remission are achievable in cSLE, significantly reducing risk of severe flare/new damage. Of the LDA definitions, LLDAS performed best, leading to a statistically comparable reduction in the hazards of severe flare to attainment of clinical remission.

Neutrophils in the Pathogenesis of Rheumatoid Arthritis and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Same Foe Different M.O

Dysregulated neutrophil activation contributes to the pathogenesis of autoimmune diseases including rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Neutrophil-derived reactive oxygen species (ROS) and granule proteases are implicated in damage to and destruction of host tissues in both conditions (cartilage in RA, vascular tissue in SLE) and also in the pathogenic post-translational modification of DNA and proteins. Neutrophil-derived cytokines and chemokines regulate both the innate and adaptive immune responses in RA and SLE, and neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) expose nuclear neoepitopes (citrullinated proteins in RA, double-stranded DNA and nuclear proteins in SLE) to the immune system, initiating the production of auto-antibodies (ACPA in RA, anti-dsDNA and anti-acetylated/methylated histones in SLE). Neutrophil apoptosis is dysregulated in both conditions: in RA, delayed apoptosis within synovial joints contributes to chronic inflammation, immune cell recruitment and prolonged release of proteolytic enzymes, whereas in SLE enhanced apoptosis leads to increased apoptotic burden associated with development of anti-nuclear auto-antibodies. An unbalanced energy metabolism in SLE and RA neutrophils contributes to the pathology of both diseases; increased hypoxia and glycolysis in RA drives neutrophil activation and NET production, whereas decreased redox capacity increases ROS-mediated damage in SLE. Neutrophil low-density granulocytes (LDGs), present in high numbers in the blood of both RA and SLE patients, have opposing phenotypes contributing to clinical manifestations of each disease. In this review we will describe the complex and contrasting phenotype of neutrophils and LDGs in RA and SLE and discuss their discrete roles in the pathogenesis of each condition. We will also review our current understanding of transcriptomic and metabolomic regulation of neutrophil phenotype in RA and SLE and discuss opportunities for therapeutic targeting of neutrophil activation in inflammatory auto-immune disease.