Search

Objective. To determine the contribution of reassessment in the attribution process of neuropsychiatric (NP) events to SLE or other aetiologies in a large, prospective and multidisciplinary assessed NPSLE cohort and to compare these results with other available attribution models for NP events occurring in SLE. Methods. Three hundred and four consecutive SLE patients presenting NP events were evaluated. All subjects underwent standardized multidisciplinary medical, neuropsychological, laboratory and radiological examination on the inclusion and reassessment dates. Diagnosis was always established by multidisciplinary consensus. The final diagnosis after reassessment also took into account disease course and response to treatment. These data were compared with currently available attribution models for NP events in SLE. Results. A total of 463 NP events were established. After reassessment, attribution to SLE was discordant in 64 (13.8%) NP events when compared with the first visit. We show that 14.5% of NP events previously attributed to SLE reclassified as non-NPSLE. In 86.4% of these patients immunosuppressive therapy was started after the first visit. When reassessment and available attribution models were compared, NPSLE cases overlapped considerably. Although specificity was high for all comparisons (0.81-0.95), an important variation in sensitivity (0.39-0.83) and agreement estimates (k = 0.29-0.68) was observed. The Italian algorithm showed the highest sensitivity and specificity (>0.80) and moderate agreement (0.59-0.64). Conclusion. In clinical practice NP events presenting in SLE are too often attributed to an immune-mediated origin. Multidisciplinary reassessment avoids misclassification in NPSLE. Multidisciplinary reassessment is the reference standard in NP events presenting in SLE and cannot be replaced by available attribution models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is a treatment option for patients with severe systemic sclerosis (SSc), but the efficacy of the procedure in remodelling the nailfold microvascular array is largely unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effect of HSCT on microangiopathy assessed through nailfold capillaroscopy (NC) and to compare the results with findings in patients receiving conventional immunosuppression., Methods: We included SSc patients with severe SSc and whose pre- and post-treatment NC images were available. Findings in patients treated with HSCT were compared with patients not treated with HSCT. Images were scored by two independent observers blinded for clinical data and treatment history. Capillary pattern was determined and semiquantitative scores from 0 (no changes) to 3 (>66% alterations per millimetre) were used to quantify the degree of specific microvascular characteristics. Changes in severity of microangiopathy between baseline and post-treatment were compared between groups., Results: Images of 18 HSCT patients and 21 controls were scored. From baseline to follow-up, 33% of HSCT patients showed improvement from scleroderma pattern to normal NC, compared to 6% of controls (p=0.15). Pre- to post-treatment differences in semiquantitative scores showed significant improvement in HSCT patients compared to controls regarding capillary loss (-0.5 vs. 0.0, p<0.05) and disorganisation (-0.8 vs. 0.0, p<0.05)., Conclusions: The degree of microangiopathy improved significantly in severe SSc patients treated with HSCT compared with patients receiving conventional immunosuppressive therapy.

Purpose: To evaluate the use of immunosuppressive treatment, clinical outcome and diagnostic strategy in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) presenting with clinical features of transverse myelitis (TM), but normal MRI of the spinal cord (sMRI) and normal cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) assessment, and to suggest a clinical guideline., Patients and Methods: All patients with SLE and clinical features compatible with (sub)acute TM visiting the NPSLE clinic of the LUMC between 2007 and 2020 were included. Information on baseline characteristics, investigations, treatment and outcomes was collected from electronic medical records. In addition, a systematic review of individual participant data was performed up to April 2020 in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science, identifying all patients with TM, SLE and sMRI assessment. Data regarding sMRI, CSF analysis, treatment and outcome were extracted, and outcome was compared between patients with normal sMRI and CSF (sMRI-/CSF-) and patients with abnormalities., Results: Twelve SLE patients with a clinical diagnosis of TM were identified: four sMRI-/CSF- and one sMRI- with CSF not available. All patients received immunosuppressive treatment, but outcome in sMRI-/CSF- patients was worse: no recovery (n=1) or partial recovery (n=3) compared to partial recovery (n=4) and (nearly) complete recovery (n=3) in MRI+ patients. The systematic literature review yielded 146 articles eligible for inclusion, 90% case reports. A total of 427 SLE patients with TM were identified, of which only four cases were sMRI-/CSF- (1%), showing no improvement (n=1), partial improvement (n=2) and complete recovery (n=1) after immunosuppressive treatment., Conclusion: Outcome in SLE patients presenting with clinically suspected TM with normal sMRI and CSF is less favorable, despite treatment with immunosuppressive therapy. Taking a functional neurological disorder into consideration may be helpful in order to start other therapeutic strategies. We suggest prescribing immunosuppressive treatment for a restricted period of time to evaluate its effect in cases where a functional disorder initially is considered unlikely., Competing Interests: Gisela Terwindt reports grants or consultancy support from Novartis, Lilly, Teva, Allergan, and independent support from Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (NWO, and ZonMW), NIH, European Community, Dutch Heart Foundation, and Dutch Brain Foundation (no funding was received for this work). Margreet Kloppenburg reports fee for consultancy and local investigator of industry-driven trial; all paid to institution from AbbVie, fees for consultancy paid to institution from Pfizer, Levicept, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck-Serono, Kiniksa, Flexion, Galapagos, and CHDR, personal fees and royalties (UptoDate) from Wolters Kluwer, and personal fees and royalties (Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology) from Springer-Verlag, outside the submitted work. The authors report no other potential conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2020 Monahan et al.)