New guidelines and therapeutic updates for the management of lupus nephritis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) can be a devastating condition, striking young patients often in their prime reproductive years. Lupus nephritis is a common and serious complication occurring in roughly 50% of SLE cases, indicating a high likelihood of disease progression, morbidity, and mortality. As the early trials of steroid therapy, and later cyclophosphamide (CYC), therapeutic changes had been stagnant. Then came the introduction of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in the 2000s. After the Aspreva Lupus Management Study, there had been a dearth of trials showing positive therapy results. Since 2020, new studies have emerged for lupus nephritis involving the use of anti-BLYS agents, novel calcineurin inhibitors, CD20 blockade, and antiinterferon agents. Nephrology and rheumatology society guidelines in the United States and across the world are still catching up. RECENT FINDINGS: Although therapeutic guidelines are being developed, updates that have come through have focused on improved diagnostic and monitoring guidelines. One theme is the recommendation of increasingly tight proteinuria control and firmer guidelines for the rapid induction of remission. The reality of multitarget therapy and the expectation of rapid induction for a more complete remission are being widely recognized. SUMMARY: The need for more complete and more rapid induction and control of lupus nephritis is undisputed according to the evidence and guidelines, and the medications to achieve this are growing at a rate not seen over the prior two decades. What remains is a stepwise approach to recognize how to best optimize therapy. Based on available evidence, an algorithm for induction and maintenance treatment of lupus nephritis used by the University of California Irvine Lupus Nephritis clinic, is recommended.

Systematic review: comparative effectiveness of treatments to prevent fractures in men and women with low bone density or osteoporosis.

BACKGROUND: Although several agents are available to treat osteoporosis, the relative efficacy and toxicity of these agents when used to prevent fractures has not been well described. PURPOSE: To compare the benefits in fracture reduction and the harms from adverse events of various therapies for osteoporosis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1966 to November 2007) and other selected databases were searched for English-language studies. STUDY SELECTION: For the efficacy analysis, investigators selected studies that reported the rate of or risk for fractures. For the adverse event analysis, they selected studies that reported the relationship between an agent and cardiovascular, thromboembolic, or upper gastrointestinal events; malignant conditions; and osteonecrosis. DATA EXTRACTION: Using a standardized protocol, investigators abstracted data on fractures and adverse events, agents and comparators, study design, and variables of methodological quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Good evidence suggests that alendronate, etidronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronic acid, estrogen, parathyroid hormone (1-34), and raloxifene prevent vertebral fractures more than placebo; the evidence for calcitonin was fair. Good evidence suggests that alendronate, risedronate, and estrogen prevent hip fractures more than placebo; the evidence for zoledronic acid was fair. The effects of vitamin D varied with dose, analogue, and study population for both vertebral and hip fractures. Raloxifene, estrogen, and estrogen-progestin increased the risk for thromboembolic events, and etidronate increased the risk for esophageal ulcerations and gastrointestinal perforations, ulcerations, and bleeding. LIMITATION: Few studies have directly compared different agents or classes of agents used to treat osteoporosis. CONCLUSION: Although good evidence suggests that many agents are effective in preventing osteoporotic fractures, the data are insufficient to determine the relative efficacy or safety of these agents.

Problems encountered during anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy.

Worldwide, over 400,000 patients have been treated with tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha antagonists for indications that include rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. Since their approval, concerns regarding safety have been raised. There is a risk of re-activation of granulomatous diseases, especially tuberculosis, and measures should be taken for detection and treatment of latent tuberculosis infections. Preliminary data suggest that anti-TNF therapy may be safe in chronic hepatitis C. However, TNF-alpha antagonists have resulted in re-activation of chronic hepatitis B if not given concurrently with antiviral therapy. Solid tumours do not appear to be increased with anti-TNF therapy. Variable rates of increased lymphoma risk have been described with anti-TNF therapy compared with the general population, although no increased risk was found compared with a rheumatoid arthritis population. Large phase II and III trials with TNF-alpha antagonists in advanced heart failure have shown trends towards a worse prognosis, and should therefore be avoided in this population. Both etanercept and infliximab are associated with the formation of autoantibodies, and these autoantibodies are rarely associated with any specific clinical syndrome. Rare cases of aplastic anaemia, pancytopenia, vasculitis and demyelination have been described with anti-TNF therapy. This chapter will discuss the safety profile and adverse events of the three commercially available TNF-alpha antagonists: etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab. The data presented in this review have been collected from published data, individual case reports or series, package inserts, the Food and Drug Administration postmarketing adverse events surveillance system, and abstracts from the American College of Rheumatology and European Congress of Rheumatology meetings for 2005.