Abstract Introduction/objectives: Clinical evidence of skeletal muscle involvement is not uncommon in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Because of the poor understanding of signaling pathways involved in SLE muscle wasting, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of vitamin D supplementation on skeletal muscle in mice with pristane-induced lupus. Methods: Balb/c mice with lupus-like disease induced by pristane injection were randomized into three groups: pristane-induced lupus (PIL; n = 10), pristane-induced lupus + vitamin D supplementation (PIL + VD; n = 10) and healthy controls (CO; n = 8). Physical function was evaluated on days 0, 60, 120 and 180. The tibialis anterior and gastrocnemius muscles were collected to evaluate myofiber cross-sectional area (CSA) and protein expression. Results: The PIL + VD group showed lower muscle strength compared to the CO and PIL groups at different time points. PIL mice showed similar myofiber CSA compared to CO and PIL + VD groups. LC3-II expression was higher in PIL compared to CO and PIL + VD groups. MyoD expression was higher in PIL mice compared to PIL + VD, while myostatin expression was higher in PIL + VD than PIL group. Myogenin expression levels were decreased in the PIL + VD group compared with the CO group. The Akt, p62 and MuRF expressions and mobility assessment showed no significance. Conclusions: Changes in skeletal muscle in PIL model happen before CSA reduction, possibly due to autophagy degradation, and treatment with Vitamin D has a impact on physical function by decreasing muscle strength and time of fatigue.. Vitamin D supplementation has a potential role modulating physical parameters and signaling pathways in muscle during pristane-induced lupus model.

RESUMO A classificação de Sapporo revisada para a síndrome antifosfolipídica definida de 2006 incluiu como critérios laboratoriais aqueles testes para anticorpos antifosfolípides cuja acurácia era considerada satisfatória de acordo com a evidência então disponível. Porém, na prática, a sensibilidade e especificidade desses anticorpos antifosfolípides “critério” são por vezes insuficientes para identificar ou descartar a síndrome antifosfolípide. Tem-se estudado se a acurácia do diagnóstico laboratorial da síndrome poderia ser melhorada por meio da testagem de anticorpos antifosfolípides não critério. Neste trabalho revisamos a evidência a respeito das associações clínicas e valor diagnóstico dos anticorpos não critério mais estudados, nomeadamente: anticorpos antifosfatidiletanolamina, antianexina A5, antiprotrombina, anticomplexo fosfatidilserina/protrombina, IgA anticardiolipina e IgG antidomínio I da anti-β2 glicoproteína I.

SUMMARY The 2006 Revised Sapporo Classification Criteria for Definite Antiphospholipid Syndrome included as laboratory criteria the tests for antiphospholipid antibodies whose accuracy was regarded as satisfactory according to the evidence available at that time. In practice, however, the sensitivity and specificity of these “criteria” of antiphospholipid antibodies are sometimes insufficient for identifying or ruling out antiphospholipid syndrome. It has been studied whether the accuracy of the laboratory diagnosis of the syndrome could be improved by testing for non-criteria antiphospholipid antibodies. In this work, we review evidence on the clinical associations and diagnostic value of the most commonly studied non-criteria antibodies, namely: antiphosphatidylethanolamine, anti-annexin A5, anti-prothrombin, anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin complex, IgA anticardiolipin, and IgG anti-domain I of the β2 glycoprotein antibodies.

Abstract Background: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) share many clinical manifestations and laboratory findings, therefore, concomitant diagnosis of SLE and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) can be challenging. Methods: Prospective cohort with 602 patients with SLE who attended the Rheumatology Clinic of the Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre since 2000. All patients were followed until 01 May 2015 or until death, if earlier. Demographic, clinical and laboratory data were prospectively collected. Results: Out of the 602 patients, 11 presented with the diagnosis of AIDS (1.59%). The following variables were significantly more prevalent in patients with concomitant HIV and SLE: neuropsychiatric lupus (10.9% vs. 36.4%; p = 0.028) and smoking (37.6% vs. 80%; p = 0.0009) while malar rash was significantly less prevalent in this population (56% vs. 18.2%; p = 0.015). Nephritis (40.5% vs. 63.6%; p = 0.134) and hemolytic anemia (28.6% vs. 54.5%; p = 0.089) were more prevalent in SLE patients with HIV, but with no statistical significance compared with SLE patients without HIV. The SLICC damage index median in the last medical consultation was significantly higher in SLE patients with HIV (1 vs. 2; p = 0,047). Conclusions: Our patients with concomitant HIV and SLE have clinically more neuropsychiatric manifestations. For the first time, according to our knowledge, higher cumulative damage was described in lupus patients with concomitant HIV infection. Further studies are needed to elucidate this complex association, its outcomes, prognosis and which therapeutic approach it's best for each case.

Objetivo Elaborar recomendações para o diagnóstico, manejo e tratamento da nefrite lúpica no Brasil. Método Revisão extensa da literatura com seleção dos artigos com base na força de evidência científica e opinião dos membros da Comissão de Lúpus Eritematoso Sistêmico da Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia. Resultados e conclusões 1) A biópsia renal deve ser feita sempre que possível e houver indicação e quando não for possível, o tratamento deve ser orientado com base na inferência da clase histológica. 2) Devem ser implementados medidas e cuidados idealmente antes do início do tratamento, com ênfase na atenção ao risco de infecção. 3) Devem-se compartilhar riscos e benefícios do tratamento com pacientes e familiares. 4) O uso da hidroxicloroquina (preferencialmente) ou difosfato de cloroquina é recomendado para todos os pacientes (exceto contraindicação) durante as fases de indução e manutenção. 5) A avaliação da eficácia do tratamento deve ser feita com critérios objetivos de resposta (remissão completa/remissão parcial/refratariedade). 6) Os IECA e/ou BRA são recomendados como antiproteinúricos para todos os pacientes (exceto contraindicação). 7) A identificação de sinais clínicos e/ou laboratoriais sugestivos de GN laboratoriais sugestivos de glomerulonefrite proliferativa ou membranosa deve indicar início imediato de terapia específica incluindo corticosteroides e agente imunossupressor, mesmo que não seja possível comprovação histológica. 8) O tempo de uso dos imunossupressores deve ser no mínimo de 36 meses, mas eles podem ser mantidos por períodos mais longos. A sua suspensão só deve ser feita quando o paciente atingir e mantiver remissão completa sustentada. 9) Deve-se considerar nefrite lúpica refratária quando a remissão completa ou parcial não for alcançada após 12 meses de tratamento adequado, quando uma nova biópsia renal deve ser considerada para auxiliar na identificação da causa da refratariedade e decisão terapêutica.

Objective To develop recommendations for the diagnosis, management and treatment of lupus nephritis in Brazil. Method Extensive literature review with a selection of papers based on the strength of scientific evidence and opinion of the Commission on Systemic Lupus Erythematosus members, Brazilian Society of Rheumatology. Results and conclusions (1) Renal biopsy should be performed whenever possible and if this procedure is indicated; and, when the procedure is not possible, the treatment should be guided with the inference of histologic class. (2) Ideally, measures and precautions should be implemented before starting treatment, with emphasis on attention to the risk of infection. (3) Risks and benefits of treatment should be shared with the patient and his/her family. (4) The use of hydroxychloroquine (preferably) or chloroquine diphosphate is recommended for all patients (unless contraindicated) during induction and maintenance phases. (5) The evaluation of the effectiveness of treatment should be made with objective criteria of response (complete remission/partial remission/refractoriness). (6) Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and/or angiotensin receptor blockers are recommended as antiproteinuric agents for all patients (unless contraindicated). (7) The identification of clinical and/or laboratory signs suggestive of proliferative or membranous glomerulonephritis should indicate an immediate implementation of specific therapy, including corticosteroids and an immunosuppressive agent, even though histological confirmation is not possible. (8) Immunosuppressives must be used during at least 36 months, but these medications can be kept for longer periods. Its discontinuation should only be done when the patient could achieve and maintain a sustained and complete remission. (9) Lupus nephritis should be considered as refractory when a full or partial remission is not achieved after 12 months of an appropriate treatment, when a new renal biopsy should be considered to assist in identifying the cause of refractoriness and in the therapeutic decision.