Garg, Shivani

Objective To assess the impact of renal replacement therapy in people with lupus nephritis (LN)–associated end‐stage kidney disease (ESKD) and support the development of the 2024 American College of Rheumatology LN treatment guidelines. Methods We conducted a systematic literature review and meta‐analysis to address three Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) questions related to renal replacement therapy for ESKD due to LN, including comparisons of kidney transplant versus dialysis, hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis, and preemptive kidney transplant versus no preemptive kidney transplant. Outcomes of interest included mortality, cardiovascular (CV) events, infections, lupus flares, disease‐related damage, graft failure, and quality of life. We conducted a meta‐analysis and analyzed hazard ratios for time‐to‐event analyses and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes, as well as absolute risk estimates. Results Sixteen comparative observational studies addressed at least one of the three PICO questions. Kidney transplant was found to reduce the risks of all‐cause mortality, CV mortality, infection‐related mortality, and CV events compared with dialysis (high certainty). Dialysis modality (peritoneal vs hemodialysis) was not associated with mortality (high certainty) or with other outcomes of infection, CV complications, and systemic lupus erythematosus flares (low certainty). Preemptive kidney transplant was associated with lower risks of graft failure and mortality (low certainty). Conclusion This systematic review identified improved outcomes with kidney transplant versus dialysis for people with LN‐associated ESKD and potential benefits of preemptive kidney transplant. This evidence supports the use of kidney transplant as a preferred renal replacement therapy for people with LN‐ESKD.

Objective To provide evidence‐based and expert guidance for the treatment and management of non‐renal systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); treatment and management of lupus nephritis are addressed in a separate guideline. Methods Clinical questions for treatment and management of SLE were developed in the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were developed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess evidence quality and formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus of ≥70% agreement on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation. Results We present recommendations and ungraded, consensus‐based good practice statements for the treatment and management of SLE that are applicable to pediatric and adult patients. Recommendations emphasize uniform treatment with hydroxychloroquine, limiting duration of glucocorticoid use, and early introduction of conventional and/or biologic immunosuppressive therapies to achieve and maintain control of SLE inflammation (remission or a low level of disease activity), reduce SLE‐related morbidity and mortality, and minimize medication‐related toxicities. Conclusion This guideline presents direction regarding treatment and management of SLE and provides a foundation for well‐informed, shared clinician–patient decision‐making. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies, as treatment decisions may vary due to the unique clinical situation and personal preferences of each person with SLE.

Objective To provide evidence‐based and expert guidance for the treatment and management of non‐renal systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); treatment and management of lupus nephritis are addressed in a separate guideline. Methods Clinical questions for treatment and management of SLE were developed in the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were developed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess evidence quality and formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus of ≥70% agreement on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation. Results We present recommendations and ungraded, consensus‐based good practice statements for the treatment and management of SLE that are applicable to pediatric and adult patients. Recommendations emphasize uniform treatment with hydroxychloroquine, limiting duration of glucocorticoid use, and early introduction of conventional and/or biologic immunosuppressive therapies to achieve and maintain control of SLE inflammation (remission or a low level of disease activity), reduce SLE‐related morbidity and mortality, and minimize medication‐related toxicities. Conclusion This guideline presents direction regarding treatment and management of SLE and provides a foundation for well‐informed, shared clinician–patient decision‐making. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies, as treatment decisions may vary due to the unique clinical situation and personal preferences of each person with SLE.

Objective A patient‐centered approach for chronic disease management, including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), aligns treatment with patients’ values and preferences, leading to improved outcomes. This paper summarizes how patient experiences, perspectives, and priorities informed the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2024 Lupus Nephritis (LN) and 2025 SLE screening, treatment guidelines. Methods We completed a cross‐sectional qualitative study using content analysis of two Patient Panel meetings for the ACR LN and SLE guidelines. Key themes were presented by Patient Panel representatives during Voting Panel Meetings along with evidence for each recommendation, to ensure comprehensive discussions and align treatment recommendations with patients’ priorities and values. Results Nineteen people (90% women) with diagnoses of SLE and/or LN participated in the Patient Panels and 17 consented to use their feedback for analysis. Thematic analysis of their discussions revealed nine patient‐reported key themes in three domains: (1) treatment and monitoring of LN and SLE: medication side effects, daily function, treatment goals, and monitoring and screening; (2) clinical communication: strategies to optimize communication and provider and structural impediments to effective communication; and (3) improving transparency and information sharing: clinical trial participation, and medical costs and insurance coverage. These themes were actively incorporated into discussions during the Voting Panels for the ACR LN and SLE guidelines. Conclusion This work supported the integration of patient experiences in the clinical practice guideline development process and aligned recommendations with real‐world patient experiences and priorities, thereby enhancing the clinical applicability of the ACR LN and SLE guidelines. image

ObjectiveThe objective is to provide evidence‐based and expert guidance for the screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis.MethodsThe Core Team developed clinical questions for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis using the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were completed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the quality of evidence and to formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus ≥70% on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation.ResultsWe present 28 graded recommendations (7 strong, 21 conditional) and 13 ungraded, consensus‐based good practice statements for the screening and management of lupus nephritis. Our recommendations focus on the unifying principle that lupus nephritis therapy is continuous and ongoing, rather than consisting of discrete induction/initial and maintenance/subsequent therapies. Therapy should include pulse glucocorticoids followed by oral glucocorticoid taper and two additional immunosuppressive agents for 3–5 years for those achieving complete renal response.ConclusionThis guideline provides direction for clinicians regarding screening and treatment decisions for management of lupus nephritis. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies, as treatment decisions may vary due to the unique clinical situation and personal preferences of each individual patient.

Objective The objective is to provide evidence‐based and expert guidance for the screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis. Methods The Core Team developed clinical questions for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis using the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were completed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the quality of evidence and to formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus ≥70% on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation. Results We present 28 graded recommendations (7 strong, 21 conditional) and 13 ungraded, consensus‐based good practice statements for the screening and management of lupus nephritis. Our recommendations focus on the unifying principle that lupus nephritis therapy is continuous and ongoing, rather than consisting of discrete induction/initial and maintenance/subsequent therapies. Therapy should include pulse glucocorticoids followed by oral glucocorticoid taper and two additional immunosuppressive agents for 3–5 years for those achieving complete renal response. Conclusion This guideline provides direction for clinicians regarding screening and treatment decisions for management of lupus nephritis. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies, as treatment decisions may vary due to the unique clinical situation and personal preferences of each individual patient.

Objective Social determinants of health (SDoH) likely contribute to outcome disparities in lupus nephritis (LN). Understanding the overall burden and contribution of each domain could guide future health equity–focused interventions to improve outcomes and reduce disparities in LN. Objectives of this meta‐analysis were to 1) determine the association of overall SDoH and specific SDoH domains on LN outcomes and 2) develop a framework for the multidimensional impact of SDoH on LN outcomes. Methods We performed a comprehensive search of studies measuring associations between SDoH and LN outcomes. We examined pooled odds of poor LN outcomes including death, end‐stage kidney disease, or cardiovascular disease in patients with and without adverse SDoH. Additionally, we calculated the pooled odds ratios of outcomes by four SDoH domains: individual (eg, insurance), health care (eg, fragmented care), community (eg, neighborhood socioeconomic status), and health behaviors (eg, smoking). Results Among 531 screened studies, 31 meeting inclusion criteria and 13 with raw data were included in meta‐analysis. Pooled odds of poor outcomes were 1.47‐fold higher in patients with any adverse SDoH. Patients with adverse SDoH in individual and health care domains had 1.64‐fold and 1.77‐fold higher odds of poor outcomes. We found a multiplicative impact of having two or more adverse SDoH on LN outcomes. Black patients with public insurance and fragmented care had 12‐fold higher odds of poor LN outcomes. Conclusion Adverse SDoH is associated with poor LN outcomes. Having two or more adverse SDoH, specifically in different SDoH domains, had a multiplicative impact leading to worse LN outcomes, widening disparities. image

Objective As part of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–funded American College of Rheumatology (ACR) initiative, we sought to develop quality measures related to Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) use for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) clinical care. Methods An expert workgroup composed of physician, patient, and researcher representatives convened to identify patient‐reported outcome (PRO) domains of greatest importance to people with SLE. A patient advisory panel separately ranked domains. PROMs assessing priority domains were identified through structured literature review, and detailed psychometric reviews were conducted for each PROM. In a Delphi process, the expert workgroup rated PROMs on content validity, psychometric quality, feasibility of implementation, and importance for guiding patient self‐management. The patient advisory panel reviewed PROMs in parallel and contributed to the final recommendations. Results Among relevant PRO domains, the workgroup and patient partners ranked depression, physical function, pain, cognition, and fatigue as high‐priority domains. The workgroup recommended at least once yearly measurement for (1) assessment of depression using the Patient Health Questionnaire or Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression scales; (2) assessment of physical function using PROMIS physical function scales or the Multi‐Dimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire; and (3) optional assessments of fatigue and cognition. Pain scales evaluated were not found to be sufficiently superior to what is already assessed in most SLE clinic visits. Conclusion Expert workgroup members and patient partners recommend that clinicians assess depression and physical function at least once yearly in all people with SLE. Additional PROMs addressing cognition and fatigue can also be assessed. Next steps are to incorporate PROM‐based quality measures into the ACR The Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness registry.

ObjectiveWe aimed to develop readily measurable digital quality measure statements for clinical care in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) using a multistep process guided by consensus methods.MethodsUsing a modified Delphi process, an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) workgroup of SLE experts reviewed all North American and European guidelines from 2000 to 2020 on treatment, monitoring, and phenotyping of patients with lupus. Workgroup members extracted quality constructs from guidelines, rated these by importance and feasibility, and generated evidence‐based quality measure statements. The ACR Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) Registry was queried for measurement data availability. In 3 consecutive Delphi sessions, a multidisciplinary Delphi panel voted on the importance and feasibility of each statement. Proposed measures with consensus on feasibility and importance were ranked to identify the top 3 measures.ResultsReview of guidelines and distillation of 57 quality constructs resulted in 15 quality measure statements. Among these, 5 met high consensus for importance and feasibility, including 2 on treatment and 3 on laboratory monitoring measures. The 3 highest‐ranked statements were recommended for further measure specification as SLE digital quality measures: 1) hydroxychloroquine use, 2) limiting glucocorticoid use >7.5 mg/day to <6 months, and 3) end‐organ monitoring of kidney function and urine protein excretion at least every 6 months.ConclusionThe Delphi process selected 3 quality measures for SLE care on hydroxychloroquine, glucocorticoid reduction, and kidney monitoring. Next, measures will undergo specification and validity testing in RISE and US rheumatology practices as the foundation for national implementation and use in quality improvement programs.image