Table 2.
Clinical and laboratory characterization of SLE patients
| All patients | Responders | Non-responders | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) Diagnostic criteria | |||
| No. of patients (%) | 62 (100) | 24 (39) | 38 (61) |
| Malar rash | 19/62 (30·1) | 8/24 (33·3) | 11/38 (29) |
| Discoid rash | 9/62 (15) | 3/24 (12·5) | 6/38 (16) |
| Photosensitivity | 21/62 (34) | 9/24 (37·5) | 12/38 (32) |
| Mucosal ulcers | 17/62 (27·4) | 8/24 (33·3) | 9/38 (23·7) |
| Arthritis | 46/62 (74·2) | 19/24 (79·2) | 27/38 (71) |
| Serositis | 14/62 (22·6) | 5/24 (20·8) | 9/38 (23·7) |
| Neurological disorders‡ | 5/62 (8·1) | 4/24 (16·7) | 1/38 (2·7) |
| Renal disorder‡ | 24/62 (38·8) | 7/24 (29·2) | 17/38 (44·8) |
| Haematological disorders‡ | 44/62 (71) | 19/24 (79·2) | 25/38 (65·8) |
| ANA | 61/62 (98·4) | 24/24 (100) | 37/38 (92·1) |
| α-dsDNA | 54/62 (87·1) | 19/24 (79·2) | 35/38 (92·1) |
| APLA | 35/62 (56·5) | 12/24 (50·0) | 23/38 (60·53) |
| (b) Disease activity | |||
| SLEDAI score | 6·65 ± 5·12 | 7·29 ± 1·06 | 6·24 ± 0·84 |
| Number of ACR diagnostic criteria | 5·44 ± 1·39 | 5·54 ± 0·33 | 5·34 ± 0·2 |
| (c) Current treatment† | |||
| NSAIDS | 17/62 (27·4) | 6/24 (25) | 11/38 (29) |
| Anti-malarial | 37/62 (59·7) | 15/24 (62·5) | 22/38 (57·9) |
| Steroids‡ | 33/62 (53·2) | 11/24 (45·8) | 22/38 (57·9) |
| Cytotoxic‡ | 10/62 (16·1) | 2/24 (8·3) | 8/38 (21) |
*Clinical involvement was defined according to the ACR revised criteria [16]. Anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA) and anti-dsDNA antibodies were determined by Hep2 cells and Crithidia luciliae, respectively. Anti-phospholipid antibodies (APLA) were defined as reactivity in one or more of the following assays: false positive VDRL, lupus anticoagulant (LAC) or ELISA for anticardiolipin antibodies.
†The antimalarial agent, hydroxychloroquine, was used at a dose of 200–400 mg/day; steroid treatment was defined as a daily dose≥5 mg of prednisone; cytotoxic agents used were cyclophosphamide (0·75–1·0 g/m2; monthly) or azathioprine (100–150 mg/day).
‡Parameters for which tendency was observed towards differences between the two groups of responder and non responder SLE patients.