Abstract

Objective

Lupus nephritis (LN) can occur as an isolated component of disease activity or be accompanied by diverse extrarenal manifestations. Whether isolated renal disease is sufficient to decrease health-related quality of life (HRQOL) remains unknown. This study compared Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 29-Item (PROMIS-29) scores in LN patients with isolated renal disease to those with extrarenal symptoms to evaluate the burden of LN on HRQOL and inform future LN clinical trials incorporating HRQOL outcomes.

Methods

A total of 181 LN patients consecutively enrolled in the multicentre multi-ethnic/racial Accelerating Medicines Partnership completed PROMIS-29 questionnaires at the time of a clinically indicated renal biopsy. Raw PROMIS-29 scores were converted to standardized T scores.

Results

Seventy-five (41%) patients had extrarenal disease (mean age 34, 85% female) and 106 (59%) had isolated renal (mean age 36, 82% female). Rash (45%), arthritis (40%) and alopecia (40%) were the most common extrarenal manifestations. Compared with isolated renal, patients with extrarenal disease reported significantly worse pain interference, ability to participate in social roles, physical function, and fatigue. Patients with extrarenal disease had PROMIS-29 scores that significantly differed from the general population by >0.5 SD of the reference mean in pain interference, physical function, and fatigue. Arthritis was most strongly associated with worse scores in these three domains.

Conclusion

Most patients had isolated renal disease and extrarenal manifestations associated with worse HRQOL. These data highlight the importance of comprehensive disease management strategies that address both renal and extrarenal manifestations to improve overall patient outcomes.

Rheumatology key messages
  • Extrarenal symptoms, especially arthritis, are associated with significantly worse HRQOL in patients with lupus nephritis.

  • Patients with lupus nephritis, but without extrarenal disease, may not report an increased HRQOL burden.

  • Lupus nephritis clinical trials evaluating HRQOL outcomes should account for baseline extrarenal symptoms.

Introduction

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is an autoimmune disease characterized by heterogeneous clinical manifestations and affects the kidney in up to 60% of patients [1, 2]. Lupus nephritis (LN) can occur as an isolated component of disease activity or be accompanied by diverse extrarenal symptoms captured on the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) such as arthritis, serositis and/or rash [3]. While SLE has been shown to adversely affect a patient’s perceived health-related quality of life (HRQOL), whether LN is sufficient to decrease HRQOL in the absence of activity in other organs has not been fully explored [4]. Favourable HRQOL in those with isolated renal disease may place patients at risk for delayed diagnosis of LN and/or medication nonadherence which could be life-threatening since LN carries the highest standardized mortality ratio in SLE and early detection and treatment are associated with better outcomes [2, 5, 6]. In addition, assessing the influence of extrarenal disease on HRQOL in those with active LN would aid the interpretation of LN clinical trials that incorporate HRQOL outcomes.

Several instruments have been used to measure HRQOL in rheumatic diseases [7]. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) 29-Item (PROMIS-29) Profile was developed as part of an initiative from the National Institutes of Health to improve and standardize the quantification of patient-reported outcomes [8]. PROMIS-29 combines scales across seven domains evaluating physical and social functioning, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep, and pain to quantify HRQOL. Prior studies have demonstrated the cross-sectional and longitudinal validity of PROMIS measures in SLE including across racial/ethnic groups [7, 9–12].

The Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP) study is a public-private network formed to identify new targets for LN diagnostics and drug development with a multimodal approach combining clinical, histologic, proteomic, transcriptomic, and genetic evaluations [13]. The cohort resulting from this consortium represents a large well-characterized population of multi-racial/ethnic LN patients enrolled across many clinical sites in real-world settings. This study leveraged the AMP cohort to compare PROMIS-29 scores between LN patients with isolated renal activity to those with extrarenal symptoms to evaluate the burden of LN on HRQOL and to inform future clinical trials that include HRQOL outcomes.

Methods

Study design and patient population

Detailed descriptions of AMP have been provided previously [14, 15]. All patients fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) or Systemic Lupus International Cooperating Clinics (SLICC) classification criteria for SLE and were consecutively enrolled in Phase 2 of AMP [16, 17]. Patients required a urine-protein-to creatinine ratio > 0.5 g/g on a random or > 500 mg of protein in a 24-h urine collection and underwent a clinically indicated percutaneous renal biopsy as part of routine care. Patients with biopsies showing proliferative, membranous, or mixed International Society of Nephrology/Renal Pathology Society (ISN/RPS) Classes were included [18]. Receipt of rituximab within six months preceding renal biopsy, pregnancy, and/or a history of kidney transplant were excluded from AMP. At the time of kidney biopsy, demographics, clinical characteristics including a completed printed PROMIS-29 v2.1 questionnaire, disease activity assessed by the hybrid Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment (SELENA)-SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI), laboratory measures, and medications were recorded [3]. Patients were considered to have extrarenal clinical disease activity if any of the clinical SLEDAI descriptors listed in Fig. 1 were present. In compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki, institutional review boards and ethics committees at individual sites (Cedars-Sinai; University of Cincinnati; Albert Einstein College of Medicine; Johns Hopkins; University of Michigan; Medical University of South Carolina; Northwell Health; NYU Grossman School of Medicine; University of Rochester; Texas Tech; University of California sites including San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego; University of North Carolina; and University of Texas Health) approved the protocol and consent forms; written informed consent was obtained from all patients. Of the 252 patients fulfilling inclusion criteria for AMP Phase 2, this analysis included all 181 patients who had completed baseline PROMIS-29 questionnaires.

Map of the clinical SLEDAI domains affecting each of the 75 patients with extrarenal clinical disease activity. Shaded green represents the presence of that manifestation
Figure 1.

Map of the clinical SLEDAI domains affecting each of the 75 patients with extrarenal clinical disease activity. Shaded green represents the presence of that manifestation

Raw PROMIS-29 scores were converted to standardized T scores (with the exception of pain intensity which is scored on a 0–10 scale) with a general population mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10 using the online HealthMeasures scoring service (https://www.healthmeasures.net/score-and-interpret/calculate-scores). PROMIS Profile v2.1 was set as the calibration sample. PROMIS scales are designed such that higher scores represent more of the domain being measured. Thus, higher scores on pain, anxiety, depression, fatigue, and sleep and conversely lower scores on physical and social functioning indicate a worse outcome. A prior study evaluating SLE patients estimated minimally important differences to be approximately two points across PROMIS scales supporting the clinical meaningfulness of these findings [11].

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics are presented as the mean and standard deviation for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. A two-sample 2-tailed t test or Pearson’s chi-squared test was used to compare patients with extrarenal vs isolated renal disease. A one-sample 2-tailed t test was used to compare PROMIS-29 T scores to the general population reference mean. Univariate linear regressions were performed to evaluate associations between clinical variables and PROMIS-29 domains. Multivariable linear regressions were completed using a backward stepwise procedure with PROMIS-29 scores as the dependent variable and clinical parameters with p-value <0.1 in univariate analyses as candidate covariates. All data were analyzed using R Studio version 4.0.3.

Results

Of the 181 LN patients included in the analysis, 106 (59%) had isolated renal disease and 75 (41%) had extrarenal disease. Of the latter, the most common SLEDAI disease manifestations were rash (n = 34, 45%), arthritis (n = 30, 40%), alopecia (n = 30, 40%), mucosal ulcers (n = 10, 13%), and serositis (pericarditis and/or pleurisy, n = 9, 12%) (Table 1 and Fig. 1). The presence of extrarenal disease was not influenced by age (isolated renal: mean age 36.43 vs extrarenal mean age: 33.89), sex (isolated renal: 82% female vs extrarenal: 85% female), or race (isolated renal: 25% white vs extrarenal: 27% white). (Table 1). A significantly higher percentage of patients with extrarenal disease had lower C3 and were more likely to be at first biopsy (Table 1). Patients with extrarenal disease also had significantly more proteinuria (Table 1). However, anti-double-stranded DNA antibody positivity, biopsy class, and NIH activity/chronicity indices did not differ from those patients with isolated renal disease (Table 1). Extrarenal disease was associated with significantly more belimumab and prednisone use (Table 1).

Table 1.

Clinical characteristics in patients with isolated renal compared with extrarenal disease

Baseline Clinical CharacteristicIsolated Renal n = 106Extrarenal n = 75P-value
Age, years, mean (S.D.)36.43 (12.70)33.89 (9.83)0.148
Sex: Female, N (%)87 (82.1)64 (85.3)0.706
Race, N (%)0.723
 Asian17 (16.0)10 (13.3)
 Black45 (42.5)36 (48.0)
 White26 (24.5)20 (26.7)
 Other/Unknown18 (17.0)9 (12.0)
Ethnicity: Hispanic, N (%)28 (26.4)20 (26.7)1.000
NIH Activity index, mean (S.D.)
  • 4.30 (4.35)

  • n = 77

  • 5.54 (4.92)

  • n = 56

0.128
NIH Chronicity index, mean (S.D.)
  • 3.14 (2.65)

  • n = 78

  • 2.69 (2.37)

  • n = 54

0.313
First biopsy, N (%)37 (34.9)41 (54.7)0.013
Positive anti-dsDNA, N (%)
  • 65 (67.7)

  • n = 96

  • 54 (74.0)

  • n = 73

0.475
Low C3, N (%)a
  • 51 (50.0)

  • n = 102

  • 55 (73.3)

  • n = 75

0.003
Low C4, N (%)a
  • 50 (49.0)

  • n = 102

  • 47 (62.7)

  • n = 75

0.099
Serum creatinine, mg/dl, mean (S.D.)1.24 (1.02)
  • 1.10 (0.71)

  • n = 74

0.31
Urine protein: creatinine ratio g/g, mean (S.D.)2.66 (2.19)
  • 3.47 (2.89)

  • n = 74

0.035
Biopsy Class, N (%)0.408
 Proliferative42 (39.6)35 (46.7)
 Mixed29 (27.4)22 (29.3)
 Membranous35 (33)18 (24)
Extrarenal Clinical SLEDAI, mean (S.D.)4.72 (2.80)
Extrarenal Clinical SLEDAI Domains, N (%)
 Visual1 (1)
 Vasculitis3 (4)
 Seizure0
 Rash34 (45)
 Psychosis0
 Pleurisy9 (12)
 Pericarditis6 (8)
 Organic Brain Syndrome0
 Myositis1 (1)
 Mucosal Ulcers10 (13)
 Lupus Headache1 (1)
 Fever4 (5)
 Cranial Nerve Disorder1 (1)
 Cerebrovascular Accident0
 Arthritis30 (40)
 Alopecia30 (40)
Medications
 Hydroxychloroquine93 (87.7)58 (77.3)0.099
 Mycophenolate60 (56.6)39 (52.0)0.645
 Azathioprine11 (10.4)7 (9.3)1.000
 Belimumab0 (0.0)6 (8.0)0.011
 Tacrolimus9 (8.5)3 (4.0)0.372
 Cyclophosphamide2 (1.9)1 (1.3)1.000
 Prednisone/methylprednisolone67 (63.2)60 (80.0)0.023
 Prednisone or equivalent dose > 20 mg32 (30.2)39 (52.0)0.005
Baseline Clinical CharacteristicIsolated Renal n = 106Extrarenal n = 75P-value
Age, years, mean (S.D.)36.43 (12.70)33.89 (9.83)0.148
Sex: Female, N (%)87 (82.1)64 (85.3)0.706
Race, N (%)0.723
 Asian17 (16.0)10 (13.3)
 Black45 (42.5)36 (48.0)
 White26 (24.5)20 (26.7)
 Other/Unknown18 (17.0)9 (12.0)
Ethnicity: Hispanic, N (%)28 (26.4)20 (26.7)1.000
NIH Activity index, mean (S.D.)
  • 4.30 (4.35)

  • n = 77

  • 5.54 (4.92)

  • n = 56

0.128
NIH Chronicity index, mean (S.D.)
  • 3.14 (2.65)

  • n = 78

  • 2.69 (2.37)

  • n = 54

0.313
First biopsy, N (%)37 (34.9)41 (54.7)0.013
Positive anti-dsDNA, N (%)
  • 65 (67.7)

  • n = 96

  • 54 (74.0)

  • n = 73

0.475
Low C3, N (%)a
  • 51 (50.0)

  • n = 102

  • 55 (73.3)

  • n = 75

0.003
Low C4, N (%)a
  • 50 (49.0)

  • n = 102

  • 47 (62.7)

  • n = 75

0.099
Serum creatinine, mg/dl, mean (S.D.)1.24 (1.02)
  • 1.10 (0.71)

  • n = 74

0.31
Urine protein: creatinine ratio g/g, mean (S.D.)2.66 (2.19)
  • 3.47 (2.89)

  • n = 74

0.035
Biopsy Class, N (%)0.408
 Proliferative42 (39.6)35 (46.7)
 Mixed29 (27.4)22 (29.3)
 Membranous35 (33)18 (24)
Extrarenal Clinical SLEDAI, mean (S.D.)4.72 (2.80)
Extrarenal Clinical SLEDAI Domains, N (%)
 Visual1 (1)
 Vasculitis3 (4)
 Seizure0
 Rash34 (45)
 Psychosis0
 Pleurisy9 (12)
 Pericarditis6 (8)
 Organic Brain Syndrome0
 Myositis1 (1)
 Mucosal Ulcers10 (13)
 Lupus Headache1 (1)
 Fever4 (5)
 Cranial Nerve Disorder1 (1)
 Cerebrovascular Accident0
 Arthritis30 (40)
 Alopecia30 (40)
Medications
 Hydroxychloroquine93 (87.7)58 (77.3)0.099
 Mycophenolate60 (56.6)39 (52.0)0.645
 Azathioprine11 (10.4)7 (9.3)1.000
 Belimumab0 (0.0)6 (8.0)0.011
 Tacrolimus9 (8.5)3 (4.0)0.372
 Cyclophosphamide2 (1.9)1 (1.3)1.000
 Prednisone/methylprednisolone67 (63.2)60 (80.0)0.023
 Prednisone or equivalent dose > 20 mg32 (30.2)39 (52.0)0.005

Data represented as mean (SD) or N (%), n is specified where it differed from the overall sample size, Two-tailed t test was used for continuous variables and Pearson’s chi-squared was used for categorical variables. Bold text highlights significant P-values.

a

Classified by local laboratory cutoffs.

Table 1.

Clinical characteristics in patients with isolated renal compared with extrarenal disease

Baseline Clinical CharacteristicIsolated Renal n = 106Extrarenal n = 75P-value
Age, years, mean (S.D.)36.43 (12.70)33.89 (9.83)0.148
Sex: Female, N (%)87 (82.1)64 (85.3)0.706
Race, N (%)0.723
 Asian17 (16.0)10 (13.3)
 Black45 (42.5)36 (48.0)
 White26 (24.5)20 (26.7)
 Other/Unknown18 (17.0)9 (12.0)
Ethnicity: Hispanic, N (%)28 (26.4)20 (26.7)1.000
NIH Activity index, mean (S.D.)
  • 4.30 (4.35)

  • n = 77

  • 5.54 (4.92)

  • n = 56

0.128
NIH Chronicity index, mean (S.D.)
  • 3.14 (2.65)

  • n = 78

  • 2.69 (2.37)

  • n = 54

0.313
First biopsy, N (%)37 (34.9)41 (54.7)0.013
Positive anti-dsDNA, N (%)
  • 65 (67.7)

  • n = 96

  • 54 (74.0)

  • n = 73

0.475
Low C3, N (%)a
  • 51 (50.0)

  • n = 102

  • 55 (73.3)

  • n = 75

0.003
Low C4, N (%)a
  • 50 (49.0)

  • n = 102

  • 47 (62.7)

  • n = 75

0.099
Serum creatinine, mg/dl, mean (S.D.)1.24 (1.02)
  • 1.10 (0.71)

  • n = 74

0.31
Urine protein: creatinine ratio g/g, mean (S.D.)2.66 (2.19)
  • 3.47 (2.89)

  • n = 74

0.035
Biopsy Class, N (%)0.408
 Proliferative42 (39.6)35 (46.7)
 Mixed29 (27.4)22 (29.3)
 Membranous35 (33)18 (24)
Extrarenal Clinical SLEDAI, mean (S.D.)4.72 (2.80)
Extrarenal Clinical SLEDAI Domains, N (%)
 Visual1 (1)
 Vasculitis3 (4)
 Seizure0
 Rash34 (45)
 Psychosis0
 Pleurisy9 (12)
 Pericarditis6 (8)
 Organic Brain Syndrome0
 Myositis1 (1)
 Mucosal Ulcers10 (13)
 Lupus Headache1 (1)
 Fever4 (5)
 Cranial Nerve Disorder1 (1)
 Cerebrovascular Accident0
 Arthritis30 (40)
 Alopecia30 (40)
Medications
 Hydroxychloroquine93 (87.7)58 (77.3)0.099
 Mycophenolate60 (56.6)39 (52.0)0.645
 Azathioprine11 (10.4)7 (9.3)1.000
 Belimumab0 (0.0)6 (8.0)0.011
 Tacrolimus9 (8.5)3 (4.0)0.372
 Cyclophosphamide2 (1.9)1 (1.3)1.000
 Prednisone/methylprednisolone67 (63.2)60 (80.0)0.023
 Prednisone or equivalent dose > 20 mg32 (30.2)39 (52.0)0.005
Baseline Clinical CharacteristicIsolated Renal n = 106Extrarenal n = 75P-value
Age, years, mean (S.D.)36.43 (12.70)33.89 (9.83)0.148
Sex: Female, N (%)87 (82.1)64 (85.3)0.706
Race, N (%)0.723
 Asian17 (16.0)10 (13.3)
 Black45 (42.5)36 (48.0)
 White26 (24.5)20 (26.7)
 Other/Unknown18 (17.0)9 (12.0)
Ethnicity: Hispanic, N (%)28 (26.4)20 (26.7)1.000
NIH Activity index, mean (S.D.)
  • 4.30 (4.35)

  • n = 77

  • 5.54 (4.92)

  • n = 56

0.128
NIH Chronicity index, mean (S.D.)
  • 3.14 (2.65)

  • n = 78

  • 2.69 (2.37)

  • n = 54

0.313
First biopsy, N (%)37 (34.9)41 (54.7)0.013
Positive anti-dsDNA, N (%)
  • 65 (67.7)

  • n = 96

  • 54 (74.0)

  • n = 73

0.475
Low C3, N (%)a
  • 51 (50.0)

  • n = 102

  • 55 (73.3)

  • n = 75

0.003
Low C4, N (%)a
  • 50 (49.0)

  • n = 102

  • 47 (62.7)

  • n = 75

0.099
Serum creatinine, mg/dl, mean (S.D.)1.24 (1.02)
  • 1.10 (0.71)

  • n = 74

0.31
Urine protein: creatinine ratio g/g, mean (S.D.)2.66 (2.19)
  • 3.47 (2.89)

  • n = 74

0.035
Biopsy Class, N (%)0.408
 Proliferative42 (39.6)35 (46.7)
 Mixed29 (27.4)22 (29.3)
 Membranous35 (33)18 (24)
Extrarenal Clinical SLEDAI, mean (S.D.)4.72 (2.80)
Extrarenal Clinical SLEDAI Domains, N (%)
 Visual1 (1)
 Vasculitis3 (4)
 Seizure0
 Rash34 (45)
 Psychosis0
 Pleurisy9 (12)
 Pericarditis6 (8)
 Organic Brain Syndrome0
 Myositis1 (1)
 Mucosal Ulcers10 (13)
 Lupus Headache1 (1)
 Fever4 (5)
 Cranial Nerve Disorder1 (1)
 Cerebrovascular Accident0
 Arthritis30 (40)
 Alopecia30 (40)
Medications
 Hydroxychloroquine93 (87.7)58 (77.3)0.099
 Mycophenolate60 (56.6)39 (52.0)0.645
 Azathioprine11 (10.4)7 (9.3)1.000
 Belimumab0 (0.0)6 (8.0)0.011
 Tacrolimus9 (8.5)3 (4.0)0.372
 Cyclophosphamide2 (1.9)1 (1.3)1.000
 Prednisone/methylprednisolone67 (63.2)60 (80.0)0.023
 Prednisone or equivalent dose > 20 mg32 (30.2)39 (52.0)0.005

Data represented as mean (SD) or N (%), n is specified where it differed from the overall sample size, Two-tailed t test was used for continuous variables and Pearson’s chi-squared was used for categorical variables. Bold text highlights significant P-values.

a

Classified by local laboratory cutoffs.

Overall PROMIS-29 scores significantly differed from the reference population in the domains of pain interference, physical function, fatigue, anxiety, and sleep irrespective of extrarenal manifestations (Table 2). While those with isolated renal disease had PROMIS-29 scores that significantly differed from the reference population, scores in all domains for these patients remained within the generally accepted ‘normal range’ of 45–55, or 0.5 standard deviations of the general population mean (Table 2) [19, 20]. Patients with extrarenal disease had T scores outside this range in the domains of pain interference, physical function, and fatigue (Table 2). Compared with isolated LN, patients with extrarenal disease reported significantly worse pain interference, ability to participate in social roles, physical function, and fatigue (Table 2).

Table 2.

Mean PROMIS-29 T scores in patients compared with the general population and in patients with isolated renal compared with extrarenal disease

PROMIS DomainAll Patients n = 181
Extrarenal n = 75
Isolated Renal n = 106
Extrarenal vs Isolated Renal
T Score mean (SD)P-valuecT Score mean (SD)P-valuecT Score mean (SD)P-valuecP-valued
Pain Interference56.6 (10.8)<0.00160.01 (10.40)<0.00154.11 (10.46)<0.001<0.001
Ability to Participate in Social Rolesb49.6 (9.2) n = 1790.52946.47 (8.77)<0.00151.80 (8.91) n = 1040.042<0.001
Physical Functionb45.3 (9.52)<0.00141.78 (9.43)<0.00147.83 (8.80)0.013<0.001
Fatigue56.1 (10.9)<0.00158.98 (10.14)<0.00154.00 (11.00)<0.0010.002
Anxiety52.7 (10.4)<0.00152.67 (10.53)0.0352.72 (10.34)0.0080.978
Sleep54.3 (8.34)<0.00154.53 (9.47)<0.00154.14 (7.48)<0.0010.755
Depression49.4 (9.50)0.38649.72 (9.79)0.80249.15 (9.32)0.3520.695
Pain Intensitya4.1 (3.0) n = 1805.19 (3.01) n = 743.42 (2.86)<0.001
PROMIS DomainAll Patients n = 181
Extrarenal n = 75
Isolated Renal n = 106
Extrarenal vs Isolated Renal
T Score mean (SD)P-valuecT Score mean (SD)P-valuecT Score mean (SD)P-valuecP-valued
Pain Interference56.6 (10.8)<0.00160.01 (10.40)<0.00154.11 (10.46)<0.001<0.001
Ability to Participate in Social Rolesb49.6 (9.2) n = 1790.52946.47 (8.77)<0.00151.80 (8.91) n = 1040.042<0.001
Physical Functionb45.3 (9.52)<0.00141.78 (9.43)<0.00147.83 (8.80)0.013<0.001
Fatigue56.1 (10.9)<0.00158.98 (10.14)<0.00154.00 (11.00)<0.0010.002
Anxiety52.7 (10.4)<0.00152.67 (10.53)0.0352.72 (10.34)0.0080.978
Sleep54.3 (8.34)<0.00154.53 (9.47)<0.00154.14 (7.48)<0.0010.755
Depression49.4 (9.50)0.38649.72 (9.79)0.80249.15 (9.32)0.3520.695
Pain Intensitya4.1 (3.0) n = 1805.19 (3.01) n = 743.42 (2.86)<0.001

Data represented as mean (SD), n is specified where it differed from the overall sample size. Bold text highlights significant P-values.

a

Pain intensity scored separately on a 0–10 scale and is not converted to a standardized T Score.

b

Lower value indicates a worse score.

c

Two-tailed one-sample t test comparing PROMIS-29 T Score mean to the mean of the reference general population (mean of reference: 50, standard deviation of reference: 10).

d

Two-tailed two-sample t test comparing PROMIS-29 T Score mean between extrarenal and isolated renal disease.

Table 2.

Mean PROMIS-29 T scores in patients compared with the general population and in patients with isolated renal compared with extrarenal disease

PROMIS DomainAll Patients n = 181
Extrarenal n = 75
Isolated Renal n = 106
Extrarenal vs Isolated Renal
T Score mean (SD)P-valuecT Score mean (SD)P-valuecT Score mean (SD)P-valuecP-valued
Pain Interference56.6 (10.8)<0.00160.01 (10.40)<0.00154.11 (10.46)<0.001<0.001
Ability to Participate in Social Rolesb49.6 (9.2) n = 1790.52946.47 (8.77)<0.00151.80 (8.91) n = 1040.042<0.001
Physical Functionb45.3 (9.52)<0.00141.78 (9.43)<0.00147.83 (8.80)0.013<0.001
Fatigue56.1 (10.9)<0.00158.98 (10.14)<0.00154.00 (11.00)<0.0010.002
Anxiety52.7 (10.4)<0.00152.67 (10.53)0.0352.72 (10.34)0.0080.978
Sleep54.3 (8.34)<0.00154.53 (9.47)<0.00154.14 (7.48)<0.0010.755
Depression49.4 (9.50)0.38649.72 (9.79)0.80249.15 (9.32)0.3520.695
Pain Intensitya4.1 (3.0) n = 1805.19 (3.01) n = 743.42 (2.86)<0.001
PROMIS DomainAll Patients n = 181
Extrarenal n = 75
Isolated Renal n = 106
Extrarenal vs Isolated Renal
T Score mean (SD)P-valuecT Score mean (SD)P-valuecT Score mean (SD)P-valuecP-valued
Pain Interference56.6 (10.8)<0.00160.01 (10.40)<0.00154.11 (10.46)<0.001<0.001
Ability to Participate in Social Rolesb49.6 (9.2) n = 1790.52946.47 (8.77)<0.00151.80 (8.91) n = 1040.042<0.001
Physical Functionb45.3 (9.52)<0.00141.78 (9.43)<0.00147.83 (8.80)0.013<0.001
Fatigue56.1 (10.9)<0.00158.98 (10.14)<0.00154.00 (11.00)<0.0010.002
Anxiety52.7 (10.4)<0.00152.67 (10.53)0.0352.72 (10.34)0.0080.978
Sleep54.3 (8.34)<0.00154.53 (9.47)<0.00154.14 (7.48)<0.0010.755
Depression49.4 (9.50)0.38649.72 (9.79)0.80249.15 (9.32)0.3520.695
Pain Intensitya4.1 (3.0) n = 1805.19 (3.01) n = 743.42 (2.86)<0.001

Data represented as mean (SD), n is specified where it differed from the overall sample size. Bold text highlights significant P-values.

a

Pain intensity scored separately on a 0–10 scale and is not converted to a standardized T Score.

b

Lower value indicates a worse score.

c

Two-tailed one-sample t test comparing PROMIS-29 T Score mean to the mean of the reference general population (mean of reference: 50, standard deviation of reference: 10).

d

Two-tailed two-sample t test comparing PROMIS-29 T Score mean between extrarenal and isolated renal disease.

For pain interference, physical function, and fatigue which were outside the ‘normal range’ of the reference population in extrarenal LN patients, a univariate linear regression analysis was used to evaluate whether relevant clinical variables were associated with worse scores in these areas and to assess which specific extrarenal disease manifestations associated with PROMIS-29 domains. PROMIS-29 scores were not associated with age, positive anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies, or nephrotic range proteinuria (Table 3). Female sex was associated with worse physical function and fatigue (Table 3). White/non-Hispanic race/ethnicity trended toward an association with worse physical function and significantly associated with worse fatigue but did not associate with pain interference (Table 3). Prednisone dose >20 mg was significantly associated with worse pain interference, physical function, and fatigue. Low complement (C3 or C4) was only associated with worse fatigue (Table 3). Arthritis was the strongest significant predictor of pain interference, physical function, and fatigue (Table 3). Mucosal ulcers and rash demonstrated less strong but similarly significant associations (Table 3). Alopecia trended toward an association with pain interference and physical function but was only significantly associated with fatigue. Serositis was only significantly associated with worse physical function (Table 3).

Table 3.

Univariate linear regressions analysis of clinical variables with PROMIS-29 T scores

PredictorPain Interference n = 181
Physical Functionbn = 181
Fatigue n = 181
Estimate (95% CI)P-valueEstimate (95% CI)P-valueEstimate (95% CI)P-value
Age−0.02 (−0.15, 0.12)0.820−0.04 (−0.16, 0.08)0.472−0.04 (−0.18, 0.10)0.584
Sex: Female0.70 (−3.58, 4.97)0.748−4.16 (−7.88, −0.45)0.0285.69 (1.46, 9.92)0.009
Non-Hispanic White2.67 (−1.78, 7.11)0.238−3.49 (−7.39, 0.41)0.0797.10 (2.72, 11.48)0.002
First biopsy3.35 (0.18, 6.52)0.038−3.33 (−6.12, -0.55)0.0192.22 (−1.01, 5.44)0.176
Low Complement1.66 (−1.73, 5.05) n = 1770.335−0.76 (−3.77, 2.25) n = 1770.6183.67 (0.23, 7.11) n = 1770.037
Anti-dsDNA Positive2.52 (−1.05, 6.1) n = 1690.166−1.46 (−4.62, 1.70) n = 1690.3621.30 (−2.36, 4.95) n = 1690.485
Prednisone >20mg4.12 (0.92, 7.32)0.012−5.60 (−8.35, −2.85)<0.0013.75 (0.51, 6.98)0.024
Nephrotic range proteinuria−0.69 (−4.22, 2.83) n = 1800.698−2.45 (−5.54, 0.63) n = 1800.119−0.21 (−3.76, 3.35) n = 1800.909
Arthritis9.28 (5.23, 13.33)<0.001−10.35 (−13.79, −6.91)<0.0018.72 (4.60, 12.83)<0.001
Rash4.73 (0.73, 8.74)0.021−4.03 (−7.57, −0.50)0.0264.70 (0.65, 8.74)0.023
Alopecia3.69 (−0.55, 7.93)0.088−3.46 (−7.19, 0.27)0.0695.20 (0.95, 9.44)0.017
Serositisa5.71 (−0.39, 11.81)0.066−5.68 (−11.04, −0.32)0.0382.05 (−4.15, 8.25)0.515
Mucosal Ulcers8.40 (1.55, 15.25)0.017−8.10 (−14.11, −2.09)0.0097.38 (0.45, 14.31)0.037
PredictorPain Interference n = 181
Physical Functionbn = 181
Fatigue n = 181
Estimate (95% CI)P-valueEstimate (95% CI)P-valueEstimate (95% CI)P-value
Age−0.02 (−0.15, 0.12)0.820−0.04 (−0.16, 0.08)0.472−0.04 (−0.18, 0.10)0.584
Sex: Female0.70 (−3.58, 4.97)0.748−4.16 (−7.88, −0.45)0.0285.69 (1.46, 9.92)0.009
Non-Hispanic White2.67 (−1.78, 7.11)0.238−3.49 (−7.39, 0.41)0.0797.10 (2.72, 11.48)0.002
First biopsy3.35 (0.18, 6.52)0.038−3.33 (−6.12, -0.55)0.0192.22 (−1.01, 5.44)0.176
Low Complement1.66 (−1.73, 5.05) n = 1770.335−0.76 (−3.77, 2.25) n = 1770.6183.67 (0.23, 7.11) n = 1770.037
Anti-dsDNA Positive2.52 (−1.05, 6.1) n = 1690.166−1.46 (−4.62, 1.70) n = 1690.3621.30 (−2.36, 4.95) n = 1690.485
Prednisone >20mg4.12 (0.92, 7.32)0.012−5.60 (−8.35, −2.85)<0.0013.75 (0.51, 6.98)0.024
Nephrotic range proteinuria−0.69 (−4.22, 2.83) n = 1800.698−2.45 (−5.54, 0.63) n = 1800.119−0.21 (−3.76, 3.35) n = 1800.909
Arthritis9.28 (5.23, 13.33)<0.001−10.35 (−13.79, −6.91)<0.0018.72 (4.60, 12.83)<0.001
Rash4.73 (0.73, 8.74)0.021−4.03 (−7.57, −0.50)0.0264.70 (0.65, 8.74)0.023
Alopecia3.69 (−0.55, 7.93)0.088−3.46 (−7.19, 0.27)0.0695.20 (0.95, 9.44)0.017
Serositisa5.71 (−0.39, 11.81)0.066−5.68 (−11.04, −0.32)0.0382.05 (−4.15, 8.25)0.515
Mucosal Ulcers8.40 (1.55, 15.25)0.017−8.10 (−14.11, −2.09)0.0097.38 (0.45, 14.31)0.037

n is specified where it differs from the overall sample size. Bold text highlights significant P-values.

a

Pleurisy and/or pericarditis.

b

Lower value indicates a worse score.

Table 3.

Univariate linear regressions analysis of clinical variables with PROMIS-29 T scores

PredictorPain Interference n = 181
Physical Functionbn = 181
Fatigue n = 181
Estimate (95% CI)P-valueEstimate (95% CI)P-valueEstimate (95% CI)P-value
Age−0.02 (−0.15, 0.12)0.820−0.04 (−0.16, 0.08)0.472−0.04 (−0.18, 0.10)0.584
Sex: Female0.70 (−3.58, 4.97)0.748−4.16 (−7.88, −0.45)0.0285.69 (1.46, 9.92)0.009
Non-Hispanic White2.67 (−1.78, 7.11)0.238−3.49 (−7.39, 0.41)0.0797.10 (2.72, 11.48)0.002
First biopsy3.35 (0.18, 6.52)0.038−3.33 (−6.12, -0.55)0.0192.22 (−1.01, 5.44)0.176
Low Complement1.66 (−1.73, 5.05) n = 1770.335−0.76 (−3.77, 2.25) n = 1770.6183.67 (0.23, 7.11) n = 1770.037
Anti-dsDNA Positive2.52 (−1.05, 6.1) n = 1690.166−1.46 (−4.62, 1.70) n = 1690.3621.30 (−2.36, 4.95) n = 1690.485
Prednisone >20mg4.12 (0.92, 7.32)0.012−5.60 (−8.35, −2.85)<0.0013.75 (0.51, 6.98)0.024
Nephrotic range proteinuria−0.69 (−4.22, 2.83) n = 1800.698−2.45 (−5.54, 0.63) n = 1800.119−0.21 (−3.76, 3.35) n = 1800.909
Arthritis9.28 (5.23, 13.33)<0.001−10.35 (−13.79, −6.91)<0.0018.72 (4.60, 12.83)<0.001
Rash4.73 (0.73, 8.74)0.021−4.03 (−7.57, −0.50)0.0264.70 (0.65, 8.74)0.023
Alopecia3.69 (−0.55, 7.93)0.088−3.46 (−7.19, 0.27)0.0695.20 (0.95, 9.44)0.017
Serositisa5.71 (−0.39, 11.81)0.066−5.68 (−11.04, −0.32)0.0382.05 (−4.15, 8.25)0.515
Mucosal Ulcers8.40 (1.55, 15.25)0.017−8.10 (−14.11, −2.09)0.0097.38 (0.45, 14.31)0.037
PredictorPain Interference n = 181
Physical Functionbn = 181
Fatigue n = 181
Estimate (95% CI)P-valueEstimate (95% CI)P-valueEstimate (95% CI)P-value
Age−0.02 (−0.15, 0.12)0.820−0.04 (−0.16, 0.08)0.472−0.04 (−0.18, 0.10)0.584
Sex: Female0.70 (−3.58, 4.97)0.748−4.16 (−7.88, −0.45)0.0285.69 (1.46, 9.92)0.009
Non-Hispanic White2.67 (−1.78, 7.11)0.238−3.49 (−7.39, 0.41)0.0797.10 (2.72, 11.48)0.002
First biopsy3.35 (0.18, 6.52)0.038−3.33 (−6.12, -0.55)0.0192.22 (−1.01, 5.44)0.176
Low Complement1.66 (−1.73, 5.05) n = 1770.335−0.76 (−3.77, 2.25) n = 1770.6183.67 (0.23, 7.11) n = 1770.037
Anti-dsDNA Positive2.52 (−1.05, 6.1) n = 1690.166−1.46 (−4.62, 1.70) n = 1690.3621.30 (−2.36, 4.95) n = 1690.485
Prednisone >20mg4.12 (0.92, 7.32)0.012−5.60 (−8.35, −2.85)<0.0013.75 (0.51, 6.98)0.024
Nephrotic range proteinuria−0.69 (−4.22, 2.83) n = 1800.698−2.45 (−5.54, 0.63) n = 1800.119−0.21 (−3.76, 3.35) n = 1800.909
Arthritis9.28 (5.23, 13.33)<0.001−10.35 (−13.79, −6.91)<0.0018.72 (4.60, 12.83)<0.001
Rash4.73 (0.73, 8.74)0.021−4.03 (−7.57, −0.50)0.0264.70 (0.65, 8.74)0.023
Alopecia3.69 (−0.55, 7.93)0.088−3.46 (−7.19, 0.27)0.0695.20 (0.95, 9.44)0.017
Serositisa5.71 (−0.39, 11.81)0.066−5.68 (−11.04, −0.32)0.0382.05 (−4.15, 8.25)0.515
Mucosal Ulcers8.40 (1.55, 15.25)0.017−8.10 (−14.11, −2.09)0.0097.38 (0.45, 14.31)0.037

n is specified where it differs from the overall sample size. Bold text highlights significant P-values.

a

Pleurisy and/or pericarditis.

b

Lower value indicates a worse score.

A stepwise multivariable linear regression analysis confirmed that the associations of arthritis with pain interference, physical function, and fatigue were independent of other clinical parameters (Table 4). Rash, serositis, alopecia and mucosal ulcers were not significantly associated with these PROMIS-29 domains in multivariable models (Table 4). Prednisone dose >20 mg remained significantly associated with worse physical function and White Non-Hispanic race/ethnicity remained significantly associated with worse fatigue in adjusted models (Table 4).

Table 4:

Multivariable linear regression of clinical variables with PROMIS-29 T scores

PredictorPain Interference
Physical Functionb
Fatigue
Adjusted Estimate (95% CI)Adjusted P-valueAdjusted Estimate (95% CI)Adjusted P-valueAdjusted Estimate (95% CI)Adjusted P-value
Sex: Female−2.29 (−5.68, 1.10)0.1853.29 (−0.89, 7.47)0.122
White/Non-Hispanic−2.23 (−5.74, 1.28)0.2125.81 (1.60, 10.03)0.007
First Biopsy
Low Complement2.37 (−0.91, 5.64)0.157
Prednisone >20mg2.44 (−0.72, 5.59)0.129−3.74 (−6.37, −1.11)0.006
Arthritis7.56 (3.30, 11.82)<0.001−8.05 (−11.63, −4.47)<0.0017.06 (2.91, 11.21)<0.001
Rash2.32 (−1.78, 6.42)0.265
Alopecia2.26 (−1.99, 6.51)0.296
Serositisa4.05 (−1.87, 9.96)0.179−3.41 (−8.32, 1.51)0.173
Mucosal Ulcers4.70 (−2.16, 11.55)0.178−3.56 (−9.25, 2.14)0.219
PredictorPain Interference
Physical Functionb
Fatigue
Adjusted Estimate (95% CI)Adjusted P-valueAdjusted Estimate (95% CI)Adjusted P-valueAdjusted Estimate (95% CI)Adjusted P-value
Sex: Female−2.29 (−5.68, 1.10)0.1853.29 (−0.89, 7.47)0.122
White/Non-Hispanic−2.23 (−5.74, 1.28)0.2125.81 (1.60, 10.03)0.007
First Biopsy
Low Complement2.37 (−0.91, 5.64)0.157
Prednisone >20mg2.44 (−0.72, 5.59)0.129−3.74 (−6.37, −1.11)0.006
Arthritis7.56 (3.30, 11.82)<0.001−8.05 (−11.63, −4.47)<0.0017.06 (2.91, 11.21)<0.001
Rash2.32 (−1.78, 6.42)0.265
Alopecia2.26 (−1.99, 6.51)0.296
Serositisa4.05 (−1.87, 9.96)0.179−3.41 (−8.32, 1.51)0.173
Mucosal Ulcers4.70 (−2.16, 11.55)0.178−3.56 (−9.25, 2.14)0.219

Bold text highlights significant P-values.

a

Pleurisy and/or pericarditis.

b

Lower value indicates a worse score.

Table 4:

Multivariable linear regression of clinical variables with PROMIS-29 T scores

PredictorPain Interference
Physical Functionb
Fatigue
Adjusted Estimate (95% CI)Adjusted P-valueAdjusted Estimate (95% CI)Adjusted P-valueAdjusted Estimate (95% CI)Adjusted P-value
Sex: Female−2.29 (−5.68, 1.10)0.1853.29 (−0.89, 7.47)0.122
White/Non-Hispanic−2.23 (−5.74, 1.28)0.2125.81 (1.60, 10.03)0.007
First Biopsy
Low Complement2.37 (−0.91, 5.64)0.157
Prednisone >20mg2.44 (−0.72, 5.59)0.129−3.74 (−6.37, −1.11)0.006
Arthritis7.56 (3.30, 11.82)<0.001−8.05 (−11.63, −4.47)<0.0017.06 (2.91, 11.21)<0.001
Rash2.32 (−1.78, 6.42)0.265
Alopecia2.26 (−1.99, 6.51)0.296
Serositisa4.05 (−1.87, 9.96)0.179−3.41 (−8.32, 1.51)0.173
Mucosal Ulcers4.70 (−2.16, 11.55)0.178−3.56 (−9.25, 2.14)0.219
PredictorPain Interference
Physical Functionb
Fatigue
Adjusted Estimate (95% CI)Adjusted P-valueAdjusted Estimate (95% CI)Adjusted P-valueAdjusted Estimate (95% CI)Adjusted P-value
Sex: Female−2.29 (−5.68, 1.10)0.1853.29 (−0.89, 7.47)0.122
White/Non-Hispanic−2.23 (−5.74, 1.28)0.2125.81 (1.60, 10.03)0.007
First Biopsy
Low Complement2.37 (−0.91, 5.64)0.157
Prednisone >20mg2.44 (−0.72, 5.59)0.129−3.74 (−6.37, −1.11)0.006
Arthritis7.56 (3.30, 11.82)<0.001−8.05 (−11.63, −4.47)<0.0017.06 (2.91, 11.21)<0.001
Rash2.32 (−1.78, 6.42)0.265
Alopecia2.26 (−1.99, 6.51)0.296
Serositisa4.05 (−1.87, 9.96)0.179−3.41 (−8.32, 1.51)0.173
Mucosal Ulcers4.70 (−2.16, 11.55)0.178−3.56 (−9.25, 2.14)0.219

Bold text highlights significant P-values.

a

Pleurisy and/or pericarditis.

b

Lower value indicates a worse score.

Discussion

In this prospective study a majority of LN patients had isolated renal disease and patients with extrarenal manifestations reported significantly worse pain interference, ability to participate in social roles, physical function, and fatigue on PROMIS-29. While patients with isolated renal disease had scores within 0.5 standard deviations of the reference population on all PROMIS domains, patients with extrarenal disease had scores outside this generally accepted ‘normal’ range in the areas of pain interference, physical function, and fatigue [19–21]. Arthritis was most strongly associated with decreased HRQOL in these three domains.

LN has previously been linked to decreased HRQOL, but prior studies on this association are conflicting and a recent systematic review concluded that data on the influence of extrarenal symptoms on HRQOL in LN are lacking [4]. Jolly et al. found patients with active LN reported significantly worse HRQOL using the lupus patient-reported outcome tool (LupusPRO) compared with SLE patients without active LN [22]. Kim et al. and Appenzeller et al. also found that patients with LN had worse physical component scores on the Short-form 36 (SF-36) health survey compared with SLE patients without LN [23, 24]. Chaing and colleagues performed a cross-sectional assessment of the Swiss Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Cohort Study and observed SF-36 subscales reflecting physical and mental health associated with both musculoskeletal and active renal disease [25]. Most recently, Hashemi et al. found renal and skin involvement but not arthritis to be related to decreased HRQOL in an Iranian SLE cohort [26]. In contrast, Clarke et al. did not report a difference in annual change of SF-36 summary scales between SLE patients with chronic renal damage and those without [27]. In the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics inception cohort, Hanly et al. showed that HRQOL between LN and non-LN SLE did not differ overall, but an association between LN and decreased SF-36 physical component was observed when stratifying by eGFR [28]. Consistent with our finding that arthritis was most highly associated with decreased HRQOL in LN, Doria et al. found that in an Italian cohort arthritis-arthralgia, but not other components of disease activity, including renal, associated with worse HRQOL in SLE patients [29]. Similarly, Zhu et al. observed musculoskeletal flares but not renal flares in the preceding year were associated with significantly worse SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales [30]. While some studies on LN did adjust for extrarenal SLEDAI or musculoskeletal symptoms, our study was unique in that it specifically addressed the influence of extrarenal symptoms on a background of active lupus nephritis [23, 24, 26–28].

Routine surveillance for renal involvement is a critical aspect of SLE disease management and medication adherence is essential for patients with LN. Most patients had isolated renal disease and mean PROMIS-29 scores in this group did not fall outside the ‘normal range’ supporting the clinical suspicion that patients are unlikely to sense ongoing renal involvement. This observation is consistent with a recent study by Sun et al. who demonstrated the limited ability of PROMIS-29 to detect type 1 SLE (characterized by active inflammation) compared with type 2 SLE (characterized by fatigue, pain, and cognitive disturbances) [21]. Given that a lack of extrarenal symptoms was common, the additional absence of impaired HRQOL could potentially contribute to a disconnect between LN patients and their treating physicians regarding the severity of their disease and the need for treatment [31–33]. This may pose a barrier to a positive therapeutic relationship and place patients at risk for treatment and medication nonadherence [34, 35]. Through patient surveys and in-depth interviews, Sloan et al. demonstrated that rheumatologists’ listening skills were significantly associated with medication adherence in SLE patients [34]. As such, physicians should be especially mindful to listen to the SLE patients who otherwise feel well and take care to educate them about the need for monitoring of kidney disease even in times of seemingly better health to optimize compliance with LN surveillance and treatment.

Despite recent treat-to-target guidelines recommending HRQOL optimization, only a few LN trials have incorporated HRQOL outcomes [4, 36, 37]. Using SF-36, Grootscholten et al. found significant improvements in HRQOL at one year of treatment with either cyclophosphamide or azathioprine with methylprednisolone but found few differences between these two arms [38]. Rovin et al. reported no difference in SF-36 physical function scores after one year of rituximab compared with placebo [39]. Furie et al. did not identify an improvement in any SF-36 domain with abatacept over placebo at one year [40]. Similarly, Askanase et al. found no significant difference in SF-36 physical and mental component summary scores between abatacept and placebo at 24 weeks [41]. In contrast, belimumab resulted in significant improvements in the SF-36 physical component summary score in the phase 3 trial of this drug, an effect that was sustained over six years in a continuation study [42, 43]. Other randomized trials such as the recent phase 3 voclosporin and phase 2 obinutuzumab trials did not include HRQOL as a secondary outcome [44, 45]. Importantly none of these studies examined whether extrarenal manifestations confounded HRQOL outcomes, though the belimumab study did adjust for overall SLEDAI. The association of extrarenal symptoms with PROMIS-29 scores in AMP suggests that future trials incorporating HRQOL outcome measures should consider stratifying on extrarenal disease, specifically arthritis.

The strengths of this study were that it was prospective, multicentre, and included a diverse multiracial/ethnic cohort with a range of disease activities who were observed in a real-world setting. Moreover, this study used PROMIS-29 which is likely to be one of the preferred patient-reported outcome measures moving forward including in clinical trials [46, 47]. Several limitations are also acknowledged. The PROMIS-29 questionnaire may not be sensitive enough to detect diminished HRQOL in pure renal patients, and the possibility that these patients report subjective symptoms not captured on PROMIS-29 to physicians during clinical encounters cannot be discounted. Patients were evaluated at academic centres by rheumatologists specializing in SLE which likely helped to ensure the accuracy of SELENA-SLEDAI assessments, however, this may limit the generalizability of the findings when considering patients followed in other settings. The association between HRQOL and component extrarenal manifestations was limited by a small sample size. We did not correct for multiple statistical comparisons due to the exploratory nature of the study and limited sample size raising the possibility of type I error. Data on precise disease duration, education level, socioeconomic status, and comorbidities including fibromyalgia which have been shown to be associated with HRQOL outcomes were not available [4, 48–50]. This analysis relied on first vs repeat biopsy as a proxy for a measure of disease duration because data on other factors that capture longstanding illness such as damage indices were not recorded. Missing information on very rare SLE manifestations not captured on the SELENA-SLEDAI (such as gastrointestinal involvement) might misclassify patients, but this is unlikely. Due to a lack of sufficient follow-up PROMIS-29 data, a reliable longitudinal assessment could not be performed. Since this was a cross-sectional analysis, only associations and not causal inferences can be obtained. Future longitudinal studies are needed to further understand the relationship between extrarenal manifestations and HRQOL in LN patients.

In summary, this study showed that isolated renal disease is common in patients with LN and that these patients may not report decreased HRQOL. Comparatively, patients with extrarenal disease, specifically arthritis, report significantly worse HRQOL as measured by PROMIS-29. These results reinforce the critical importance of routine laboratory surveillance for nephritis and education concerning medication adherence even in SLE patients with seemingly quiescent nonrenal clinical disease. These findings also suggest that the presence of extrarenal manifestations is associated with a higher burden of illness including increased physical limitations and pain interference, highlighting the importance of comprehensive disease management strategies that address both renal and extrarenal manifestations to improve overall patient outcomes.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material is available at Rheumatology online.

Data availability

Data underlying this article will be deposited in the public domain by the AMP RA/SLE Network at a future date.

Funding

This work was supported by the Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP) in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Lupus Network. AMP is a public-private partnership (AbbVie Inc., Arthritis Foundation, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Research and Development, LLC, Lupus Foundation of America, Lupus Research Alliance, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, Pfizer Inc., Rheumatology Research Foundation, Sanofi and Takeda Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.) created to develop new ways of identifying and validating promising biological targets for diagnostics and drug development Funding was provided through grants from the National Institutes of Health (UH2-AR067676, UH2-AR067677, UH2-AR067679, UH2-AR067681, UH2-AR067685, UH2- AR067688, UH2-AR067689, UH2-AR067690, UH2-AR067691, UH2-AR067694 and UM2- AR067678).

Disclosure statement: The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all the patients who participated in this study. They would also like to thank Benjamin Wainwright for his assistance with the manuscript. Supplementary Data S1, available at Rheumatology online, lists The Accelerating Medicines Partnership in RA/SLE Network contributors.

References

1

Tsokos
GC.
Systemic lupus erythematosus
.
New Engl J Med
2011
;
365
:
2110
21
.

2

Saxena
R
,
Mahajan
T
,
Mohan
C.
Lupus nephritis: current update
.
Arthritis Res Ther
2011
;
13
:
240
.

3

Petri
M
,
Kim
MY
,
Kalunian
KC
et al. ;
OC-SELENA Trial
.
Combined oral contraceptives in women with systemic lupus erythematosus
.
New Engl J Med
2005
;
353
:
2550
8
.

4

Kharawala
S
,
Kaur
G
,
Shukla
H
et al.
Health-related quality of life, fatigue and health utilities in lupus nephritis: a systematic literature review
.
Lupus
2022
;
31
:
1029
44
.

5

Bernatsky
S
,
Boivin
J-F
,
Joseph
L
et al.
Mortality in systemic lupus erythematosus
.
Arthritis Rheum
2006
;
54
:
2550
7
.

6

Moroni
G
,
Vercelloni
PG
,
Quaglini
S
et al.
Changing patterns in clinical–histological presentation and renal outcome over the last five decades in a cohort of 499 patients with lupus nephritis
.
Ann Rheum Dis
2018
;
77
:
1318
25
.

7

Katz
P
,
Pedro
S
,
Michaud
K.
Performance of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system 29-item profile in rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, and systemic lupus erythematosus
.
Arthritis Care Res
2017
;
69
:
1312
21
.

8

Witter
JP.
The promise of patient-reported outcomes measurement information system-turning theory into reality: a uniform approach to patient-reported outcomes across rheumatic diseases
.
Rheum Dis Clin North Am
2016
;
42
:
377
94
.

9

Katz
P
,
Yazdany
J
,
Trupin
L
et al.
Psychometric evaluation of the national institutes of health patient-reported outcomes measurement information system in a multiracial, multiethnic systemic lupus erythematosus cohort
.
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)
2019
;
71
:
1630
9
.

10

Lai
JS
,
Beaumont
JL
,
Jensen
SE
et al.
An evaluation of health-related quality of life in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus using PROMIS and Neuro-QoL
.
Clin Rheumatol
2017
;
36
:
555
62
.

11

Katz
P
,
Pedro
S
,
Alemao
E
et al.
Estimates of responsiveness, minimally important differences, and patient acceptable symptom state in five patient-reported outcomes measurement information system short forms in systemic lupus erythematosus
.
ACR Open Rheumatol
2020
;
2
:
53
60
.

12

Kasturi
S
,
Szymonifka
J
,
Burket
JC
et al.
Validity and reliability of patient reported outcomes measurement information system computerized adaptive tests in systemic lupus erythematosus
.
J Rheumatol
2017
;
44
:
1024
31
.

13

Fava
A
,
Raychaudhuri
S
,
Rao
DA.
The power of systems biology: insights on lupus nephritis from the accelerating medicines partnership
.
Rheum Dis Clin North Am
2021
;
47
:
335
50
.

14

Izmirly
PM
,
Kim
MY
,
Carlucci
PM
et al. ;
Accelerating Medicines Partnership in RA/SLE Network
.
Longitudinal patterns and predictors of response to standard of care therapy in lupus nephritis: data from the accelerating medicines partnership lupus network
.
Arthritis Res Ther
2024
;
26
:
54
.

15

Carlucci
PM
,
Li
J
,
Fava
A
et al. ;
Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP) RA/SLE Network
.
High incidence of proliferative and membranous nephritis in SLE patients with low proteinuria in the Accelerating Medicines Partnership
.
Rheumatology (Oxford)
2022
;
61
:
4335
43
.

16

Hochberg
MC.
Updating the American college of rheumatology revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus
.
Arthritis Rheum
1997
;
40
:
1725

17

Petri
M
,
Orbai
A-M
,
Alarcón
GS
et al.
Derivation and validation of the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus
.
Arthritis Rheum
2012
;
64
:
2677
86
.

18

Bajema
IM
,
Wilhelmus
S
,
Alpers
CE
et al.
Revision of the International Society of Nephrology/Renal Pathology Society classification for lupus nephritis: clarification of definitions, and modified National Institutes of Health activity and chronicity indices
.
Kid Int
2018
;
93
:
789
96
.

19

Norman
GR
,
Sloan
JA
,
Wyrwich
KW.
Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation
.
Med Care
2003
;
41
:
582
92
.

20

Horn
ME
,
Reinke
EK
,
Yan
X
et al. ;
Comprehensive Outcomes in Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation Data System (COORDS) group
.
Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures to characterise health status for patients seeking care from an orthopaedic provider: a retrospective cohort study
.
BMJ Open
2021
;
11
:
e047156
.

21

Sun
K
,
Eudy
AM
,
Harris
N
et al.
Using PROMIS-29 to determine symptom burdens in the context of the Type 1 and 2 systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) model: a cross sectional study
.
J Patient-Rep Outcomes
2023
;
7
:
136
.

22

Jolly
M
,
Toloza
S
,
Goker
B
et al.
Disease-specific quality of life in patients with lupus nephritis
.
Lupus
2018
;
27
:
257
64
.

23

Kim
SK
,
Choe
JY
,
Lee
SS.
Self-reported physical activity is associated with lupus nephritis in systemic lupus erythematosus: data from KORean Lupus Network (KORNET) registry
.
Yonsei Med J
2018
;
59
:
857
64
.

24

Appenzeller
S
,
Clarke
AE
,
Panopalis
P
et al.
The relationship between renal activity and quality of life in systemic lupus erythematosus
.
J Rheumatol
2009
;
36
:
947
52
.

25

Chaigne
B
,
Chizzolini
C
,
Perneger
T
et al. ;
Swiss Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Cohort Study Group
.
Impact of disease activity on health-related quality of life in systemic lupus erythematosus—a cross-sectional analysis of the Swiss Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Cohort Study (SSCS)
.
BMC Immunol
2017
;
18
:
17
.

26

Hashemi
S
,
Farahbakhsh
S
,
Aghakhani
Z
et al.
Health-related quality of life and its related factors in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus in southwest Iran: a cross-sectional study
.
BMC Psychol
2023
;
11
:
259
.

27

Clarke
AE
,
Panopalis
P
,
Petri
M
et al.
SLE patients with renal damage incur higher health care costs
.
Rheumatology
2008
;
47
:
329
33
.

28

Hanly
JG
,
O'Keeffe
AG
,
Su
L
et al.
The frequency and outcome of lupus nephritis: results from an international inception cohort study
.
Rheumatology (Oxford)
2016
;
55
:
252
62
.

29

Doria
A
,
Rinaldi
S
,
Ermani
M
et al.
Health-related quality of life in Italian patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. II. Role of clinical, immunological and psychological determinants
.
Rheumatology
2004
;
43
:
1580
6
.

30

Zhu
TY
,
Tam
L-S
,
Lee
VWY
,
Lee
KK
,
Li
EK.
Relationship between flare and health-related quality of life in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus
.
J Rheumatol
2010
;
37
:
568
73
.

31

Alarcón
GS
,
McGwin
G
Jr
,
Brooks
K
et al. ;
LUMINA Study Group. Lupus in Minority populations: Nature versus nurture
.
Systemic lupus erythematosus in three ethnic groups. XI. Sources of discrepancy in perception of disease activity: a comparison of physician and patient visual analog scale scores
.
Arthritis Care Res
2002
;
47
:
408
13
.

32

Yen
JC
,
Abrahamowicz
M
,
Dobkin
PL
et al.
Determinants of discordance between patients and physicians in their assessment of lupus disease activity
.
J Rheumatol
2003
;
30
:
1967
76
.

33

Mozaffarian
N
,
Lobosco
S
,
Lu
P
,
Roughley
A
,
Alperovich
G.
Satisfaction with control of systemic lupus erythematosus and lupus nephritis: physician and patient perspectives
.
Patient Prefer Adherence
2016
;
10
:
2051
61
.

34

Sloan
M
,
Lever
E
,
Gordon
C
et al.
Medication decision-making and adherence in lupus: patient-physician discordance and the impact of previous ‘adverse medical experiences’
.
Rheumatology (Oxford)
2022
;
61
:
1417
29
.

35

Garcia Popa-Lisseanu
MG
,
Greisinger
A
,
Richardson
M
et al.
Determinants of treatment adherence in ethnically diverse, economically disadvantaged patients with rheumatic disease
.
J Rheumatol
2005
;
32
:
913
9
.

36

Fanouriakis
A
,
Kostopoulou
M
,
Cheema
K
et al.
2019 Update of the Joint European League Against Rheumatism and European Renal Association–European Dialysis and Transplant Association (EULAR/ERA–EDTA) recommendations for the management of lupus nephritis
.
Ann Rheum Dis
2020
;
79
:
713
23
.

37

Vollenhoven
R
,
Mosca
M
,
Bertsias
G
et al.
Treat-to-target in systemic lupus erythematosus: recommendations from an international task force
.
Ann Rheum Dis
2014
;
73
:
958
67
.

38

Grootscholten
C
,
Snoek
FJ
,
Bijl
M
et al. ;
Dutch Working Party of SLE
.
Health-related quality of life and treatment burden in patients with proliferative lupus nephritis treated with cyclophosphamide or azathioprine/methylprednisolone in a randomized controlled trial
.
J Rheumatol
2007
;
34
:
1699
707
.

39

Rovin
BH
,
Furie
R
,
Latinis
K
et al. ;
LUNAR Investigator Group
.
Efficacy and safety of rituximab in patients with active proliferative lupus nephritis: the lupus nephritis assessment with rituximab study
.
Arthritis Rheum
2012
;
64
:
1215
26
.

40

Furie
R
,
Nicholls
K
,
Cheng
T-T
et al.
Efficacy and safety of abatacept in lupus nephritis: a twelve-month, randomized, double-blind study
.
Arthritis Rheumatol
2014
;
66
:
379
89
.

41

Group
TAT.
Treatment of lupus nephritis with abatacept: the abatacept and cyclophosphamide combination efficacy and safety study
.
Arthritis Rheumatol
2014
;
66
:
3096
104
.

42

Strand
V
,
Berry
P
,
Lin
X
et al.
Long-term impact of belimumab on health-related quality of life and fatigue in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: six years of treatment
.
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)
2019
;
71
:
829
38
.

43

Furie
R
,
Petri
M
,
Zamani
O
et al. ;
BLISS-76 Study Group
.
A phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled study of belimumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits B lymphocyte stimulator, in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus
.
Arthritis Rheum
2011
;
63
:
3918
30
.

44

Rovin
BH
,
Teng
YKO
,
Ginzler
EM
et al.
Efficacy and safety of voclosporin versus placebo for lupus nephritis (AURORA 1): a double-blind, randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial
.
Lancet
2021
;
397
:
2070
80
.

45

Furie
RA
,
Aroca
G
,
Cascino
MD
et al.
B-cell depletion with obinutuzumab for the treatment of proliferative lupus nephritis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
.
Ann Rheum Dis
2022
;
81
:
100
7
.

46

Izadi
Z
,
Gandrup
J
,
Katz
PP
,
Yazdany
J.
Patient-reported outcome measures for use in clinical trials of SLE: a review
.
Lupus Sci Med
2018
;
5
:
e000279
.

47

Nguyen
MH
,
Huang
FF
,
O'Neill
SG.
Patient-reported outcomes for quality of life in SLE: essential in clinical trials and ready for routine care
.
J Clin Med
2021
;
10
:
3754
.

48

Gladman
DD
,
Urowitz
MB
,
Gough
J
,
MacKinnon
A.
Fibromyalgia is a major contributor to quality of life in lupus
.
J Rheumatol
1997
;
24
:
2145
8
.

49

Mielck
A
,
Vogelmann
M
,
Leidl
R.
Health-related quality of life and socioeconomic status: inequalities among adults with a chronic disease
.
Health Qual Life Outcomes
2014
;
12
:
58
.

50

Corbitt
K
,
Carlucci
PM
,
Cohen
B
et al.
Clinical and serologic phenotyping and damage indices in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus with and without fibromyalgia
.
ACR Open Rheumatol
2024
. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr2.11641.

Author notes

P.M.I., J.B., and M.P. contributed equally.

§

See Supplementary Data S1, available at Rheumatology online for a list of the Accelerating Medicines Partnership in the RA/SLE Network.

This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/pages/standard-publication-reuse-rights)

Supplementary data

Comments

0 Comments
Submit a comment
You have entered an invalid code
Thank you for submitting a comment on this article. Your comment will be reviewed and published at the journal's discretion. Please check for further notifications by email.