Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Remission or low disease activity as a target in systemic lupus erythematosus
  1. Manuel Francisco Ugarte-Gil1,2,
  2. Daniel Wojdyla3,
  3. Guillermo J Pons-Estel4,
  4. Bernardo A Pons-Estel5,
  5. Graciela S Alarcón6
  6. on behalf of GLADEL
  1. 1Department of Rheumatology, Hospital Guillermo Almenara Irigoyen, EsSalud, Lima, Peru
  2. 2School of Medicine, Universidad Científica del Sur, Lima, Peru
  3. 3School of Medicine, Universidad Nacional de Rosario, Rosario, Argentina
  4. 4Department of Autoimmune Diseases, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain
  5. 5Department of Rheumatology, Centro Regional de Enfermedades Autoinmunes y Reumáticas (CREAR), Sanatorio Parque, Rosario, Argentina
  6. 6Department of Medicine, Division of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, School of Medicine, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
  1. Correspondence to Manuel Francisco Ugarte-Gil, Department of Rheumatology, Hospital Guillermo Almenara Irigoyen, EsSalud, Lima 33, Peru; manuel_ugarte{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

We read the report by Zen et al1 on the impact of lupus low disease activity state (LLDAS) on damage accrual with great interest and would like to congratulate the authors on their work. In this single-centre Caucasian cohort, followed for 7 years, only 38 of their 293 patients (11.3%) failed to achieve LLDAS for at least 1 year; moreover, of the 255 patients who achieved LLDAS for at least 1 year, 246 (96.5%) also satisfied the definition of remission for the same length of time. And, in 214 (83.9%) patients, the duration of remission was the same as that of LLDAS. Being in LLDAS for at least 2 years was associated with a reduced risk of damage; …

View Full Text


  • i Our data were not cited by Zen et al as the dates of both the publications, theirs and ours, were quite close in time.

  • Contributors All authors were involved in drafting or critically revising this manuscript for important intellectual content, and all authors approved the final version to be published.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles