Table 3

Arguments for and against the statement “Durability in time can be added to any definition of remission in order to define a ‘durable remission’ but need not be included in the definition of remission itself”

In favour of the original statement
(ie, the definition of remission does not have to include the duration)		Against the original statement
(ie, the definition of remission does have to include the duration)

  • ▸ Definitions of remission in other autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis35 and Crohn's disease,36 do not include durability

  • ▸ As SLE can be remitting-relapsing,37 for a patient to be in remission at one specific point in time may not be clinically relevant

  • ▸ Including durability in the definition itself would severely limit the use of the definition as an outcome in clinical trials

  • ▸ Remission for only a short period of time has little relevance in SLE

  • ▸ Duration can always be added to the analyses in which the definition is used

  • SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus.