You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 76, Issue 11
  • European evidence-based recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus: the SHARE initiative

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Recommendation
European evidence-based recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus: the SHARE initiative
  1. Noortje Groot1,2,
  2. Nienke de Graeff1,
  3. Tadej Avcin3,
  4. Brigitte Bader-Meunier4,
  5. Paul Brogan5,
  6. Pavla Dolezalova6,
  7. Brian Feldman7,
  8. Isabelle Kone-Paut8,
  9. Pekka Lahdenne9,
  10. Stephen D Marks5,
  11. Liza McCann10,
  12. Seza Ozen11,
  13. Clarissa Pilkington5,
  14. Angelo Ravelli12,
  15. Annet van Royen-Kerkhof1,
  16. Yosef Uziel13,
  17. Bas Vastert1,
  18. Nico Wulffraat1,
  19. Sylvia Kamphuis2,
  20. Michael W Beresford10,14
  1. 1Wilhelmina Children’s Hospital, Utrecht, Netherlands
  2. 2Sophia Children’s Hospital, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands
  3. 3University Children’s Hospital Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
  4. 4Necker Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
  5. 5Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  6. 6General University Hospital, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
  7. 7The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  8. 8Bicêtre Hospital, APHP, University of Paris Sud, Paris, France
  9. 9Hospital for Children and Adolescents, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
  10. 10Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
  11. 11Department of Pediatrics, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
  12. 12Università degli Studi di Genova and Istituto Giannina Gaslini, Genoa, Italy
  13. 13Meir Medical Center, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel
  14. 14Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Noortje Groot, Department of Paediatric Immunology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Lundlaan 6, Utrecht 3584 EA, The Netherlands; n.groot{at}erasmusmc.nl

Abstract

Childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (cSLE) is a rare, multisystem and potentially life-threatening autoimmune disorder with significant associated morbidity. Evidence-based guidelines are sparse and management is often based on clinical expertise. SHARE (Single Hub and Access point for paediatric Rheumatology in Europe) was launched to optimise and disseminate management regimens for children and young adults with rheumatic diseases like cSLE. Here, we provide evidence-based recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of cSLE. In view of extent and complexity of cSLE and its various manifestations, recommendations for lupus nephritis and antiphospholipid syndrome will be published separately. Recommendations were generated using the EULAR (European League Against Rheumatism) standard operating procedure. An expert committee consisting of paediatric rheumatologists and representation of paediatric nephrology from across Europe discussed evidence-based recommendations during two consensus meetings. Recommendations were accepted if >80% agreement was reached. A total of 25 recommendations regarding key approaches to diagnosis and treatment of cSLE were made. The recommendations include 11 on diagnosis, 9 on disease monitoring and 5 on general treatment. Topics included: appropriate use of SLE classification criteria, disease activity and damage indices; adequate assessment of autoantibody profiles; secondary macrophage activation syndrome; use of hydroxychloroquine and corticosteroid-sparing regimens; and the importance of addressing poor adherence. Ten recommendations were accepted regarding general diagnostic strategies and treatment indications of neuropsychiatric cSLE. The SHARE recommendations for cSLE and neuropsychiatric manifestations of cSLE have been formulated by an evidence-based consensus process to support uniform, high-quality standards of care for children with cSLE.

  • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
  • Treatment
  • Corticosteroids
  • Disease Activity
  • Autoantibodies

https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210960

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    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.

    Introduction

    Childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (cSLE) is a severe, chronic, systemic autoimmune disease that has great impact on the child or young person affected. cSLE shares its pathogenesis with adult-onset SLE, but generally has a more severe clinical phenotype.1–8

    With an incidence of 0.3–0.9 per 100 000 children-years and a prevalence ranging from 1.89 to 25.7 per 100 000 children worldwide (reviewed in refs9–11), including Europe,12–16 cSLE fulfils the definition of a rare disease in Europe.17 Its low prevalence makes clinical research challenging, resulting in a paucity of evidence-based data and subsequent guidelines for disease management. Consequently, the management of patients with cSLE differs widely between countries.18 Treatment approaches can vary between clinicians even within centres. To foster equity of access to the highest standards of care and uniformity of practice, evidence-based international guidelines are therefore urgently needed.

    To achieve this, collaboration between countries is necessary. For this reason, the SHARE (Single Hub and Access point for paediatric Rheumatology in Europe) project was initiated.18 One of the key objectives of this project was to provide guidance regarding best practices for the diagnosis and management of paediatric rheumatic diseases. SHARE recommendations for autoinflammatory diseases and juvenile dermatomyositis have been published.19–21 Here, we present SHARE recommendations for cSLE. In view of extent and complexity of cSLE, SHARE recommendations for lupus nephritis (LN) and antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) will be published separately.

    Methods

    A European-wide panel of 16 paediatric rheumatologists and representation of paediatric nephrology was established to develop evidence-based recommendations. A project plan for the systematic literature search was written following the EULAR (European League Against Rheumatism) standardised operating procedure.22 SHARE was a European Union (EU)-funded project and as such there was a prerequisite for representative disease experts from across Europe to form the expert panel, with inclusion of a selected number of disease experts from outside the EU.

    Systematic literature search and study selection

    A systematic literature search based on specific research questions was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases in July 2013 (see online supplementary table S1). A validated filter was used to specifically select articles on children and adolescents only.23 The filter was adapted for cSLE to exclude neonates, as neonatal lupus was beyond the scope of the review (see online supplementary table S2). The literature search also included LN and paediatric APS. These topics will be discussed separately from this article.

    Supplementary Material

    Supplementary Table 1

    Validity assessment

    Two reviewers (NG, NdG) independently screened all articles according to the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.

    Articles were reviewed independently by two cSLE experts from European panel (MWB, SK, TA, AR, IKP, BBM, CP). They assessed level of evidence and methodological quality of the articles (see online supplementary tables S3 and S4).24 25 Data extraction was done by the experts using predefined data extraction forms adapted from classification tables for epidemiologic, diagnostic26 and therapeutic27 studies. If there were any discrepancies, a third expert was asked to give a final assessment.

    Establishment of recommendations

    The results of the literature review were mapped against the a priori research questions, and provisional recommendations were formulated (NG, NdG, SK, MWB). If no literature in children could be found to map against a particular recommendation, adult literature was consulted. The expert committee (TA, BBM, PB, PD, IKP, PL, LM, SO, CP, AR, AvR, YU, NW, SK, MWB) was presented with the provisional recommendations in web-based surveys (100% response rate) and gave their opinions on the statements. Recommendations were revised according to responses to the surveys and discussed at two sequential face-to-face consensus meetings in March 2014 (Genova, number of experts participating, n=15; moderators: BF and AR) and March 2015 (Barcelona, n=14; moderator: BF).

    To reach consensus, the nominal group technique was used, in which equal participation from group members is ensured.28 Recommendations were accepted when agreement was at least 80%. This process resulted in a final set of prioritised recommendations.

    Results

    Figure 1 summarises the results of the literature search. A total of 9341 articles were identified and reviewed regarding treatment and management of cSLE, of which 133 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. We identified 51 articles relating to diagnosis and management of cSLE generally, and 27 articles to neuropsychiatric manifestations of cSLE, all were scored by the experts (see online supplementary table S1). The 55 articles pertaining to LN informed a specific set of complimentary recommendations that will be published separately.

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Summary of the literature search. cSLE, childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus; LN, lupus nephritis; NP-cSLE, neuropsychiatric cSLE; NP-SLE, neuropsychiatric SLE; SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus.

    The meetings resulted in 25 recommendations pertaining to the diagnosis and treatment of cSLE (table 1) and 10 for neuropsychiatric cSLE (NP-cSLE) (table 2). The recommendations in this paper can be used for all patients in whom cSLE is suspected or diagnosed.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Recommendations for cSLE—diagnostic procedures, management and treatment

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Recommendations for NP-cSLE—diagnostic procedures and treatment

    The most severe symptom(s) or sign(s) should guide treatment decisions when considering these recommendations. For example, when a patient suffers from mild haematological involvement as well as severe neuropsychiatric disease, the latter should guide the treatment choice.

    General diagnostic recommendations

    Prompt, accurate diagnosis of cSLE in a specialist centre is crucial to enable timely initiation of appropriate treatment, including multidisciplinary care. However, there are no validated diagnostic criteria for cSLE. Despite some differences regarding symptoms at onset, pattern of organ involvement and severity of disease between cSLE and adult-onset disease,3 29 their similarities mean that the established American College of Rheumatology (ACR) classification criteria for SLE are widely used for cSLE.30 In 2012, new classification criteria for SLE were published.31 To date, two studies have assessed the performance of these Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) classification criteria for SLE in children.6 7 Both concluded that although some specificity may be lost, the SLICC criteria had better sensitivity than the ACR criteria. Evidence to date indicates the SLICC criteria may well be preferable in cSLE, and should be used to aid referral to, or at least consultation with a paediatric rheumatologist. Similarly, they may help prompt referral, even if a child does not yet meet full criteria, since these are classification and not diagnostic criteria.

    A hallmark of SLE is the presence of autoantibodies, particularly those directed towards nuclear autoantigens (antinuclear antibodies, ANA). Next to ANA, autoantibodies including anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA), anti-Sm, anti-RNP, anti-Ro/SS-A and anti-La/SS-B (collectively referred to as ‘ENA’ (extractable nuclear antigens)) are prevalent in cSLE: dsDNA 54%–93%; anti-Sm 17%–52%; anti-RNP 22%–50%; anti-Ro/SS-A 33%–54%; anti-La/SS-B 14%–32%.5 32–38 As such, including all of these antibodies in the diagnostic work-up when considering cSLE was strongly recommended. However, there are no antibodies with specific predictive qualities (eg, disease severity, organ involvement, age of onset) despite extensive efforts to find them.39–47 Notably, patients negative for anti-dsDNA antibodies and/or ENA can still be diagnosed with cSLE.

    Hereditary complement deficiencies can predispose to lupus or lupus-like disease at an early age. Early recognition of these deficiencies should facilitate adequate treatment of disease and comorbidities including infections, which are especially important as these patients seem to have a higher mortality.48 49 Therefore, screening for complement deficiencies via CH50, AP50, C3 and C4 (or other validated classic and alternative complement pathway assay) is important in cSLE, especially in young patients with lupus. It was also recognised that there are other causes of monogenic lupus outside of the complement pathway, thus normal complement screening assay results do not preclude this possibility.50 51

    Cardiopulmonary involvement

    Although unusual in cSLE, cardiac and pulmonary involvement does occur, but is often asymptomatic initially.52–60 Respiratory symptoms or signs such as exertional intolerance could be a sign of pulmonary or cardiac pathology. However, there is a wide differential diagnosis that must be considered and use of appropriate diagnostic procedures should consequently be performed to find out whether cardiopulmonary involvement is due to cSLE.

    Early recognition of cardiopulmonary involvement is important when trying to prevent subsequent organ damage. Therefore, a baseline echocardiography and ECG screen in every patient with cSLE for cardiopulmonary involvement is advised. Additionally, intermittent monitoring for any future progression or new involvement of these organ systems over time can be considered, as it is not clear how many children with asymptomatic cardiopulmonary involvement become symptomatic.

    Macrophage activation syndrome

    Macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) is a rare but severe, potentially life-threatening complication of cSLE, characterised by high fever, associated in some patients with organ involvement (neurological symptoms, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly), pancytopenia, coagulopathy, elevation of liver enzymes, ferritin and triglycerides.61 62 Preliminary recommendations for timely diagnosis and correct classification of MAS in cSLE have been developed.61 Patients can develop MAS at any time during their disease. Distinguishing sepsis from MAS can be difficult, as they may share features such as fever, cytopenias and hepatic involvement, both resulting in systemic inflammation. There are differences, as for example ferritin levels in MAS tend to increase dramatically, whereas hyperferritinaemia is generally more modest in sepsis.63 64 A bone marrow aspirate should be performed to assess the cause of cytopenias and to detect possible haemophagocytosis. This will help in making a diagnosis of MAS. As MAS can be rapidly progressive and life threatening, the threshold for diagnostic procedures should be low. However, if the patient is clinically unstable, treatment should not be delayed if a bone marrow aspirate is not possible.

    Monitoring and general management

    The frequency of visits to the paediatric outpatient clinic is dependent on clinical presentation, disease severity as well as the age of the patient. Visits should be regular, especially at diagnosis and following flares and a basic set of investigations is recommended for each visit.65 66 Consensus was reached on preliminary criteria for global flares in cSLE.67 Further validation studies are needed to confirm the usefulness of the cSLE flare criteria in research and for clinical care. The recommended frequency of visits as well as the important clinical parameters that should be checked at each visit is similar to the recommendations for adult-onset disease.68–70 In addition, regular height and weight monitoring is important, as well as pubertal assessment. Growth impairment can occur in children with cSLE, which can be difficult to overcome and may lead to a lower final height due to continuous disease activity and/or corticosteroid use. Similarly, these factors can contribute to delayed pubertal development. Prepubertal and peripubertal patients receiving a high cumulative dose of corticosteroids are specifically at risk for both growth impairment and pubertal delay, which must be proactively assessed.71 72

    It is strongly recommended that disease activity, response to treatment and disease damage should be regularly and comprehensively assessed using standardised tools to monitor disease progression. Many tools are available for this purpose.73–75 For example, disease activity can be monitored with the paediatric British Isles Lupus Assessment Group index or the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000.73 75–77 Disease damage should also be comprehensively assessed annually, for example using the paediatric version of the SLICC/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index.71

    A broad range of ocular manifestations including retinopathy or optic nerve disease can occur in cSLE. Additionally, two of the most commonly used drugs for SLE, corticosteroids and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), can affect the eyes.78–80 Therefore, it is recommended that patients have access to the expertise of paediatric ophthalmology. Paucity of evidence regarding ophthalmological risks due to long-term corticosteroids and HCQ use means that annual examination of the eyes should be considered in the paediatric age group.81

    Despite minimal published evidence supporting the benefits of sun protection in patients with cSLE, sunscreens are widely recommended to prevent photosensitive rashes and as part of general disease management. One study in 11 adult patients with SLE showed that some, but not all types of sunscreen prevented the development of ultraviolet radiation-induced skin lesions.82

    Adolescent patients need to be supported through the transition process and prepared for transfer of their care to the adult services once they reach adulthood. During adolescence, patients need to develop self-management skills and become responsible for their own health.83–86 One of the major challenges during the transitional process is non-adherence to treatments,84 87 which should be addressed frequently at outpatient clinics. EULAR recommendations for this transitional process have been published to support professionals in designing a coordinated transition programme.88

    General treatment recommendations

    It is recommended that all children with lupus should be on HCQ routinely. A systematic review of 95 articles analysing the beneficial and adverse effects of antimalarial therapies such as HCQ in adults with SLE showed a broad spectrum of beneficial effects, such as a higher remission rate, less relapses and less accrual of damage. Additionally, HCQ has a favourable safety profile.89 Adult studies show that long-term use of HCQ is relatively safe, although the risk of retinopathy increases with the increasing cumulative dose.89 Unfortunately, no such evidence is available for children with cSLE, but studies in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis show that doses up to 6 mg/kg/day (based on lean body weight) are safe to use.90

    Lack of adherence has been associated with a higher disease activity and more damage.91–93 Rates of non-adherence can be as high as 50% and disease severity does not guarantee medication adherence.94 Therefore, adherence should be checked whenever a patient shows poor response to a treatment, measuring medication (trough) levels may be helpful to detect non-adherence. When a patient experiences side effects from a drug, choice of therapy will need to be reassessed and switched if necessary. If disease severity is such that tapering of oral prednisolone is not possible despite adequate compliance to oral prednisone and HCQ, addition of a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) is recommended to improve disease control and permit subsequent corticosteroid tapering. Examples of DMARDs often used include mycophenolate mofetil, azathioprine, methotrexate or cyclophosphamide in severe cases.

    The use of rituximab has been described in six studies including a total of 115 individual patients with cSLE. All patients had acute, life-threatening symptoms or symptoms that did not respond to standard treatment. Two dose regimens were described, which both proved to be effective and safe in the majority of the patients.95–100

    Diagnostic recommendations

    NP-cSLE can be a common manifestation of lupus in children.101–108 To promote uniformity and comparability between NP-SLE manifestations in children and adults and in view of the limited available evidence in NP-cSLE, it is recommended that the ACR nomenclature and case definitions for NP-SLE109 are also used in cSLE. It must be taken into account however that the ACR nomenclature was designed for adults and some of the diagnostic or screening tests listed here cannot be used for children. As is the case in adult-onset NP-SLE, no single clinical, laboratory, neuropsychological or imaging test can be used in children to differentiate NP-cSLE from other causes of neuropsychiatric manifestations. There have been some small studies aiming at identification of specific biomarkers or imaging techniques for neuropsychiatric involvement in cSLE, but large controlled studies are lacking.110–122 Therefore, the recommendation regarding the diagnostic evaluation of neuropsychiatric symptoms is adopted from the adult EULAR recommendations.68 123

    It is important to make a detailed and thorough assessment of any patient with suspected NP-cSLE. In the context of a suspected NP-cSLE diagnosis or worsening of neuropsychiatric disease, an initial comprehensive work-up should include all other potential underlying causes, including infections, hypertension, metabolic abnormalities or adverse effects of medication. A systematic approach is recommended, with the specific symptoms guiding the type of diagnostic procedure.

    Importantly, not all NP-cSLE manifestations can be detected with conventional MRI techniques.124 125 In addition, conventional MRI techniques (as well as novel MRI imaging modalities) may be unspecific for central nervous system involvement due to cSLE or to other causes. Formal neuropsychiatric testing by a neuropsychologist can be used to ascertain the presence of neurocognitive dysfunction. However, as a neuropsychologist is not always available, a helpful screening tool is the Pediatric Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics, which can be used by non-specialists to screen patients for possible neurocognitive dysfunction126 127

    Treatment recommendations

    The evidence for the treatment of NP-cSLE in children is especially limited. Recommendations are therefore based principally on adult recommendations for the management of NP-SLE,123 adapted for use in children by the expert panel. It was noted that this remains an important area for future clinical research. When non-SLE-related causes for neuropsychiatric symptoms or signs are excluded, corticosteroids and immunosuppressive therapy are indicated.123

    Recurrent seizures in SLE may benefit from antiepileptic treatment. However, one single seizure without evidence for epileptic activity on electroencephalogram in the brain is usually not an indication for antiepileptic treatment. Undertaking a careful evaluation seeking and treating the underlying cause, including anti-inflammatory treatment of potential NP-cSLE, most often suffices to prevent further seizures.

    Discussion

    A total of 35 recommendations for diagnosis, management and treatment for cSLE (25 recommendations) and NP-cSLE (10 recommendations) have been formulated. All recommendations were accepted with >80% agreement.

    These recommendations are intended to help specialists with decisions regarding the general care for patients with cSLE. Notably, recommendations regarding the management of nephritis in cSLE and paediatric APS will be published separately.

    It must be noted that good quality evidence regarding diagnosis and treatment in cSLE is limited. Due to lack of robust evidence underpinning some statements, the expert panel refrained from being too specific regarding diagnostic procedures, monitoring intervals or specific drug treatments. This emphasises the need for more research on diagnostic procedures, as well as treatment in this population. International collaboration will be vital, as large cohorts are difficult to achieve.

    In conclusion, the SHARE project has resulted in recommendations on diagnosis, management and treatment of cSLE and NP-cSLE, based on best available evidence and expert opinion. These recommendations should facilitate the optimisation of the management of this rare disease.

    References

    1. 1.↵
      1. Bandeira M,
      2. Buratti S,
      3. Bartoli M, et al
      . Relationship between damage accrual, disease flares and cumulative drug therapies in juvenile-onset systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus 2006;15:515–20. doi:10.1191/0961203306lu2316oa
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    2. 2.↵
      1. Brunner HI,
      2. Gladman DD,
      3. Ibañez D, et al
      . Difference in disease features between childhood-onset and adult-onset systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2008;58:556–62. doi:10.1002/art.23204
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    3. 3.↵
      1. Hersh AO,
      2. von Scheven E,
      3. Yazdany J, et al
      . Differences in long-term disease activity and treatment of adult patients with childhood- and adult-onset systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2009;61:13–20. doi:10.1002/art.24091
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    4. 4.↵
      1. Livingston B,
      2. Bonner A,
      3. Pope J
      . Differences in clinical manifestations between childhood-onset lupus and adult-onset lupus: a meta-analysis. Lupus 2011;20:1345–55. doi:10.1177/0961203311416694
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    5. 5.↵
      1. Ramírez Gómez LA,
      2. Uribe Uribe O,
      3. Osio Uribe O, et al
      . Childhood systemic lupus erythematosus in Latin America. the GLADEL experience in 230 children. Lupus 2008;17:596–604. doi:10.1177/0961203307088006
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. 6.↵
      1. Sag E,
      2. Tartaglione A,
      3. Batu ED, et al
      . Performance of the new SLICC classification criteria in childhood systemic lupus erythematosus: a multicentre study. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2014;32:440–4.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    7. 7.↵
      1. Fonseca AR,
      2. Gaspar-Elsas MI,
      3. Land MG, et al
      . Comparison between three systems of classification criteria in juvenile systemic lupus erythematous. Rheumatology 2015;54:241–7. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keu278
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    8. 8.↵
      1. Mina R,
      2. Brunner HI
      . Pediatric lupus-are there differences in presentation Response to therapy, and damage accrual compared with adult lupus? rheumatic diseases clinics of North America. Genetics 2010;36:53–80. vii-viii.
      OpenUrl
    9. 9.↵
      1. Hiraki LT,
      2. Feldman CH,
      3. Liu J, et al
      . Prevalence, incidence, and demographics of systemic lupus erythematosus and lupus nephritis from 2000 to 2004 among children in the US Medicaid beneficiary population. Arthritis Rheum 2012;64:2669–76. doi:10.1002/art.34472
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    10. 10.↵
      1. Kamphuis S,
      2. Silverman ED
      . Prevalence and burden of pediatric-onset systemic lupus erythematosus. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2010;6:538–46. doi:10.1038/nrrheum.2010.121
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    11. 11.↵
      1. Pineles D,
      2. Valente A,
      3. Warren B, et al
      . Worldwide incidence and prevalence of pediatric onset systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus 2011;20:1187–92. doi:10.1177/0961203311412096
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    12. 12.↵
      1. Huemer C,
      2. Huemer M,
      3. Dorner T, et al
      . Incidence of pediatric rheumatic diseases in a regional population in Austria. J Rheumatol 2001;28:2116–9.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    13. 13.↵
      1. Kaipiainen-Seppänen O,
      2. Savolainen A
      . Incidence of chronic juvenile rheumatic diseases in Finland during 1980-1990. Clin Exp Rheumatol 1996;14:441–4.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    14. 14.↵
      1. López P,
      2. Mozo L,
      3. Gutiérrez C, et al
      . Epidemiology of systemic lupus erythematosus in a northern spanish population: gender and age influence on immunological features. Lupus 2003;12:860–5. doi:10.1191/0961203303lu469xx
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    15. 15.↵
      1. Nightingale AL,
      2. Farmer RD,
      3. de Vries CS
      . Incidence of clinically diagnosed systemic lupus erythematosus 1992-1998 using the UK General Practice Research Database. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2006;15:656–61. doi:10.1002/pds.1199
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    16. 16.↵
      1. Pelkonen PM,
      2. Jalanko HJ,
      3. Lantto RK, et al
      . Incidence of systemic connective tissue diseases in children: a nationwide prospective study in Finland. J Rheumatol 1994;21:2143–6.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    17. 17.↵
      1. Series OR
      . List of rare diseases and synonyms listed in alphabetical order: orphanet, 2016. Available from. http://www.orpha.net/orphacom/cahiers/docs/GB/List_of_rare_diseases_in_alphabetical_order.pdf. (cited 2016 20-01-2017).
    18. 18.↵
      1. Wulffraat NM,
      2. Vastert B,
      3. consortium S
      ; SHARE consortium. Time to share. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J 2013;11:5. doi:10.1186/1546-0096-11-5
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    19. 19.↵
      1. Enders FB,
      2. Bader-Meunier B,
      3. Baildam E, et al
      . Consensus-based recommendations for the management of juvenile dermatomyositis. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:329–40. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209247
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    20. 20.↵
      1. Giancane G,
      2. Ter Haar NM,
      3. Wulffraat N, et al
      . Evidence-based recommendations for genetic diagnosis of familial mediterranean fever. Ann Rheum Dis 2015;74:635–41. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-206844
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    21. 21.↵
      1. ter Haar NM,
      2. Oswald M,
      3. Jeyaratnam J, et al
      . Recommendations for the management of autoinflammatory diseases. Ann Rheum Dis 2015;74:1636–44. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-207546
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    22. 22.↵
      1. Dougados M,
      2. Betteridge N,
      3. Burmester GR, et al
      . EULAR standardised operating procedures for the elaboration, evaluation, dissemination, and implementation of recommendations endorsed by the EULAR standing committees. Ann Rheum Dis 2004;63:1172–6. doi:10.1136/ard.2004.023697
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    23. 23.↵
      1. Leclercq E,
      2. Leeflang MM,
      3. van Dalen EC, et al
      . Validation of search filters for identifying pediatric studies in PubMed. J Pediatr 2013;162:629–34. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.09.012
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    24. 24.↵
      1. T.C Hjptgs
      . Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2013.
    25. 25.↵
      1. Whiting P,
      2. Rutjes AW,
      3. Dinnes J, et al
      . Development and validation of methods for assessing the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. Health Technol Assess 2004;8:iii, 1-234. doi:10.3310/hta8250
      OpenUrl
    26. 26.↵
      1. Zhang W,
      2. Doherty M,
      3. Pascual E, et al
      . EULAR evidence based recommendations for gout. part I: diagnosis. Report of a task force of the standing Committee for International clinical studies including therapeutics (ESCISIT). Ann Rheum Dis 2006;65:1301–11. doi:10.1136/ard.2006.055251
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    27. 27.↵
      1. Zhang W,
      2. Doherty M,
      3. Bardin T, et al
      . EULAR evidence based recommendations for gout. Part II: management. Report of a task force of the EULAR standing Committee for International clinical studies including therapeutics (ESCISIT). Ann Rheum Dis 2006;65:1312–24. doi:10.1136/ard.2006.055269
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    28. 28.↵
      1. vdVA DAL
      . A group process model for problem identification and program planning. J Appl Behav Sci 1971;7:466–92.
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    29. 29.↵
      1. Tarr T,
      2. Dérfalvi B,
      3. Győri N, et al
      . Similarities and differences between pediatric and adult patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus 2015;24:796–803. doi:10.1177/0961203314563817
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    30. 30.↵
      1. Hochberg MC
      . Updating the American College of Rheumatology revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 19971725;40:1725. doi:10.1002/art.1780400928
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    31. 31.↵
      1. Petri M,
      2. Orbai AM,
      3. 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. doi:10.1002/art.34473
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    32. 32.↵
      1. Abdwani R,
      2. Rizvi SG,
      3. El-Nour I
      . Childhood systemic lupus erythematosus in Sultanate of Oman: demographics and clinical analysis. Lupus 2008;17:683–6. doi:10.1177/0961203307087611
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    33. 33.↵
      1. Bader-Meunier BBM AJ,
      2. Haddad E,
      3. Cochat P, et al
      . Initial presentation of childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus: a French multicenter study. 2005. J pediatr 2005:146.
    34. 34.↵
      1. Buoncompagni A,
      2. Barbano GC,
      3. Pistoia V, et al
      . Childhood systemic lupus erythematosus: a review of 30 cases. Clin Exp Rheumatol 1991;9:425–30.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    35. 35.↵
      1. Chiang LL,
      2. Lin YT,
      3. Chan HY, et al
      . Differential manifestations of prepubescent, pubescent and postpubescent pediatric patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a retrospective study of 96 chinese children and adolescents. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J 2012;10:12. doi:10.1186/1546-0096-10-12
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    36. 36.↵
      1. Hiraki LT,
      2. Benseler SM,
      3. Tyrrell PN, et al
      . Clinical and laboratory characteristics and long-term outcome of pediatric systemic lupus erythematosus: a longitudinal study. J Pediatr 2008;152:550–6. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.09.019
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    37. 37.↵
      1. Olowu W
      . Childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus. J Natl Med Assoc 2007;99:777–84.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    38. 38.↵
      1. Watson L,
      2. Leone V,
      3. Pilkington C, et al
      . Disease activity, severity, and damage in the UK Juvenile-Onset systemic lupus Erythematosus Cohort. Arthritis Rheum 2012;64:2356–65. doi:10.1002/art.34410
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    39. 39.↵
      1. Campos LM,
      2. Kiss MH,
      3. Scheinberg MA, et al
      . Antinucleosome antibodies in patients with juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus 2006;15:496–500. doi:10.1191/0961203306lu2317oa
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    40. 40.↵
      1. Hinze CH,
      2. Suzuki M,
      3. Klein-Gitelman M, et al
      . Neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin is a predictor of the course of global and renal childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity. Arthritis Rheum 2009;60:2772–81. doi:10.1002/art.24751
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    41. 41.↵
      1. Jesus AA,
      2. Campos LM,
      3. Liphaus BL, et al
      . Anti-C1q, anti-chromatin/nucleosome, and anti-dsDNA antibodies in juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus patients. Rev Bras Reumatol 2012;52:976–81.
      OpenUrl
    42. 42.↵
      1. Jesus AA,
      2. Silva CA,
      3. Carneiro-Sampaio M, et al
      . Anti-C1q antibodies in juvenile-onset systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2009;1173:235–8. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04675.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    43. 43.↵
      1. Jurencák R,
      2. Fritzler M,
      3. Tyrrell P, et al
      . Autoantibodies in pediatric systemic lupus erythematosus: ethnic grouping, cluster analysis, and clinical correlations. J Rheumatol 2009;36:416–21. doi:10.3899/jrheum.080588
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    44. 44.↵
      1. Lehman TJ,
      2. Hanson V,
      3. Singsen BH, et al
      . The role of antibodies directed against double-stranded DNA in the manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus in childhood. J Pediatr 1980;96:657–61. doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(80)80733-5
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    45. 45.↵
      1. Tang X,
      2. Huang Y,
      3. Deng W, et al
      . Clinical and serologic correlations and autoantibody clusters in systemic lupus erythematosus: a retrospective review of 917 patients in South China. Medicine 2010;89:62–7. doi:10.1097/MD.0b013e3181cb449c
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    46. 46.↵
      1. Wu FQ,
      2. Zhao Q,
      3. Cui XD, et al
      . C1q and anti-C1q antibody levels are correlated with disease severity in chinese pediatric systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheumatol Int 2011;31:501–5. doi:10.1007/s00296-009-1257-0
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    47. 47.↵
      1. Wu JF,
      2. Yang YH,
      3. Wang LC, et al
      . Antinucleosome antibodies correlate with the disease severity in children with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Autoimmun 2006;27:119–24. doi:10.1016/j.jaut.2006.07.001
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    48. 48.↵
      1. Al-Mayouf SM,
      2. Abanomi H,
      3. Eldali A
      . Impact of C1q deficiency on the severity and outcome of childhood systemic lupus erythematosus. Int J Rheum Dis 2011;14:81–5. doi:10.1111/j.1756-185X.2010.01574.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    49. 49.↵
      1. Pickering MC,
      2. Botto M,
      3. Taylor PR, et al
      . Systemic lupus erythematosus, complement deficiency, and apoptosis. Adv Immunol 2000;76:227–324.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    50. 50.↵
      1. Crow YJ
      . Lupus: how much “complexity” is really (just) genetic heterogeneity? Arthritis Rheum 2011;63:3661–4. doi:10.1002/art.30603
      OpenUrlPubMed
    51. 51.↵
      1. Bader-Meunier B,
      2. Cavé H,
      3. Jeremiah N, et al
      . Are RASopathies new monogenic predisposing conditions to the development of systemic lupus erythematosus? Case report and systematic review of the literature. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2013;43:217–9. doi:10.1016/j.semarthrit.2013.04.009
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    52. 52.↵
      1. Ahmed AM E-SM
      . Asymptomatic cardiac involvement in children with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Med Sci 2006;6:944–9.
      OpenUrl
    53. 53.↵
      1. Al-Abbad AJ,
      2. Cabral DA,
      3. Sanatani S,
      4. Sandor GGS, et al
      . Echocardiography and pulmonary function testing in childhood onset systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus 2001;10:32–7. doi:10.1191/096120301669980721
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    54. 54.↵
      1. Cerveri I,
      2. Fanfulla F,
      3. Ravelli A, et al
      . Pulmonary function in children with systemic lupus erythematosus. Thorax 1996;51:424–8. doi:10.1136/thx.51.4.424
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    55. 55.↵
      1. Ciftçi E,
      2. Yalçinkaya F,
      3. Ince E, et al
      . Pulmonary involvement in childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus: a report of five cases. Rheumatology 2004;43:587–91. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keh120
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    56. 56.↵
      1. de Jongste JC,
      2. Neijens HJ,
      3. Duiverman EJ, et al
      . Respiratory tract disease in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arch Dis Child 1986;61:478–83. doi:10.1136/adc.61.5.478
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    57. 57.↵
      El-Dessoky El Shahawy E MA, Algoubashy AA, Abo-Warda MH, et al. pleuropulmonary manifestations in juvenile onset systemic lupus erythematosus: assessment by pulmonary function tests and multidetector computed tomography. The Egyptian Rheumatologist 2011;33:163–9.
      OpenUrl
    58. 58.↵
      1. Gazarian M,
      2. Feldman BM,
      3. Benson LN, et al
      . Assessment of myocardial perfusion and function in childhood systemic lupus erythematosus. J Pediatr 1998;132:109–16. doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(98)70494-9
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    59. 59.↵
      1. Trapani S,
      2. Camiciottoli G,
      3. Ermini M, et al
      . Pulmonary involvement in juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus: a study on lung function in patients asymptomatic for respiratory disease. Lupus 1998;7:545–50. doi:10.1191/096120398678920631
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    60. 60.↵
      1. Beresford MW,
      2. Cleary AG,
      3. Sills JA, et al
      . Cardio-pulmonary involvement in juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus 2005;14:152–8. doi:10.1191/0961203305lu2073oa
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    61. 61.↵
      1. Parodi A,
      2. Davì S,
      3. Pringe AB, et al
      . Macrophage activation syndrome in juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus: a multinational multicenter study of thirty-eight patients. Arthritis Rheum 2009;60:3388–99. doi:10.1002/art.24883
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    62. 62.↵
      1. Bennett TD,
      2. Fluchel M,
      3. Hersh AO, et al
      . Macrophage activation syndrome in children with systemic lupus erythematosus and children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2012;64:4135–42. doi:10.1002/art.34661
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    63. 63.↵
      1. Assari R,
      2. Ziaee V,
      3. Mirmohammadsadeghi A, et al
      . Dynamic changes, Cut-Off Points, sensitivity, and specificity of Laboratory Data to differentiate macrophage activation syndrome from active disease. Dis Markers 2015;2015:1–8. doi:10.1155/2015/424381
      OpenUrl
    64. 64.↵
      1. Allen CE,
      2. Yu X,
      3. Kozinetz CA, et al
      . Highly elevated ferritin levels and the diagnosis of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2008;50:1227–35. doi:10.1002/pbc.21423
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    65. 65.↵
      1. Mina R,
      2. Klein-Gitelman MS,
      3. Nelson S, et al
      . Validation of the systemic lupus erythematosus responder index for use in juvenile-onset systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:401–6. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-202376
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    66. 66.↵
      1. Mina R,
      2. Klein-Gitelman MS,
      3. Ravelli A, et al
      . Inactive disease and remission in childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Care Res 2012;64:683–93. doi:10.1002/acr.21612
      OpenUrl
    67. 67.↵
      1. Brunner HI,
      2. Mina R,
      3. Pilkington C, et al
      . Preliminary criteria for global flares in childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Care Res 2011;63:1213–23. doi:10.1002/acr.20507
      OpenUrl
    68. 68.↵
      1. Bertsias G,
      2. Ioannidis JP,
      3. Boletis J, et al
      . EULAR recommendations for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus. Report of a Task Force of the EULAR standing Committee for International clinical studies including therapeutics. Ann Rheum Dis 2008;67:195–205. doi:10.1136/ard.2007.070367
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    69. 69.↵
      1. Bertsias GK,
      2. Tektonidou M,
      3. Amoura Z, et al
      . Joint European League against Rheumatism and european renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (EULAR/ERA-EDTA) recommendations for the management of adult and paediatric lupus nephritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71:1771–82. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-201940
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    70. 70.↵
      1. Mosca M,
      2. Tani C,
      3. Aringer M, et al
      . European League against Rheumatism recommendations for monitoring patients with systemic lupus erythematosus in clinical practice and in observational studies. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:1269–74. doi:10.1136/ard.2009.117200
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    71. 71.↵
      1. Gutiérrez-Suárez R,
      2. Ruperto N,
      3. Gastaldi R, et al
      . A proposal for a pediatric version of the systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology damage index based on the analysis of 1,015 patients with juvenile-onset systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2006;54:2989–96. doi:10.1002/art.22048
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    72. 72.↵
      1. Rygg M,
      2. Pistorio A,
      3. Ravelli A, et al
      . A longitudinal PRINTO study on growth and puberty in juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71:511–7. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2011-200106
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    73. 73.↵
      1. Brunner HI,
      2. Higgins GC,
      3. Klein-Gitelman MS, et al
      . Minimal clinically important differences of disease activity indices in childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Care Res 2010;62:950–9. doi:10.1002/acr.20154
      OpenUrl
    74. 74.↵
      1. Brunner HI,
      2. Silverman ED,
      3. Bombardier C, et al
      . European Consensus Lupus Activity Measurement is sensitive to change in disease activity in childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2003;49:335–41. doi:10.1002/art.11111
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    75. 75.↵
      1. Lattanzi B,
      2. Consolaro A,
      3. Solari N, et al
      . Measures of disease activity and damage in pediatric systemic lupus erythematosus: british Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG), European Consensus Lupus Activity Measurement (ECLAM), Systemic lupus activity measure (SLAM), Systemic lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI), Physician’s Global Assessment of Disease Activity (MD Global), and Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index (SLICC/ACR DI; SDI). Arthritis Care Res 2011;63(Suppl 11):112–7. doi:10.1002/acr.20623
      OpenUrl
    76. 76.↵
      1. Gladman DD,
      2. Ibañez D,
      3. Urowitz MB
      . Systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity index 2000. J Rheumatol 2002;29:288–91.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    77. 77.↵
      1. Marks SD,
      2. Pilkington C,
      3. Woo P, et al
      . The use of the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) index as a Valid tool in assessing disease activity in childhood-onset Systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheumatology 2004;43:1186–9. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keh284
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    78. 78.↵
      1. Al Mayouf SM AHA
      . Ocular manifestations of SLE in children. Saudi Med J 2003;24:964–6.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    79. 79.↵
      1. Hoes JN,
      2. Jacobs JW,
      3. Boers M, et al
      . EULAR evidence-based recommendations on the management of systemic glucocorticoid therapy in rheumatic diseases. Ann Rheum Dis 2007;66:1560–7. doi:10.1136/ard.2007.072157
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    80. 80.↵
      1. Marmor MF,
      2. Kellner U,
      3. Lai TY, et al
      . Revised recommendations on screening for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine retinopathy. Ophthalmology 2011;118:415–22. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.11.017
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    81. 81.↵
      1. ACo R
      . Position statement: screening for Hydroxychloroquine Retinopathy, 2011.
    82. 82.↵
      1. Stege H,
      2. Budde MA,
      3. Grether-Beck S, et al
      . Evaluation of the capacity of sunscreens to photoprotect lupus erythematosus patients by employing the photoprovocation test. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 2000;16:256–9. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0781.2000.160604.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    83. 83.↵
      1. Tucker LB,
      2. Cabral DA
      . Transition of the adolescent patient with rheumatic disease: issues to consider. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 2007;33:661–72. doi:10.1016/j.rdc.2007.07.005
      OpenUrlPubMed
    84. 84.↵
      1. Lawson EF,
      2. Hersh AO,
      3. Applebaum MA, et al
      . Self-management skills in adolescents with chronic rheumatic disease: a cross-sectional survey. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J 2011;9:35. doi:10.1186/1546-0096-9-35
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    85. 85.↵
      1. Hersh AO,
      2. Pang S,
      3. Curran ML, et al
      . The challenges of transferring chronic illness patients to adult care: reflections from pediatric and adult rheumatology at a US academic center. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J 2009;7:13. doi:10.1186/1546-0096-7-13
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    86. 86.↵
      1. Falcini F,
      2. Nacci F
      . Systemic lupus erythematosus in the young: the importance of a transition clinic. Lupus 2007;16:613–7. doi:10.1177/0961203307078973
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    87. 87.↵
      1. Felsenstein S,
      2. Reiff AO,
      3. Ramanathan A
      . Transition of Care and Health-Related Outcomes in Pediatric-Onset systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Care Res 2015;67:1521–8. doi:10.1002/acr.22611
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    88. 88.↵
      1. Foster HE,
      2. Minden K,
      3. Clemente D, et al
      . EULAR/PReS standards and recommendations for the transitional care of young people with juvenile-onset rheumatic diseases. Ann Rheum Dis 2016;76. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210112
    89. 89.↵
      1. Ruiz-Irastorza G,
      2. Ramos-Casals M,
      3. Brito-Zeron P, et al
      . Clinical efficacy and side effects of antimalarials in systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:20–8. doi:10.1136/ard.2008.101766
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    90. 90.↵
      1. Ziering CL,
      2. Rabinowitz LG,
      3. Esterly NB
      . Antimalarials for children: indications, toxicities, and guidelines. J Am Acad Dermatol 1993;28(5 Pt 1):764–70. doi:10.1016/0190-9622(93)70107-5
      OpenUrlPubMed
    91. 91.↵
      1. Uribe AG,
      2. Alarcón GS,
      3. Sanchez ML, et al
      . Systemic lupus erythematosus in three ethnic groups. XVIII. factors predictive of poor compliance with study visits. Arthritis Rheum 2004;51:258–63. doi:10.1002/art.20226
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    92. 92.↵
      1. Rojas-Serrano J,
      2. Cardiel MH
      . Lupus patients in an emergency unit. causes of consultation, hospitalization and outcome. A cohort study. Lupus 2000;9:601–6. doi:10.1191/096120300678828785
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    93. 93.↵
      1. Koneru S,
      2. Kocharla L,
      3. Higgins GC, et al
      . Adherence to medications in systemic lupus erythematosus. J Clin Rheumatol 2008;14:195–201. doi:10.1097/RHU.0b013e31817a242a
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    94. 94.↵
      M. R. Adherence to Pediatric Medical Regimens. Handbook of Child Psychology and developmental science. 7 ed. New York NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2010.
    95. 95.↵
      1. Willems M,
      2. Haddad E,
      3. Niaudet P, et al
      . Rituximab therapy for childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus. J Pediatr 2006;148:623–7. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2006.01.041
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    96. 96.↵
      1. Polido-Pereira J,
      2. Ferreira D,
      3. Rodrigues AM, et al
      . Rituximab use in pediatric autoimmune diseases: four case reports. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2009;1173:712–20. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04804.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    97. 97.↵
      1. Podolskaya A,
      2. Stadermann M,
      3. Pilkington C, et al
      . B cell depletion therapy for 19 patients with refractory systemic lupus erythematosus. Arch Dis Child 2008;93:401–6. doi:10.1136/adc.2007.126276
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    98. 98.↵
      1. Nwobi O,
      2. Abitbol CL,
      3. Chandar J, et al
      . Rituximab therapy for juvenile-onset systemic lupus erythematosus. Pediatr Nephrol 2008;23:413–9. doi:10.1007/s00467-007-0694-9
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    99. 99.↵
      1. Marks SD,
      2. Patey S,
      3. Brogan PA, et al
      . B lymphocyte depletion therapy in children with refractory systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:3168–74. doi:10.1002/art.21351
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    100. 100.↵
      1. Watson L,
      2. Beresford MW,
      3. Maynes C, et al
      . The indications, efficacy and adverse events of rituximab in a large cohort of patients with juvenile-onset SLE. Lupus 2015;24:10–17. doi:10.1177/0961203314547793
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    101. 101.↵
      1. Parikh S,
      2. Swaiman KF,
      3. Kim Y
      . Neurologic characteristics of childhood lupus erythematosus. Pediatr Neurol 1995;13:198–201. doi:10.1016/0887-8994(95)00186-J
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    102. 102.↵
      1. Sibbitt WL,
      2. Brandt JR,
      3. Johnson CR, et al
      . The incidence and prevalence of neuropsychiatric syndromes in pediatric onset systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol 2002;29:1536–42.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    103. 103.↵
      1. Turkel SB,
      2. Miller JH,
      3. Reiff A
      . Case series: neuropsychiatric symptoms with pediatric systemic lupus erythematosus. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2001;40:482–5. doi:10.1097/00004583-200104000-00018
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    104. 104.↵
      1. Yu HH,
      2. Lee JH,
      3. Wang LC, et al
      . Neuropsychiatric manifestations in pediatric systemic lupus erythematosus: a 20-year study. Lupus 2006;15:651–7. doi:10.1177/0961203306070990
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    105. 105.↵
      1. Lim LS,
      2. Lefebvre A,
      3. Benseler S, et al
      . Psychiatric illness of systemic lupus erythematosus in childhood: spectrum of clinically important manifestations. J Rheumatol 2013;40:506–12. doi:10.3899/jrheum.120675
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    106. 106.↵
      1. Loh WF,
      2. Hussain IM,
      3. Soffiah A, et al
      . Neurological manifestations of children with systemic lupus erythematosus. Med J Malaysia 2000;55:459–63.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    107. 107.↵
      1. Singh S,
      2. Gupta MK,
      3. Ahluwalia J, et al
      . Neuropsychiatric manifestations and antiphospholipid antibodies in pediatric onset lupus: 14 years of experience from a tertiary center of North India. Rheumatol Int 2009;29:1455–61. doi:10.1007/s00296-009-0887-6
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    108. 108.↵
      1. Brunner HI,
      2. Jones OY,
      3. Lovell DJ, et al
      . Lupus headaches in childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus: relationship to disease activity as measured by the systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity index (SLEDAI) and disease damage. Lupus 2003;12:600–6. doi:10.1191/0961203303lu430oa
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    109. 109.↵
      The American College of Rheumatology nomenclature and case definitions for neuropsychiatric lupus syndromes. Arthritis Rheum 1999;42:599–608. doi:10.1002/1529-0131(199904)42:4<599::AID-ANR2>3.0.CO;2-F
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    110. 110.↵
      1. Avcin T,
      2. Benseler SM,
      3. Tyrrell PN, et al
      . A followup study of antiphospholipid antibodies and associated neuropsychiatric manifestations in 137 children with systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2008;59:206–13. doi:10.1002/art.23334
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    111. 111.↵
      1. dos Santos MC,
      2. Okuda EM,
      3. Ronchezel MV, et al
      . Verbal ability impairment in juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus. Rev Bras Reumatol 2010;50:362–74.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    112. 112.↵
      1. Mortilla M,
      2. Ermini M,
      3. Nistri M, et al
      . Brain study using magnetic resonance imaging and proton MR spectroscopy in pediatric onset systemic lupus erythematosus. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2003;21:129–35.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    113. 113.↵
      1. Prismich G,
      2. Hilário MO,
      3. Len CA, et al
      . Use of single photon emission computed tomography and magnetic resonance to evaluate central nervous system involvement in patients with juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus. Braz J Med Biol Res 2002;35:805–10. doi:10.1590/S0100-879X2002000700007
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    114. 114.↵
      1. Reiff A,
      2. Miller J,
      3. Shaham B, et al
      . Childhood central nervous system lupus; longitudinal assessment using single photon emission computed tomography. J Rheumatol 1997;24:2461–5.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    115. 115.↵
      1. Russo R,
      2. Gilday D,
      3. Laxer RM, et al
      . Single photon emission computed tomography scanning in childhood systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol 1998;25:576–82.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    116. 116.↵
      1. Szer IS,
      2. Miller JH,
      3. Rawlings D, et al
      . Cerebral perfusion abnormalities in children with central nervous system manifestations of lupus detected by single photon emission computed tomography. J Rheumatol 1993;20:2143–8.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    117. 117.↵
      1. Dong J,
      2. Li H,
      3. Wang JB, et al
      . Predictors for neuropsychiatric development in chinese adolescents with systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheumatol Int 2012;32:2681–6. doi:10.1007/s00296-011-2042-4
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    118. 118.↵
      1. Falcini F,
      2. De Cristofaro MT,
      3. Ermini M, et al
      . Regional cerebral blood flow in juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus: a prospective SPECT study. single photon emission computed tomography. J Rheumatol 1998;25:583–8.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    119. 119.↵
      1. Mostafa GA,
      2. Ibrahim DH,
      3. Shehab AA, et al
      . The role of measurement of serum autoantibodies in prediction of pediatric neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus. J Neuroimmunol 2010;227(1-2):195–201. doi:10.1016/j.jneuroim.2010.07.014
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    120. 120.↵
      1. Mostafa GA,
      2. Nazif HK,
      3. El-Shahawi HH, et al
      . Antineuronal antibodies and electroneurophysiological studies in pediatric patients with neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2009;20:192–9. doi:10.1111/j.1399-3038.2008.00753.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    121. 121.↵
      1. Papero PH,
      2. Bluestein HG,
      3. White P, et al
      . Neuropsychologic deficits and antineuronal antibodies in pediatric systemic lupus erythematosus. Clin Exp Rheumatol 1990;8:417–24.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    122. 122.↵
      1. Press J,
      2. Palayew K,
      3. Laxer RM, et al
      . Antiribosomal P antibodies in pediatric patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and psychosis. Arthritis Rheum 1996;39:671–6. doi:10.1002/art.1780390420
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    123. 123.↵
      1. Bertsias GK,
      2. Ioannidis JP,
      3. Aringer M, et al
      . EULAR recommendations for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus with neuropsychiatric manifestations: report of a task force of the EULAR standing committee for clinical affairs. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:2074–82. doi:10.1136/ard.2010.130476
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    124. 124.↵
      1. Al-Obaidi M,
      2. Saunders D,
      3. Brown S, et al
      . Evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging abnormalities in juvenile onset neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus. Clin Rheumatol 2016;35:2449–56. doi:10.1007/s10067-016-3376-9
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    125. 125.↵
      1. Gulati G,
      2. Jones JT,
      3. Lee G, et al
      . Altered Blood-Brain Barrier Permeability in Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a novel Imaging Approach. Arthritis Care Res 2017;69:299-305. doi:10.1002/acr.22923
      OpenUrl
    126. 126.↵
      1. Brunner HI,
      2. Klein-Gitelman MS,
      3. Zelko F, et al
      . Validation of the Pediatric Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics in childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Care Res 2013;65:372–81. doi:10.1002/acr.21835
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    127. 127.↵
      1. Vega-Fernandez P,
      2. Vanderburgh White S,
      3. Zelko F, et al
      . Cognitive Performance scores for the Pediatric Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics in Childhood-Onset systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Care Res 2015;67:1119–27. doi:10.1002/acr.22571
      OpenUrl

    Footnotes

    • Contributors MWB and SK are senior authors. NW and BV designed the SHARE initiative. NG and NdG performed the systematic literature review, supervised by MWB and SK. Validity assessment of selected papers was done by MWB, SK, TA, AR, IKP, BBM and CP. Recommendations were formulated by NG, MWB and SK. The expert committee consisted of TA, BBM, PB, PD, IKP, PL, LM, SO, CP, AR, AvR, YU, NW, SK, MWB and SDM; they completed the online surveys and/or participated in the subsequent consensus meetings. NG, NdG, SK and MWB prepared the consensus meetings, and NG and NdG chaired the meetings and took minutes. AR and BF facilitated the consensus procedure using nominal group technique. NG, SK and MWB wrote the manuscript, with contribution and approval of all coauthors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent The study did not involve human subjects.

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

    • Correction notice This paper has been amended since it was published Online First. Owing to a scripting error, some of the publisher names in the references were replaced with ’BMJ Publishing Group'. This only affected the full text version, not the PDF. We have since corrected these errors and the correct publishers have been inserted into the references.