Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus, Dermatological Approaches of Treatment

Transcription

1 Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus, Dermatological Approaches of Treatment 1 Hind Sajdi T Al Atawi, 2 Alshaymaa Abdulrahman AlShaikh, 3 Abdulghani, Fahad Majdy M, 4 Jabir Abdulrahman K Alzaidi, 5 ALBaqami, Haya Majed M Abstract: The lupus erythematosus autoimmune disease is connected with a broad variety of cutaneous pathology. Cutaneous symptoms are often the presenting indication of lupus erythematosus (LE), and in the case of particular cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) subtypes, they can happen in the lack of systemic disease. This review aimed to focus on the management and treatment of dermatological manifestation of cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE), also to evaluate the diagnostic procedures of CLE and to discuss the subtypes of CLE. Electronic databases (PubMed/ Embase) were searched up to December, 2016, for relevant literature in the treatment of cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE), we retracted most evidence based review, trails, and randomized control studies discussing the CLE management, furthermore we searched references column of each identified study for more relevant articles that did not show up by previous search method. English language restriction for published studies was applied. The management of CLE consists of regular evaluation for systemic disease, also prevention of new sores and treatment of existing sores. Avoidance is accomplished by ideal defense against UV direct exposure, with broad-spectrum sunscreen as a reliable method of preventing development of UV-induced CLE. Treatment includes topical and systemic options. There is good proof to support using topical steroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors. Keywords: cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE), cutaneous pathology, systemic disease. 1. INTRODUCTION The autoimmune disease lupus erythematosus is connected with a broad variety of cutaneous pathology. Cutaneous symptoms are often the presenting indication of lupus erythematosus (LE), and in the case of particular cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) subtypes, they can happen in the lack of systemic disease. CLE is 2 to 3 times more frequent than SLE (1). CCLE is further subdivided to two subtypes; discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE), generalized DLE, hypertrophic LE, lupus panniculitis, lupus erythematosus tumidus, and chilblain lupus. DLE, which provides as erythematous, indurated plaques and papules, might resolve with considerable scarring, dyspigmentation, and alopecia (2). DLE is the most typical type of CCLE and, when restricted to the head and neck, is rarely connected with SLE (3). SCLE, which presents as photo distributed papulosquamous or annular-polycyclic plaques, tends to recover without scarring and is typically associated with photosensitivity and anti-ssa antibodies (4). ACLE, which generally provides as malar erythema however Can be generalized, is an extremely particular marker for systemic disease, as practically 100% of patients with ACLE have SLE (3). Cutaneous symptoms are often the very first symptoms and signs of lupus erythematosus (LE) and lead to the consultation of a skin doctor or inspire an internist or rheumatologist to seek advice from a dermatologist for differential diagnosis. When CLE is identified as the skin sores to a subtype and to rule out systemic organ participation (3,5), the most important diagnostic action. As numerous subtypes of CLE can occur concurrently, a comprehensive analysis of numerous findings is necessary. CLE has 3 significant subtypes: chronic CLE (CCLE), subacute CLE (SCLE), and intense CLE (ACLE) (3). Page 1377

2 Earlier epidemiological research study of CLE has actually been obstructed by a scarcity of case ascertainment and much of the knowledge is based on often retrospective and rather little research studies. Current population-based research studies have actually shown that the incidence of CLE in Sweden and USA is 4/100,000 residents (6,7) ; in both studies the population majority were Caucasians. SLE is more typical in Asians and African Americans than in Caucasians (3,8,9) ; no such research studies have been made for CLE but DLE is thought about more common among African Americans and SCLE is more common amongst Caucasians. DLE is the most common subset (80%), followed by SCLE (15%) and less than 5% are other rarer types of CLE such as lupus profundus or lupus panniculitis (6). In a recently released study, the woman to male ratio have been revealed to be 3:1 for both DLE and SCLE, indicate age for being diagnosed with CLE was around 54 years because study (6). This review was aim to focus on the management and treatment of dermatological manifestation of cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE), also to evaluate the diagnostic procedures of CLE and to discuss the subtypes of CLE. 2. METHODOLOGY Electronic databases (PubMed/ Embase) were searched up to December, 2016, for relevant literature in the treatment of cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE), we retracted most evidence based review, trails, and randomized control studies discussing the CLE management, furthermore we searched references column of each identified study for more relevant articles that did not show up by previous search method. English language restriction for published studies was applied. o Overview of LE: 3. RESULTS Lupus Erythematosus (LE) is an autoimmune chronic disease that involving of a broad spectrum of symptoms. LE is consisted of among the so called connective tissue diseases and is divided into one systemic kind - SLE and one cutaneous form - CLE. They can occur both together and individually (10). The Lupus Erythematosus usually has to run through chronic course with abrupt worsening and periods of remission. The classification of CLE can be difficult and complicated but the enhanced classification in 1979 by the American skin doctors (Gilliam and Sontheimer) has actually gained broad approval (11). Inning accordance with Gilliam and Sontheimer, the cutaneous manifestations of LE can be divided into LE-specific and LE-non-specific skin signs based upon histopathological findings 12). The LE-specific skin symptoms show a typical histopathological picture with a lichenoid tissue response. LE-specific skin manifestations can be further partitioned into severe CLE (ACLE), subacute CLE (SCLE) and chronic CLE (CCLE) where timeless discoid LE (DLE) is the most common kind (10,11,12). An alternative classification has actually likewise been suggested which includes lupus erythematosus tumidus (LET) as a different subgroup; the intermittent subtype of CLE (ICLE) (13). The LEnon-specific skin symptoms consist of a wide range of signs with various histopathological photos. The LE-non-specific skin manifestations are not special to LE disease however are typically seen in patients with active SLE but also in several other autoimmune diseases. It is very important to evaluate a patient with CLE for LE-non-specific symptoms since their existence can suggest systemic involvement and progression to SLE (14). Figure 1: A modified version of Gilliam's classification of LE-specific skin manifestations (10) Page 1378

3 o Prevention procedures of CLE: It is very compulsory to clarify how important the prevention of sunlight and artificial sources of ultraviolet (UV) radiation, as well as to advocate the everyday use of broad-spectrum sun block. The induction of CLE lesions by UVA and UVB radiation has actually been shown (15). Patients need to be counseled to avoid the sun throughout peak hours, minimize travel to equatorial areas of the world, and prevent tanning salons. UVA can permeate window glass and cause sores, but the probability of occurrence depends on the protective degree of and duration of direct exposure (15). Recently, the risk of intensifying disease in photosensitive conditions due to cumulative low-dose UV has been described (16). It is thus recommended that patients with CLE use compact bulbs with the most affordable UV irradiance, in an effort to reduce the damage from chronic UV exposure (16). Broad-spectrum sunscreen is necessary in preventing new lesions. A little double-blinded, intra-individual open-label study of three commercially available sunscreens demonstrated that sun block works in preventing development of CLE lesions, though there was differing effectiveness among those evaluated (17). One of these sunscreens, which provided protection for the UVA/UVB and visible light spectrum, was efficacious in 100% (11/11) of patients. Sunscreen with a minimum of sun defense factor (SPF) 50 and UVA/UVB coverage, are typically advised. Photoprotective clothes is an alternative for patients who need or want additional photoprotection. Research studies from radiation laboratories in Australia and the United Kingdom have shown that about 90% of summertime clothing offers security that is equivalent to sun blocks of SPF 30 or greater (18), so even using long clothing that are not marketed as photoprotective can provide dependable additional defense. Because sunlight is required in the synthesis of vitamin D, is necessary to examine the level of Vitamin D in patients suffering from CLE, and invasily avoiding exposure to the sun light and consistently applying sunscreen. Supplements with at least 400IU of vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) is suggested in these patients (15). o Topical Management Therapies: A. Topical corticosteroids for treatment of CLE: Topical corticosteroids (CS) are an important part of treating all subtypes of CLE. Regardless of their prevalent usage, there has actually only been one randomized regulated trial, which compared a high potency steroid with a low strength steroid, in the treatment of CLE (19). When picking the appropriate topical steroid, both potency and vehicle are necessary factors to think about. The option in effectiveness is based on the location of the skin lesion(s). For thin areas of skin (e.g. face), a low effectiveness steroid, such as fluocinolone acetonide 0.01% or hydrocortisone butyrate 1%, is a good option. For the trunk and extremities, moderate effective steroid, such as triamcinolone acetonide or betamethasone valerate, is appropriate. For thick skin areas, a highly effective type of steroid, such as clobetasol propionate, is typically needed. The choice in car is also an essential consideration. For the body, creams and ointments are best. Generally, treatment is started with a cream, as many patients can endure everyday application of them, but some patients might require a lotion. DLE might be responsive to intralesional steroids (19,20). The negative effects of topical CS are popular. They consist of, but are not limited to, skin atrophy, steroid-induced rosacea, and telangiectasias. To decrease these negative effects, topical steroids need to be obtained a limited range of weeks and periodically, such that the skin has steroid-free intervals. Intra-lesioned steroid injections need to utilize the minimum concentration of drug necessary to accomplish results and need at least four weeks between injections. To prevent systemic absorption and suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary axis, no more than 45g per week of high potency or 100g per week of low to mid effectiveness topical steroid need to be applied (without occlusion) (20). B. Role of Topical Calcineurin Inhibitors in CLE Due to the undesirable side effects of topical CS, calcineurin inhibitors, tacrolimus and pimecrolimus, have actually been studied for their long-term healing potential in CLE. Drugs in this class work by forming a complex with macrophilin-12 that inhibits the calcineurin moderated dephosphorylation of nuclear transcription factor of activated T cells (NF-AT) (21). Phosphorylated NK-AT is responsible for the transcription of many inflammatory modulators within T cells (22). Since the first reports of success with calcineurin inhibitors treating lupus skin lesions in 2002, a number of research studies have demonstrated their efficacy in CLE (23). Adverse effects are limited to short-term burning, erythema, and inflammation (23). Without the risk of skin surface damage, calcineurin inhibitors are epically dependable in fragile locations of skin consisting of the face, neck, and intertriginous locations (24,25). Page 1379

4 Tacrolimus, offered in a 0.1% and 0.03% lotion type, is allowed to use for patients with CLE (26,27). In one identified study (28) involving 20 patients with CLE and their symptoms were managed by appling 0.1% tacrolimus and 0.05% clobetasol proprionate ointments, and showed an effective mood of therapy for those patients with CLE (28). Enhancement of CLE sores was observed in both treatment groups without a substantial difference in total effectiveness. Nevertheless, 61 percent of patients treated with steroids established telangiectasias, a finding that highlights the steroid-sparing results of tacrolimus. One apparent benefit of these medications is their absence of steroid-associated systemic side effects. Adverse effects with topical calcineurin inhibitors have actually been mild or very little. The most common negative effects are pruritis, burning and/or increased erythema at the site of application, nevertheless, if tolerable, does not require cessation of treatment (29). Both tacrolimus and pimecrolimus bring a questionable "black box" warning due to a prospective increased risk for malignancy, in spite of no scientific evidence at this time to suggest a causal relationship between topical calcineurin inhibitors and malignancy (30). Long-lasting safety research studies with postmarketing security information remain in progress (30). o Immunosuppressive treatment for CLE: Just like other inflammatory conditions, CLE can respond to systemic corticosteroids, though action to steroids in DLE is unreliable. Evidance showed that use of steroid for a short period can be very effective during flares and when starting non-steroidal immunosuppressive drugs, which may take a number of weeks to show benefit. Systemic steroids ought to not be utilized as long-term treatment, given their popular serious adverse reaction. Methotrexate has been shown in two retrospective research studies as actually been displayed to be efficient in multiple subtypes of CLE (31,32). Folate replacement and regular laboratory monitoring for bone marrow suppression and hepatotoxicity is required. For patients who do not tolerate oral shipment of the drug, intramuscular delivery is an option. Mycophenolate has been displayed in numerous case reports to be effective in treating all subtypes of CLE (4). In a prospective nonrandomized open pilot research study, mycophenolate was shown to be useful in treating SCLE patients who had been resistant to a minimum of one requirement treatment, specified as steroids (topical or systemic) or antimalarials (33). Routine lab monitoring for hematologic, kidney, and hepatic toxicity is necessary. Mycophenolate mofetil is normally well-tolerate though intestinal upset and diarrhea are the more frequently reported side effects. Mycophenolate sodium, which is enteric-coated, has actually been associated with fewer gastrointestinal side effects. Azathioprine can also work in DLE (34). When beginning azathioprine, a low dosage of 50mg a day is utilized initially and increased by 25mg every 2 weeks, as laboratory tracking permits, up until the minimum efficient dose is achieved. If TPMT activity is adequate, an alternative technique is checking the enzyme activity of thiopurine methyltransferase (TPMT) prior to starting treatment and then beginning at a higher dosage. Routine laboratory tracking for hematologic and hepatic toxicity is likewise needed. Cyclophosphamide and cyclosporine can be used, normally in the context of significant organ involvement beyond the skin. Improvement of CLE sores with these medications has actually been reported (15). Nevertheless, due to their significant toxicity profile, they are hardly ever used in CLE patients and booked for refractory CLE patients with SLE. Rituximab has actually been used effectively in several case reports including patients with CLE, consisting of lupus typical lesion, that responsive to combinations of immunosuppressives, and immunomodulators (15). Other biologic therapies, such as tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α inhibitors, have actually likewise been reported as beneficial in the treatment of CLE, although etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab have actually also been associated with the induction of numerous CLE subtype lesions (15). Methodical research studies are needed to further evaluate biologic treatments. 4. CONCLUSION The management of CLE consists of regular evaluation for systemic disease, also prevention of new sores and treatment of existing sores. Avoidance is accomplished by ideal defense against UV direct exposure, with broad-spectrum sunscreen as a reliable method of preventing development of UV-induced CLE. Treatment includes topical and systemic options. There is good proof to support using topical steroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors. An immunosuppressive or immunomodulator is included if the antimalarial treatment algorithm detailed earlier is insufficient. Cyclophosphamide and rituximab are considered in patient's refractory to various mixes of immunosuppressives/immunomodulators. With the introduction of a verified result step for CLE, improved examination of treatment efficacy and appealing new therapies are on the horizon. Page 1380

5 REFERENCES [1] Tebbe B, Orphanos CE. Epidemiology and socioeconomic impact of skin disease in lupus erythematosus. Lupus. 1997;6: [2] Werth VP. Clinical manifestations of cutaneous lupus erythematosus. Autoimmun Rev. 2005;4: [3] Lee HJ, Sinha AA. Cutaneous lupus erythematosus: understanding of clinical features, genetic basis, and pathobiology of disease guides therapeutic strategies. Autoimmunity. 2006;39: [4] Fett N, Werth VP. Maibach H, editor. Treatment of Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus. [5] Sticherling M. Chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus. In: Hertl M (ed): Autoimmune Disease of the Skin Pathogenesis, diagnosis, management. Wien, New York: Springer, 2005: [6] Gronhagen CM, Fored CM, Granath F, Nyberg F. Cutaneous lupus erythematosus and the association with systemic lupus erythematosus: A population-based cohort of 1088 patients in Sweden. Br J Dermatol. 2011;164: [7] Durosaro O, Davis MD, Reed KB, Rohlinger AL. Incidence of cutaneous lupus erythematosus, : A population-based study. Arch Dermatol. 2009;145: [8] Chiu YM, Lai CH. Nationwide population-based epidemiologic study of systemic lupus erythematosus in Taiwan. Lupus. 2010;19: [9] Bernatsky S, Joseph L, Pineau CA, Tamblyn R, Feldman DE, Clarke AE. A population-based assessment of systemic lupus erythematosus incidence and prevalence--results and implications of using administrative data for epidemiological studies. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007;46: [10] Grönhagen CM, Nyberg F. Cutaneous lupus erythematosus: An update. Indian Dermatology Online Journal. 2014;5(1):7-13. doi: / [11] Sontheimer RD, Thomas JR, Gilliam JN. Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus: A cutaneous marker for a distinct lupus erythematosus subset. Arch Dermatol. 1979;115: [12] Gilliam JN, Sontheimer RD. Distinctive cutaneous subsets in the spectrum of lupus erythematosus. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1981;4: [13] Kuhn A, Bein D, Bonsmann G. The 100th anniversary of lupus erythematosus tumidus. Autoimmun Rev. 2009;8: [14] Cardinali C, Caproni M, Bernacchi E, Amato L, Fabbri P. The spectrum of cutaneous manifestations in lupus erythematosus-the Italian experience. Lupus. 2000;9: [15] Kuhn A, Ruland V, Bonsmann G. Cutaneous lupus erythematosus: Update of therapeutic options Part I and Part II. J Am Acad Dermatol [16] Klein RS, Werth VP, Dowdy JC, Sayre RM. Analysis of compact fluorescent lights for use by patients with photosensitive conditions. Photochem Photobiol. 2009;85: [17] Stege H, Budde MA, Grether-Beck S, Krutmann J. Evaluation of the capacity of sunscreens to photoprotect lupus erythematosus patients by employing the photoprovocation test. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2000;16: [18] Diffey BL. Sun protection with clothing. Br J Dermatol. 2001;144: [19] Roenigk HH, Jr, Martin JS, Eichorn P, Gilliam JN. Discoid lupus erythematosus. Diagnostic features and evaluation of topical corticosteroid therapy. Cutis. 1980;25: [20] Hughes J, Rustin M. Corticosteroids. Clin Dermatol. 1997;15: [21] Gisondi P, Ellis CN, Girolomoni G. Pimecrolimus in dermatology: atopic dermatitis and beyond. Int J Clin Pract. 2005;59: [22] Marsland AM, Griffiths CE. The macrolide immunosuppressants in dermatology: mechanisms of action. Eur J Dermatol. 2002;12: Page 1381

6 [23] Sticherling M. Update on the use of topical calcineurin inhibitors in cutaneous lupus erythematosus. Biologics. 2011;5: [24] Queille-Roussel C, Paul C, Duteil L, et al. The new topical ascomycin derivative SDZ ASM 981 does not induce skin atrophy when applied to normal skin for 4 weeks: a randomized, double-blind controlled study. Br J Dermatol. 2001;144: [25] Draelos ZD. Use of topical corticosteroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors for the treatment of atopic dermatitis in thin and sensitive skin areas. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008;24: [26] Luger T, Paul C. Potential new indications of topical calcineurin inhibitors. Dermatology. 2007;215: [27] Wollina U, Hansel G. The use of topical calcineurin inhibitors in lupus erythematosus: an overview. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2008;22:1 6. [28] Tzung TY, Liu YS, Chang HW. Tacrolimus vs. clobetasol propionate in the treatment of facial cutaneous lupus erythematosus: a randomized, double-blind, bilateral comparison study. Br J Dermatol. 2007;156: [29] Sardy M, Ruzicka T, Kuhn A. Topical calcineurin inhibitors in cutaneous lupus erythematosus. Arch Dermatol Res. 2009;301: [30] Thaci D, Salgo R. Malignancy concerns of topical calcineurin inhibitors for atopic dermatitis: facts and controversies. Clin Dermatol. 2010;28: [31] Boehm IB, Boehm GA, Bauer R. Management of cutaneous lupus erythematosus with low-dose methotrexate: indication for modulation of inflammatory mechanisms. Rheumatol Int. 1998;18: [32] Wenzel J, Brahler S, Bauer R, Bieber T, Tuting T. Efficacy and safety of methotrexate in recalcitrant cutaneous lupus erythematosus: results of a retrospective study in 43 patients. Br J Dermatol. 2005;153: [33] Kreuter A, Tomi NS, Weiner SM, Huger M, Altmeyer P, et al. Mycophenolate sodium for subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus resistant to standard therapy. Br J Dermatol. 2007;156: [34] Ashinoff R, Werth VP, Franks AG., Jr Resistant discoid lupus erythematosus of palms and soles: successful treatment with azathioprine. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1988;19: Page 1382