RHUPUS SYNDROME: DESCRIPTION OF CLINICAL MANIFESTATIONS, ANALYTICAL FINDINGS, AND THERAPEUTIC APPROACH IN A SERIES OF 10 CASES
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PV145a / #751 Poster Topic: AS17 - Miscellaneous Background/Purpose Rhupus is a rare syndrome that combines characteristics of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Its prevalence is estimated to be 0.09%. It is characterized by erosive polyarthritis along with typical SLE symptoms and specific autoantibodies. The debate continues as to whether Rhupus is a true overlap of RA and SLE or represents a form of SLE with erosive joint involvement. In order to provide a better understanding of the topic, the objective of this study is to describe the demographic variables, analytical data, clinical manifestations, and therapeutic approaches in patients diagnosed with Rhupus. Methods A cross-sectional, monocentric study was conducted on patients diagnosed with Rhupus between January 2019 and December 2024. All patients met the ACR/EULAR 2010 criteria for RA and ACR/EULAR 2019 criteria for SLE. Demographic variables, analytical data (autoantibodies, cytopenias, acute phase reactants, and complement consumption), clinical manifestations, and the different treatments received during their evolution, including synthetic and biologic DMARDs, were collected Results Ten patients were included, 90% women, with a median age of 62 years. All received treatment with at least 3 DMARDs. The most commonly used synthetic DMARDs were methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine. Seven patients received biologic DMARDs, with rituximab being the most commonly used. One patient was treated with certolizumab due to fertility desires. Six patients received JAK inhibitors (4 with baricitinib and 2 with upadacitinib) (Table 1). All patients tested positive for antinuclear antibodies (ANA), 90% for anti-citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP), 80% for rheumatoid factor (RF), and 60% for anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA). Other antibodies present can be seen in Table 2. The most frequent analytical alterations were elevated acute phase reactants (100%), lymphopenia (40%), and complement consumption (30%). Regarding clinical manifestations, arthritis was present in 100% of patients, 70% of which was erosive. Fatigue and morning stiffness affected 60%. Thirty percent showed typical SLE skin lesions such as malar rash, photosensitivity, and subacute cutaneous lupus. Other manifestations, such as alopecia and dry syndrome, were present in 30%. Less frequently, aphthosis, rheumatoid nodules, pericarditis, pericardial effusion, pleural effusion, and Raynaud’s phenomenon were observed (Table 2). TABLE 1. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND TREATMENTS TABLE 2. ANALYTICAL DATA AND CLINICAL MANIFESTATIONS Conclusions All patients presented with difficult-to-manage symptoms, requiring treatment with at least 3 DMARDs. The most frequently used treatments were methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, JAK inhibitors (tofacitinib and upadacitinib), and rituximab. The most common analytical findings were elevated acute phase reactants, lymphopenia, and complement consumption. All patients had positive ANA, 90% had positive anti-CCP, 80% had RF, and 60% had anti-dsDNA. Arthritis was the most frequent manifestation (100% of patients), with 70% of cases being erosive. Other typical SLE manifestations were present, with the most frequent being skin lesions in 30% of patients.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».