You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Editorial
Lupus Science and Medicine: the Editors present highlights for the bedside and for the bench in the inaugural issue
  1. Jill Buyon1 and
  2. Ronald van Vollenhoven2
  1. 1NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
  2. 2Professor & Head of Unit for Clinical Therapy Research, Inflammatory Diseases (ClinTRID), Karolinska Institute Stockholm, Sweden
  1. Correspondence to Professor Jill Buyon; Jbuyonic{at}aol.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/lupus-2014-000033

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.

    In clinical medicine, we seek to heal, and it is a long held tenet that a ‘response’ to treatment should be congruent between a strictly defined objective outcome and the physician's perception of improvement. As we advance in our understanding of the pathogenesis of lupus and molecularly targeted therapies are being studied, pivotal FDA trials are relying on two major indices to gauge response in extrarenal activity; the BILAG-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA), and the Systemic Lupus Responder Index (SRI). Accordingly, it is timely that Thanou et al1 address the critical issue of whether these instruments are faithfully reflective of what the clinician ‘really thinks’. The authors point out that both instruments have shortcomings. BICLA requires …

    View Full Text