Objectives To develop recommendations for monitoring patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in clinical practice and observational studies and to develop a standardised core set of variables to monitor SLE. Methods We followed the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) standardised procedures for guideline development. The following techniques were applied: nominal groups, Delphi surveys for prioritisation, small group discussion, systematic literature review and two Delphi rounds to obtain agreement. The panel included rheumatologists, internists, dermatologists, a nephrologist and an expert related to national research agencies. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were determined according to the Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendations of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Results A total of 10 recommendations have been developed, covering the following aspects: patient assessment, cardiovascular risk factors, other risk factors (osteoporosis, cancer), infection risk (screening, vaccination, monitoring), frequency of assessments, laboratory tests, mucocutaneous involvement, kidney monitoring, neuropsychological manifestations and ophthalmology assessment. A ‘core set’ of minimal variables for the assessment and monitoring of patients with SLE in clinical practice was developed that included some of the recommendations. In addition to the recommendations, indications for specific organ assessments that were viewed as part of good clinical practice were discussed and included in the flow chart. Conclusions A set of recommendations for monitoring patients with SLE in routine clinical practice has been developed. The use of a standardised core set to monitor patients with SLE should facilitate clinical practice, as well as the quality control of care for patients with SLE, and the collection and comparison of data in observational studies.

Antisynthetase syndrome (ASSD) is a rare clinical condition that is characterized by the occurrence of a classic clinical triad, encompassing myositis, arthritis, and interstitial lung disease (ILD), along with specific autoantibodies that are addressed to different aminoacyl tRNA synthetases (ARS). Until now, it has been unknown whether the presence of a different ARS might affect the clinical presentation, evolution, and outcome of ASSD. In this study, we retrospectively recorded the time of onset, characteristics, clustering of triad findings, and survival of 828 ASSD patients (593 anti-Jo1, 95 anti-PL7, 84 anti-PL12, 38 anti-EJ, and 18 anti-OJ), referring to AENEAS (American and European NEtwork of Antisynthetase Syndrome) collaborative group’s cohort. Comparisons were performed first between all ARS cases and then, in the case of significance, while using anti-Jo1 positive patients as the reference group. The characteristics of triad findings were similar and the onset mainly began with a single triad finding in all groups despite some differences in overall prevalence. The “ex-novo” occurrence of triad findings was only reduced in the anti-PL12-positive cohort, however, it occurred in a clinically relevant percentage of patients (30%). Moreover, survival was not influenced by the underlying anti-aminoacyl tRNA synthetase antibodies’ positivity, which confirmed that antisynthetase syndrome is a heterogeneous condition and that antibody specificity only partially influences the clinical presentation and evolution of this condition.

Food is often considered to be a precipitating factor of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) symptoms. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in FODMAPs (Fermentable Oligo-, Di-, Mono-saccharides, And Polyols), which can be found in many common foods. A low FODMAP diet (LFD) is increasingly suggested for IBS treatment. However, long-term, large, randomized controlled studies are still lacking, and certainties and doubts regarding LFDs have grown, often in a disorderly and confused manner. Some potential LFD limitations and concerns have been raised, including nutritional adequacy, cost, and difficulty in teaching the diet and maintaining it. Most of these limitations can be solved with the involvement of a skilled nutritionist, who can clearly explain the different phases of the LFD and ensure nutritional adequacy and compliance. Further studies should focus on new methods of teaching and learning the LFD and on predictors of response. Moreover, particular interest should be focused on the possible use of LFD in gastrointestinal diseases other than functional disorders and, possibly, also in non-gastrointestinal diseases. The aim of the present review was to clarify the effective and appropriate indications and limitations of an LFD and to discuss its possible future uses.