Introduction: Peripheral neurologic manifestations may be associated with most of the collagen vascular diseases including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), yet most of the times it is not clear what therapy should be prescribed. EULAR recommendations for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus with neuropsychiatric manifestations suggest the use of glucocorticoids and immunosuppressive agents for the treatment of SLE associated peripheral neuropathy (PN) (strength of statement A, category of evidence 1), however these recommendations are based on studies that did not focus specifically on PN but rather on neuropsychiatric manifestations of SLE out of which only one was a randomized controlled clinical trial that included 7 patients with peripheral neuropathy. The objective of this systematic review is to determine whether the pathogenic treatments (corticosteroids, immunosuppressive agents, intravenous immunoglobulins, plasmapheresis) are effective for SLE associated PN. Methods: We searched MEDLINE for all the studies that included the pathogenic treatment of SLE associated PN. The purpose was to identify randomized clinical trials, and in the absence of these, we included observational studies and case reports or case series. Results: The search returned only retrospective case reports or case series. Only one prospective study, a randomized controlled study, was focused on neuropsychiatric SLE and included few patients with PN (7). Some studies reported cases of PN responsive to glucocorticoids (GC), cyclophosphamide (CYC), rituximab (RTX), azathioprine (AZA), plasmapheresis (PPH), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or different combinations of these immunosuppressive agents, whereas others noticed effectiveness of sequential treatments (i.e. administration of a therapeutic agent after another single agent or a combination of agents had previously failed). Many studies did not mention how the outcomes were objectively measured. Conclusions: There are no interventional studies dedicated to the SLE associated PN, only retrospective case reports or case series which not only did they show contradictory results, but they also represent the lowest level of evidence. There is a strong need for new analytical studies dedicated to SLE associated PN. Protocol registered with PROSPERO (number CRD42019121748).

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) shows a marked female predominance during reproductive years, possibly suggesting hormonal factors in its pathogenesis. However, evidence regarding reproductive hormone alterations in SLE remains inconsistent. To systematically review studies assessing reproductive hormone levels in adult SLE patients compared with healthy controls and across disease activity states. Following PRISMA guidelines and a pre-registered protocol (PROSPERO CRD42024544730), PubMed and Scopus were searched (May 2024). Eligible observational studies reported estradiol, testosterone, progesterone, prolactin, FSH, LH, DHEA-S, DHEA or androstenedione in SLE patients versus controls or by disease activity. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Eighty-three studies were included (5389 individuals for SLE vs. controls; 2067 for active vs. inactive SLE). Prolactin was consistently higher in SLE (MD 8.07 ng/mL; 95% CI 4.69-11.45; p < 0.001) and even more during flare (MD 5.83 ng/mL; 95% CI 3.88-7.78; p < 0.001). Estradiol showed non-significant overall elevations but was significantly higher in women with active disease (MD 8.55 pg/mL; 95% CI 1.37-15.73; p = 0.03). DHEA-S was found to be significantly lower in SLE (MD -1.00 μg/mL; 95% CI -1.5 to -0.50; p = 0.002) but too few studies evaluated its dynamics during flares. FSH and LH were significantly higher in men with SLE. Other hormones were inconsistent. Only three small heterogeneous studies evaluated hormonal changes during flares. Prolactin excess and androgen deficiency are consistent features of SLE, particularly in women, while elevated gonadotropins are mainly seen in men. Estradiol is higher during active disease but other data are inconsistent. Longitudinal studies are limited, with prolactin the only hormone consistently linked to disease activity and full hormonal profiles during flares are largely unstudied.

Background/Objectives: Empowerment strategies promoting healthy behaviors are important for preventing chronic diseases and cancer, while individual health responsibility (IHR) plays a significant role. Although widely discussed in the literature, the concept of IHR does not have clearly defined domains or a validated instrument for assessment. Its overlap with locus of control theory, self-motivation, and personality type creates further difficulties. Meanwhile, perception of one’s own responsibility for health is an intuitive, simple item to answer, reflecting a person’s belief related to this topic. Moreover, for ethical reasons, this concept cannot be separated from personal beliefs and should not be adjusted according to strict scales and externally imposed definitions. Therefore, this study aimed to: (1) explore whether there is an association between self-perception of IHR and preventive/risk-taking behaviors; and (2) examine socio-demographic factors associated with the IHR score and three self-perceived characteristics, namely self-perceived locus of control, health literacy, and health status. Methods: A cross-sectional study with 968 healthcare workers was conducted in a large, multidisciplinary hospital covering several behaviors (smoking, alcohol consumption, diet, and participation in a screening program for hepatitis C). IHR was evaluated on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 meant “to very little extent” and 10 meant “to a great extent”. Results: The average IHR score was 8.80 (SD = 1.88). In the univariate analysis, the IHR score was significantly related to gender, age, education, marital status, and all three personal characteristics. In the multivariate analysis, the socio-demographic associations lost statistical significance. IHR maintained its association with the healthy diet score in the multivariable model (B = 0.113, p = 0.036). In the unadjusted analyses, the distribution of IHR differed between participants who declared alcohol consumption and those who declared abstinence (χ² = 17.157, p = 0.002). However, this association was not retained in the multivariable model. Self-perceived internal locus of control was negatively associated with screening acceptance, but not with IHR. The OR of 0.927 refers to a one-point increase on the 1–10 scale. Across the full observed scale range, this corresponds to an OR of 0.51 (95% CI: 0.29–0.89), indicating lower odds of screening acceptance among participants with higher perceived internal control. Because this estimate assumes linearity across the entire scale, it should be interpreted cautiously. Conclusions: The gap between perceived responsibility and actual behavior suggests that IHR messaging alone is unlikely to be sufficient. Future research should consider social desirability and external locus of control when analyzing IHR and health behaviors.