Abstract
Cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) is a group of heterogeneous autoimmune disorders primarily affecting the skin. Patients with these conditions are mostly young women when they become sick and often suffer from recurrent skin symptoms or longstanding changes in their physical appearance. CLE disorders lead to different levels of morbidity and can impact profoundly patients' quality of life, particularly in the psychological and social health domains. This review provides a summary of recent research investigating the psychosocial burden of living with CLE and the intersect amongst the disease characteristics, patient factors, and social determinants of health. Furthermore, this review provides insight into patient care and research needs that remain unmet to improve the quality of life of patients living with CLE.
Introduction
Cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) is a group of heterogeneous autoimmune disorders primarily affecting the skin and mucosal tissue, showing varying levels of association with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). CLE comprises multiple conditions classified into three major subgroups based on the disease morphological characteristics and chronicity: acute (ACLE), subacute (SCLE), and chronic (CCLE) cutaneous lupus erythematosus (1, 2). ACLE consists of transitory erythematosus rashes, which are often localized on the malar area of the face, also known as “butterfly” rash, on UV-exposed areas, or as a generalized rash. SCLE typically presents as an annular or a papulosquamous rash on photo-exposed areas of the trunk and arms. SCLE rashes last longer than ACLE and can cause dyspigmentation. CCLE is the largest subgroup and includes multiple distinctive conditions, including discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE), lupus panniculitis, chilblain lupus, and lupus tumidus. CCLE subtypes can cause scaring and are less likely to be associated with SLE than ACLE and SCLE. DLE, the most common subtype, is characterized by erythematous discoid-shaped, adherent plaques and papules that can be localized in any area of the body, but are more likely to be on the scalp, ears, and face. DLE heals causing dyspigmentation, atrophy, scarring, and permanent hair loss (1, 3, 4).
CLE affects all age groups but is rare in children, and is more common in females with different proportions according to subtype. The female to male incidence ratio ranges between 3:1 and 4:1 for CLE as a group, and between 3:1 and 8:1 for DLE (5–8). Population-based studies indicate that Black people develop the disease at younger age than White people. The mean age at DLE diagnosis was 48.5 and 53 years-old in the predominantly White populations of Olmstead County, Minnesota and Sweden (6, 9), respectively, and 32 years-old in the African-descendent population of French Guiana (10).
There are also racial disparities in the incidence, morphology, and severity of CLE subtypes. While SCLE is more likely to occur in White individuals (11), CCLE, in general, and DLE, in particular, disproportionately affect Black individuals. In the Southeast USA, where the population is evenly distributed between White and Black people, the overall incidence of CCLE and DLE was reported to be at a minimum of 3.9/100,000 and 3.7/100,000 person years, respectively (8). CCLE and DLE incident rates were 3.9- and 4.1-fold higher for Black compared to White people, respectively. Racial disparities were also reported in the prevalence of DLE in Manhattan, with higher rate of cases per 100,000 persons-year among Blacks (23.5) and Latinos (8.2) compared with Whites (1.8) and Asians (0.6). The average age at diagnosis was lowest among Black people (36.7 years old) and highest among White people (63.4 years old), whereas Latino and Asian people were in average 45.8 and 45.3 years old, respectively (7). Among CLE patients at the University of Pennsylvania, Black people had more skin damage at onset and during follow-up than White patients (12), while Black patients with DLE from Texas had significantly worse damage at baseline and greater risk of dyspigmentation at any anatomical location than those of other race/ethnicity (13).
The Burden of CLE
Patient Perspectives of Living With CLE
Two recent qualitative studies have shed light on how CLE may be perceived by patients and how the disease may affect patients' lives (14, 15). The most salient themes include the negative impact of living with CLE on patients' mental health, which can lead to social anxiety, maladaptive responses, and negative coping strategies such as recreational drug use (14). Issues related to physical signs and symptoms, including scarring and dyspigmentation, fear of disease progression, body image and self-consciousness are often elicited by patients (15). Qualitative findings suggest that the emotional distress caused by living with CLE persists in a large majority of patients, regardless of the disease duration; however; patients' concerns may differ by demographic characteristics (14, 15). White patients reported predominantly fear of disease progression and physical signs and symptoms, whereas Black patients often elicited self-consciousness, alopecia and dyspigmentation. Furthermore, patients aged 60 or younger were more likely to report emotional symptoms than older patients (15).
Individuals living with CLE report that their personal relationships are profoundly affected (14). Patient testimonies indicate high levels of distress about their appearance as well as being socially stigmatized (15). Self-consciousness, one of the most common themes among CLE patients, is intensified by comments made to the patient by other people. These conditions also interfere with outdoor activities due to photosensitivity. Patients often report feelings of helplessness and being restrained by the disease due to the lack of cure and limited cosmetic resources (15). As in other stigmatized diseases, low self-esteem and internalized stigma can have devastating consequences on social interactions, vocational development, employment, and healthcare seeking (16).
Health-Related Quality of Life
HRQL is a multi-dimensional concept that includes domains of physical, mental, emotional, and social functioning, and the social context in which people live (17). In chronic diseases, HRQL has become increasingly important in the assessment of disease severity, the evaluation of interventions, and the allocation of resources. A growing body of research indicates that CLE has a substantial negative impact on the physical, mental, and social health of people living with these conditions (12, 18–20). One of the instruments most commonly used to measure HRQL in CLE is the Skindex 29+3, a skin-specific validated scale that provides separate scores for three skin-related domains (symptoms, emotions, and functioning) and an additional lupus-specific domain to address a patient's worries about hair loss, outdoor activities, and photosensitive-related flares (18, 21). The impact of CLE on the HRQL has been reported to be worse or similar to that seen in patients with other skin diseases, such as acne and non-melanoma skin cancer, as well as in other chronic conditions such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes (18).
HRQL can be influenced by multiple factors, including CLE subtypes and disease characteristics, patient's demographics, social context, and healthcare system. Female sex, older age, low education, low socioeconomic status, smoking, associated SLE, generalized CLE, and higher skin disease activity, have been reported to impact negatively different domains of HRQL in CLE (12, 18–20, 22, 23). Increased disease activity has been associated with poorer quality of life in cross-sectional studies; however, a small longitudinal study among patients with DLE and SCLE pointed to a physician-patient dissociation of the disease assessment, supporting the multidimensional patient-driven nature of quality of life in chronic skin diseases (24). A more recent study used a CLE-specific tool derived from Skindex 29+3 to examine multiple factors potentially associated with the HRQL in a diverse university-based sample of CLE patients from the Southwest US (20). Pain, fatigue, disease activity, body image, and side effects of medications were significantly associated with worse quality of life, with body dissatisfaction having the highest negative impact. These results taken together suggest that treatment evaluation should include measures relevant to the patient, including body appearance.
Depression and Psychiatric Disorders
Psychological health is one of the HRQL domains most negatively impacted in CLE. Patients with CLE have increased prevalence of major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, suicide risk, and agoraphobia (25). Approximately one-third of people with CLE report moderate to severe depressive symptoms (18, 26–28). Likewise, the risk of depression was found to be 2-fold higher people with CLE compared with the general population in a nationwide Danish study (27). However, mental health challenges are often underdiagnosed and remain untreated in CLE patients and the psychosocial burden of CLE is poorly understood, particularly among patients from minority groups (28, 29).
While the CLE subtype and morphological characteristics are deemed to be primary factors affecting patients' quality of life, recent research suggests that individual characteristics and social factors also play critical roles (20). A study on illness perception among patients with DLE emphasized that negative emotional reactions to illness are associated with worse quality of life, worse depression and higher activity and damage (30). Furthermore, in a predominantly Black population-based cohort of patients with CCLE, the risk of depression was lower in participants who were employed and insured. Non-depressed patients also reported higher social support, visited a primary care physician more frequently in the last year, and reported better physician-patient interactions (28). Perceptions of stigmatization have been significantly related to both psychological distress and degree of disability among patients with other skin diseases (31–33), and these factors are likely to play a substantial role in the pathogenesis of depression among individuals with CCLE. Despite the high prevalence of depression in patients with CLE, in general, and CCLE, in particular, there is currently sparse work exploring psychosocial pathways in high-risk populations with CLE.
Social Determinants of Health and CLE
The World Health Organization defines social determinants of health (SDH) as the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age that affects a wide range of health and quality-of life-risks and outcomes. SDH are narrowly correlated to the immediate environment of an individual such as underprivileged social conditions of poverty, lower level of education, unemployment, insecure housing, unsafe home and neighborhood conditions, unsafe employment, childhood experiences (e.g., abuse), poor relationships, and social support (34). Not only do SDH shape individuals' options, choice, and behavior that impact their health, but these conditions also correlate with environmental and social threats that generate unhealthy stress responses. Among patients with chronic skin diseases, social stigma and reduced social connections have been significantly related to both psychological distress and disability (33). However, little is known about the impact of SDH in CLE. Moreover, as Black individuals are at higher risk for chronic disfiguring subtypes and are also more likely to be exposed to social stressors, it is imperative to examine the impact of SDH on the health of this population.
A recent report from the University of Texas Southwestern CLE Registry examined the cross-sectional association of income and quality of life in an ethnically diverse sample of patients with CLE, of whom nearly 80% had DLE and 51% had associated SLE (13). Racial disparities in annual income were evident, with White people representing nearly 60% of participants in the highest bracket (>50 K USD) and Black people representing nearly 70% of those in the lowest bracket (<10 K USD). While Cutaneous LE Disease Area and Severity Index (CLASI) activity scores did not differ significantly across income, CLASI damage scores and income were inversely associated. Moreover, lower annual income was significantly associated with worse quality of life, specifically in relation to symptoms and emotions, and within those in the lowest income bracket, women, patients younger than 40 years of age, smokers, and those with more active skin disease were more likely to have worse quality of life. These findings suggest that CLE conditions place a substantial financial burden on patients, potentially limiting job opportunities and having negative consequences on healthcare access and quality of care. Moreover, low-income individuals reportedly experienced more shame, anger, embarrassment and social isolation related to their skin disease, suggesting that individuals living under the poverty threshold are disproportionately more vulnerable to the psychological and social effects of these stigmatizing conditions.
Burden on the Health Care System
A recent study using administrative data indicated that CLE poses a substantial toll on the healthcare system. The total direct medical cost associated with CLE in the US was ~$30 billion in 2014, and CLE patients with depression had significantly higher average annual total expenditure, compared to those without depression ($19,854 vs. 9,735) (26).
Cardiovascular Disease
A large body of evidence indicates that SLE and related autoimmune diseases increase the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), primarily as a consequence of immune-driven atherosclerotic changes (35–38). Recent research suggests that patients with isolated CLE may also have an increased risk of CVD, although data from various CLE studies are less consistent than in SLE (39–41). An increased cardiovascular risk in CLE can be explained by the chronic inflammatory process that characterize CLE, as well as by the high prevalence of depression in this population, which is a well-known factor associated with atherosclerosis (25, 42). Moreover, traditional risk factors, such as smoking and alcohol intake are coping responses frequently adopted by patients with stigmatized conditions, such as CLE (43). Less known factors, not studied yet in CLE, are related to the chronic exposure to psychosocial stressors, such as social stigma and discrimination. The experience of psychosocial stressors across the life-course contributes to “weathering”, or accelerated declines in health due to cumulative burden on biological systems (44–47). Research suggests that chronic stressors elicit a cascade of biological responses that may be functional in the short term, but over time damage the systems that regulate the body's stress response (48–50). Epidemiological studies have shown that psychological stress may significantly contribute to the development and progression of atherosclerosis (51–53).
Relationship of CLE and SLE
ACLE lesions often present as a cutaneous flare within the context of SLE, whereas up to 60% of SCLE patients may have associated systemic features or may transition to SLE (54). In contrast, CCLE conditions in general and DLE in particular are deemed to have a lower risk of associated SLE or disease progression. Still, available data vary widely depending on the demographics and settings of the study population, methods and timing used to ascertain cases, and case definitions. The prevalence DLE lesions in patients with a diagnosis of SLE ranges between 5 and 24% (6, 55, 56), and similar proportions (5–25%) of patients with isolated DLE may progress to SLE (6, 9, 54, 57). Several studies indicate that when systemic manifestations are present in patients with DLE, these tend to be mild and kidneys are less likely to be compromised (56–59). The time from DLE to SLE progression varies widely, ranging between months to over 30 years (9, 57). One study described that nearly 17% of patients with a diagnosis of DLE developed SLE within 3 years (6), and the highest rates of disease progression within 3 years of DLE diagnosis have been reported for children (26%) and women (20.7%) (6, 55). However, a recent retrospective study underlined a much shorter estimate, with a median interval of 453 days between DLE diagnosis and SLE progression in 34 adult DLE patients who developed SLE (60). The progression from DLE to SLE has been linked to several clinical risk factors, including the presence of generalized DLE lesions, articular symptoms (arthritis or arthralgias), periungual telangiectasias and nailfold abnormalities, autoantibodies, leukopenia and anemia (61, 62). The pathogenic mechanisms for SLE progression are largely unknown. A recent cross-sectional study in a predominantly Black population underlined that the B-cell compartment in some patients with isolated CCLE resembles SLE and is clinically associated with enhanced serological activity and more extensive skin disease, suggesting that SLE-like B-cell changes may help identify CCLE patients at risk for subsequent development of SLE (63). In contrast, another study found a B cell gene signature in the skin of DLE patients, which was more prominent in patients with a lower rate of systemic disease. These findings taken together suggest that B cell phenotypes in the blood and the skin may play specific roles with differential effect in cutaneous lupus and systemic disease activity.
Unmet Needs and Research Opportunities
Qualitative studies among CLE patients revealed important unmet needs related to CLE treatment and care, including insufficient patient education to better cope with the disease and lack of treatments to improve damaged skin (14). Furthermore, Black patients tend to report low satisfaction with dermatologists' knowledge of their skin and hair, as well as lack of culturally sensitive interaction style. Since Black people are more susceptible to DLE than White people and are more likely to develop lesions on the scalp with more severe damage and dyspigmentation, a knowledgeable and culturally competent approach is necessary to better serve these patients. Cosmetic care is another unmet need perceived by patients. Cosmetic procedures are largely avoided by practitioners because the potential side effects that may occur in autoimmune and photosensitive conditions. Moreover, these procedures are expensive and patients with CCLE are often left with permanent skin damage (64).
Despite the heterogeneous spectrum of CLE conditions, as well as the variable disease severity and risk of systemic manifestations across these multiple conditions, most quality-of-life studies tend to approach CLE as a group, with limited data on the potential differences by CLE subtypes. Furthermore, the susceptibility to CLE subtypes and the disease severity differs by individual demographics, with Black patients having higher risks of chronic subtypes, more conspicuous hypopigmentation, and worse skin damage (8, 13, 19). Thus, studies with larger sample size and representation of minority groups are needed to better describe health disparities across CLE subtypes and understand the needs of patients from vulnerable groups.
The study of social determinants has been lacking and is fundamental in CLE, where CCLE, the most prevalent subtype, clearly disproportionately strikes Black minorities. Research addressing social determinants of health is imperative to understand the pathways associated with poor outcomes and inform clinicians, public health agents and general public on interventions and programs that can help to mitigate the negative impact of these conditions in the most vulnerable subpopulations.
Funding
SL and CD are supported by the NIH (R01AR065493-01; R01MD010455-01; R01AR070898-01) and the CDC (U01DP005119). This publication was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under Grant numbers U01 DP19003, U01 DP005119 and by cooperative agreement CDC-RFA-DP08-806 as part of a financial assistance award totaling $6,406,636 with 100% funded by CDC/HHS.
Author Disclaimer
The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the CDC.
Publisher's Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Statements
Author contributions
CD and SL contributed to the manuscript conception and literature review. All authors were involved in drafting the article and/or critically revising it for important intellectual content, and approved the final version to be published.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1.
OkonLGWerthVP. Cutaneous lupus erythematosus: diagnosis and treatment. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. (2013) 27:391–404. 10.1016/j.berh.2013.07.008
2.
GilliamJNSontheimerRD. Distinctive cutaneous subsets in the spectrum of lupus erythematosus. J Am Acad Dermatol. (1981) 4:471–5. 10.1016/S0190-9622(81)80261-7
3.
WerthVP. Clinical manifestations of cutaneous lupus erythematosus. Autoimmun Rev. (2005) 4:296–302. 10.1016/j.autrev.2005.01.003
4.
ObermoserGSontheimerRDZelgerB. Overview of common, rare and atypical manifestations of cutaneous lupus erythematosus and histopathological correlates. Lupus. (2010) 19:1050–70. 10.1177/0961203310370048
5.
JarukitsopaSHogansonDDCrowsonCSSokumbiODavisMDMichetCJet al. Epidemiology of systemic lupus erythematosus and cutaneous lupus erythematosus in a predominantly White population in the United States. Arthritis Care Res. (2015) 67:817–28. 10.1002/acr.22502
6.
GronhagenCMForedCMGranathFNybergF. Cutaneous lupus erythematosus and the association with systemic lupus erythematosus: a population-based cohort of 1088 patients in Sweden. Br J Dermatol. (2011) 164:1335–41. 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10272.x
7.
IzmirlyPBuyonJBelmontHMSahlSWanISalmonJet al. Population-based prevalence and incidence estimates of primary discoid lupus erythematosus from the Manhattan Lupus Surveillance Program. Lupus Sci Med. (2019) 6:e000344. 10.1136/lupus-2019-000344
8.
DrenkardCParkerSAspeyLDGordonCHelmickCGBaoGet al. Racial disparities in the incidence of primary chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus in the Southeastern US: the georgia lupus registry. Arthritis Care Res. (2019) 71:95–103. 10.1002/acr.23578
9.
DurosaroODavisMDReedKBRohlingerAL. Incidence of cutaneous lupus erythematosus, 1965-2005: a population-based study. Arch Dermatol. (2009) 145:249–53. 10.1001/archdermatol.2009.21
10.
DelignyCMarieDSClytiEArfiSCouppieP. Pure cutaneous lupus erythematosus in a population of African descent in French Guiana: a retrospective population-based description. Lupus. (2012) 21:1467–71. 10.1177/0961203312458167
11.
SontheimerRD. Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus: 25-year evolution of a prototypic subset (subphenotype) of lupus erythematosus defined by characteristic cutaneous, pathological, immunological, and genetic findings. Autoimmun Rev. (2005) 4:253–63. 10.1016/j.autrev.2004.10.003
12.
VermaSMOkawaJPropertKJWerthVP. The impact of skin damage due to cutaneous lupus on quality of life. Br J Dermatol. (2014) 170:315–21. 10.1111/bjd.12653
13.
JosephAKWindsorBHynanLSChongBF. Discoid lupus erythematosus skin lesion distribution and characteristics in Black patients: a retrospective cohort study. Lupus Sci Med. (2021) 8:e000514. 10.1136/lupus-2021-000514
14.
OgunsanyaMEBrownCMLinDImarhiaFMaxeyCChongBF. Understanding the disease burden and unmet needs among patients with cutaneous lupus erythematosus: a qualitative study. Int J Womens Dermatol. (2018) 4:152–8. 10.1016/j.ijwd.2018.01.002
15.
YanDZamalinDChakkaSKrainRConchaJFengRet al. Cutaneous lupus concerns from the patient perspective: a qualitative study. Lupus Sci Med. (2021) 8:e000444. 10.1136/lupus-2020-000444
16.
StanglALEarnshawVALogieCHvan BrakelWCSimbayiLBarréIet al. The Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework: a global, crosscutting framework to inform research, intervention development, and policy on health-related stigmas. BMC Med. (2019) 17:31. 10.1186/s12916-019-1271-3
17.
FerrandCE. Definitions and conceptual models of quality of life. In: LipscombJGotayCCSnyderC editors. Outcomes Assessment in Cancer: Measures, Methods, and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2005). p. 14–30. 10.1017/CBO9780511545856.002
18.
KleinRMoghadam-KiaSTaylorLColeyCOkawaJLoMonicoJet al. Quality of life in cutaneous lupus erythematosus. J Am Acad Dermatol. (2011) 64:849–58. 10.1016/j.jaad.2010.02.008
19.
VasquezRWangDTranQPAdams-HuetBChrenMMCostnerMIet al. A multicentre, cross-sectional study on quality of life in patients with cutaneous lupus erythematosus. Br J Dermatol. (2013) 168:145–53. 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2012.11106.x
20.
OgunsanyaMEChoSKHudsonAChongBF. Factors associated with quality of life in cutaneous lupus erythematosus using the Revised Wilson and Cleary Model. Lupus. (2020) 29:1691–703. 10.1177/0961203320951842
21.
ChrenMMLasekRJQuinnLMMostowENZyzanskiSJ. Skindex, a quality-of-life measure for patients with skin disease: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Invest Dermatol. (1996) 107:707–13. 10.1111/1523-1747.ep12365600
22.
TeskeNMCardonZEOgunsanyaMELiXAdams-HuetBChongBF. Predictors of low quality of life in patients with discoid lupus. Br J Dermatol. (2017) 177:e147–e9. 10.1111/bjd.15490
23.
IshiguroMHashizumeHIkedaTYamamotoYFurukawaF. Evaluation of the quality of life of lupus erythematosus patients with cutaneous lesions in Japan. Lupus. (2014) 23:93–101. 10.1177/0961203313509293
24.
GainesEBonilla-MartinezZAlbrechtJTaylorLOkawaJTroxelABet al. Quality of life and disease severity in a cutaneous lupus erythematosus pilot study. Arch Dermatol. (2008) 144:1061–2. 10.1001/archderm.144.8.1061
25.
JalenquesIRondepierreFMassoubreCHaffenEGrandJPLabeilleBet al. High prevalence of psychiatric disorders in patients with skin-restricted lupus: a case-control study. Br J Dermatol. (2016) 174:1051–60. 10.1111/bjd.14392
26.
OgunsanyaMENduagubaSOBrownCM. Incremental health care services and expenditures associated with depression among individuals with cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE). Lupus. (2018) 27:1107–15. 10.1177/0961203318762604
27.
HesselvigJHEgebergAKofoedKGislasonGDreyerL. Increased risk of depression in patients with cutaneous lupus erythematosus and systemic lupus erythematosus: a Danish nationwide cohort study. Br J Dermatol. (2018) 179:1095–101. 10.1111/bjd.16831
28.
HongJAspeyLBaoGHaynesTLimSSDrenkardC. Chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus: depression burden and associated factors. Am J Clin Dermatol. (2019) 20:465–75. 10.1007/s40257-019-00429-7
29.
AchtmanJKlingMAFengROkawaJWerthVP. A cross-sectional study of untreated depression and anxiety in cutaneous lupus erythematosus and dermatomyositis. J Am Acad Dermatol. (2016) 74:377–9. 10.1016/j.jaad.2015.09.016
30.
ChenPBroadbentECoomarasamyCJarrettP. Illness perception in association with psychological functioning in patients with discoid lupus erythematosus. Br J Dermatol. (2015) 173:824–6. 10.1111/bjd.13709
31.
LakutaPPrzybyla-BasistaH. Toward a better understanding of social anxiety and depression in psoriasis patients: the role of determinants, mediators, and moderators. J Psychosom Res. (2017) 94:32–8. 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2017.01.007
32.
ŁakutaPMarcinkiewiczKBergler-CzopBBrzezińska-WcisłoL. How does stigma affect people with psoriasis?Postepy Dermatol Alergol. (2017) 34:36–41. 10.5114/pdia.2016.62286
33.
RichardsHLFortuneDGGriffithsCEMainCJ. The contribution of perceptions of stigmatisation to disability in patients with psoriasis. J Psychosom Res. (2001) 50:11–5. 10.1016/S0022-3999(00)00210-5
34.
Marmot M Friel S Bell R Houweling TA Taylor S Commission Commission on Social Determinants of H. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Lancet. (2008) 372:1661–9. 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61690-6
35.
TeixeiraVTamL-S. Novel insights in systemic lupus erythematosus and atherosclerosis. Front Med. (2018) 4:262. 10.3389/fmed.2017.00262
36.
UrowitzMBGladmanDDAndersonNMSuJRomero-DiazJBaeSCet al. Cardiovascular events prior to or early after diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus in the systemic lupus international collaborating clinics cohort. Lupus Sci Med. (2016) 3:e000143. 10.1136/lupus-2015-000143
37.
ManziSMeilahnENRairieJEConteCGMedsgerTAJrJansen-McWilliamsLet al. Age-specific incidence rates of myocardial infarction and angina in women with systemic lupus erythematosus: comparison with the Framingham Study. Am J Epidemiol. (1997) 145:408–15. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009122
38.
ManziSSelzerFSutton-TyrrellKFitzgeraldSGRairieJETracyRPet al. Prevalence and risk factors of carotid plaque in women with systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum. (1999) 42:51–60. 10.1002/1529-0131(199901)42:1<51::AID-ANR7>3.0.CO;2-D
39.
HesselvigJHAhlehoffODreyerLGislasonGKofoedK. Cutaneous lupus erythematosus and systemic lupus erythematosus are associated with clinically significant cardiovascular risk: a Danish nationwide cohort study. Lupus. (2017) 26:48–53. 10.1177/0961203316651739
40.
SinghAGCrowsonCSSinghSDenisMDavisPMaradit-KremersHet al. Risk of cerebrovascular accidents and ischemic heart disease in cutaneous lupus erythematosus: a population-based cohort study. Arthritis Care Res. (2016) 68:1664–70. 10.1002/acr.22892
41.
AhlehoffOWuJJRaunsoJKristensenSLKhalidUKofoedKet al. Cutaneous lupus erythematosus and the risk of deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: a Danish nationwide cohort study. Lupus. (2017) 26:1435–9. 10.1177/0961203317716306
42.
RozanskiABlumenthalJADavidsonKWSaabPGKubzanskyL. The epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management of psychosocial risk factors in cardiac practice: the emerging field of behavioral cardiology. J Am College Cardiol. (2005) 45:637–51. 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.12.005
43.
EarnshawVA. Stigma and substance use disorders: a clinical, research, and advocacy agenda. Am Psychol. (2020) 75:1300–11. 10.1037/amp0000744
44.
GeronimusAT. The weathering hypothesis and the health of African-American women and infants: evidence and speculations. Ethnicity Dis. (1992) 2:207–21.
45.
McEwenBS. Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators. N Engl J Med. (1998) 338:171–9. 10.1056/NEJM199801153380307
46.
McEwenBSStellarE. Stress and the individual. Mechanisms leading to disease. Arch Intern Med. (1993) 153:2093–101. 10.1001/archinte.1993.00410180039004
47.
SeemanTEMcEwenBS. Impact of social environment characteristics on neuroendocrine regulation. Psychosom Med. (1996) 58:459–71. 10.1097/00006842-199609000-00008
48.
SeemanTEMcEwenBSRoweJWSingerBH. Allostatic load as a marker of cumulative biological risk: MacArthur studies of successful aging. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2001) 98:4770–5. 10.1073/pnas.081072698
49.
McEwenBS. The neurobiology of stress: from serendipity to clinical relevance. Brain Res. (2000) 886:172–89. 10.1016/S0006-8993(00)02950-4
50.
GeronimusATBoundJKeeneDHickenM. Black-White differences in age trajectories of hypertension prevalence among adult women and men, 1999-2002. Ethnicity Dis. (2007) 17:40–8.
51.
KamarckTWShiffmanSSutton-TyrrellKMuldoonMFTepperP. Daily psychological demands are associated with 6-year progression of carotid artery atherosclerosis: the Pittsburgh Healthy Heart Project. Psychosom Med. (2012) 74:432–9. 10.1097/PSY.0b013e3182572599
52.
WangHXLeineweberCKirkeeideRSvaneBSchenck-GustafssonKTheorellTet al. Psychosocial stress and atherosclerosis: family and work stress accelerate progression of coronary disease in women. The stockholm female coronary angiography study. J Intern Med. (2007) 261:245–54. 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2006.01759.x
53.
BlackPHGarbuttLD. Stress, inflammation and cardiovascular disease. J Psychosom Res. (2002) 52:1–23. 10.1016/S0022-3999(01)00302-6
54.
ZhouWWuHZhaoMLuQ. New insights into the progression from cutaneous lupus to systemic lupus erythematosus. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. (2020) 16:829–37. 10.1080/1744666X.2020.1805316
55.
ArkinLMAnsellLRademakerACurranMLMillerMLWagnerAet al. The natural history of pediatric-onset discoid lupus erythematosus. J Am Acad Dermatol. (2015) 72:628–33. 10.1016/j.jaad.2014.12.028
56.
MerolaJFPrystowskySDIversenCGomez-PuertaJANortonTTsaoPet al. Association of discoid lupus erythematosus with other clinical manifestations among patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Am Acad Dermatol. (2013) 69:19–24. 10.1016/j.jaad.2013.02.010
57.
WieczorekITPropertKJOkawaJWerthVP. Systemic symptoms in the progression of cutaneous to systemic lupus erythematosus. JAMA Dermatol. (2014) 150:291–6. 10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.9026
58.
Pons-EstelGJAspeyLDBaoGPons-EstelBAWojdylaDSauritVet al. Early discoid lupus erythematosus protects against renal disease in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: longitudinal data from a large Latin American cohort. Lupus. (2017) 26:73–83. 10.1177/0961203316651740
59.
MerolaJFChangCASanchezMRPrystowskySD. Is chronic cutaneous discoid lupus protective against severe renal disease in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus?J Drugs Dermatol. (2011) 10:1413–20.
60.
ElmanSAJoyceCCostenbaderKHMerolaJF. Time to progression from discoid lupus erythematosus to systemic lupus erythematosus: a retrospective cohort study. Clin Exp Dermatol. (2020) 45:89–91. 10.1111/ced.14014
61.
ChongBFSongJOlsenNJ. Determining risk factors for developing systemic lupus erythematosus in patients with discoid lupus erythematosus. Br J Dermatol. (2012) 166:29–35. 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10610.x
62.
CardinaliCCaproniMBernacchiEAmatoLFabbriP. The spectrum of cutaneous manifestations in lupus erythematosus–the Italian experience. Lupus. (2000) 9:417–23. 10.1191/096120300678828569
63.
JenksSAWeiCBugrovskyRHillAWangXRossiFMet al. B cell subset composition segments clinically and serologically distinct groups in chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis. (2021) 80:1190–200. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220349
64.
CreadoreAWatchmakerJMaymoneMBCPappasLVashiNALamC. Cosmetic treatment in patients with autoimmune connective tissue diseases: best practices for patients with lupus erythematosus. J Am Acad Dermatol. (2020) 83:343–63. 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.12.081
Summary
Keywords
quality of life, psychosocial impact, racial minorities, cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE), disease burden
Citation
Drenkard C, Barbour KE, Greenlund KJ and Lim SS (2022) The Burden of Living With Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus. Front. Med. 9:897987. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.897987
Received
16 March 2022
Accepted
24 May 2022
Published
08 August 2022
Volume
9 - 2022
Edited by
Filippa Nyberg, Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden
Reviewed by
Joanna Czuwara, Medical University of Warsaw, Poland
Updates
Copyright
© 2022 Drenkard, Barbour, Greenlund and Lim.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Cristina Drenkard cdrenka@emory.edu
This article was submitted to Dermatology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Medicine
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.