Research Article - (2025) Volume 20, Issue 6

Advancements In The Diagnosis And Treatment Of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Sle

Keywords

Systemic lupus erythematosus, diagnosis, treatment, biomarkers, biologics, personalized medicine, EULAR/ACR criteria, autoimmunity, SLEDAI, omics

Introduction

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a chronic, multisystem autoimmune disease characterized by fluctuating disease activity, unpredictable flares, and heterogeneous clinical manifestations, which makes both diagnosis and treatment extremely complex. Over the past two decades, efforts to refine diagnostic criteria and therapeutic strategies have intensified, fueled by a deeper understanding of SLE pathophysiology and the development of targeted biologics. Clinical heterogeneity remains a defining challenge, requiring clinicians to synthesize immunological, clinical, and genetic evidence to accurately diagnose and manage the disease (Fanouriakis et al., 2021).

The evolution of SLE classification criteria has had a transformative impact on early detection. Transitioning from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria to the more recent EULAR/ACR 2019 guidelines, sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis have improved to 96% and 93%, respectively. This shift is largely attributed to the integration of immunological markers and weighted clinical domains, providing a more nuanced stratification of disease activity (Tunnicliffe et al., 2015).

Recent strides in molecular diagnostics, including transcriptomic and proteomic profiling, have opened avenues for early identification of disease phenotypes and prediction of treatment response. Huang et al. (2022) demonstrated that machine learning-based integration of omics data could differentiate active from inactive SLE with 85% accuracy, highlighting a promising frontier in individualized diagnostics (Huang et al., 2022).

SLE disproportionately affects women, particularly during reproductive years, with a 9:1 female-to-male ratio. Genetic susceptibility, particularly polymorphisms in HLA and TLR genes, and hormonal influences contribute to this gender disparity. A 2023 study by Lazar and Kahlenberg noted the increasing application of genetic panels to predict disease flares and identify patients at risk of lupus nephritis, suggesting a paradigm shift toward predictive medicine (Lazar & Kahlenberg, 2023).

Therapeutically, there has been a marked transition from generalized immunosuppression to targeted biological treatments. B-cell depletion therapy (rituximab) and type I interferon blockade (anifrolumab) have shown clinical benefits, with response rates ranging from 47% to 60% in refractory cases. As Thong and Olsen (2017) noted, these therapies not only improve symptom control but may also reduce cumulative organ damage, thereby improving long-term survival (Thong & Olsen, 2017).

Despite therapeutic innovations, lupus nephritis (LN) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in SLE. Early diagnosis is vital, as delayed treatment is linked to a 50% higher risk of end-stage renal disease. Kuhn et al. (2015) emphasized the need for standardization of renal biopsy interpretations and the use of urinary biomarkers, such as NGAL and MCP-1, which are now being explored in multicenter trials (Kuhn et al., 2015).

Importantly, treatment guidelines have evolved to emphasize remission and low disease activity states (LLDAS) as therapeutic goals, rather than mere symptom alleviation. Doria et al. (2010) emphasized that early intervention—especially within the first year of symptom onset-dramatically increases the probability of achieving LLDAS, with long-term remission rates reaching 52% at 5 years with aggressive therapy (Doria et al., 2010).

Looking forward, emerging strategies such as epigenetic modulation, CAR-T therapies targeting autoreactive B cells, and gut microbiota modulation promise to redefine the therapeutic landscape. Nevertheless, as Dubois (1956) initially noted, successful SLE management depends on a holistic approach combining scientific innovation, clinical vigilance, and patient-centered care—a notion that still holds true nearly seven decades later (Dubois, 1956).

Methodology

Study Design

This review utilized a systematic methodology guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 framework to ensure methodological rigor, transparency, and replicability. The overarching objective was to synthesize and critically appraise empirical literature that reports recent advancements in the diagnosis and treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The review focused on peer-reviewed human studies that contributed quantitative or qualitative insights into innovative diagnostic tools, emerging biomarkers, novel therapeutic agents (especially biologics), and precision medicine approaches used in the clinical management of SLE.

Eligibility Criteria

Studies were included in the review if they met the following criteria

• Population: Human subjects of any age diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) using established diagnostic criteria (ACR, SLICC, or EULAR/ACR).
• Interventions/Exposures: Diagnostic approaches (e.g., biomarker identification, genetic screening, imaging technologies) or therapeutic interventions (e.g., biologics, immunosuppressant’s, small-molecule therapies, lifestyle-integrated treatments).
• Comparators: Placebo, standard therapy, other diagnostic methods, or disease severity subgroups.
• Outcomes: Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity/specificity), disease activity scores (e.g., SLEDAI, BILAG), organ involvement outcomes (e.g., renal remission), quality of life measures, or adverse events.
• Study Designs: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, and systematic reviews.
• Language: Only English-language articles were included.
• Publication Period: Studies published between 2010 and 2024 were included to capture contemporary advancements (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Prisma flow diagram.

A PRISMA flow diagram will be presented in the results section to outline the number of studies identified, screened, excluded, and included at each stage of the review.

Search Strategy

A comprehensive literature search was performed across the following electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar (for grey literature). Searches used controlled vocabulary (MeSH terms) and keyword combinations, including:

• (“systemic lupus erythematosus” OR “SLE”)
• AND (“diagnosis” OR “biomarker” OR “classification criteria” OR “genetic testing”)
• AND (“treatment” OR “biologic” OR “anifrolumab” OR “belimumab” OR “immunosuppressive therapy”)

Manual searches of the reference lists of included papers and key reviews were also conducted to ensure comprehensiveness and reduce publication bias.

Study Selection Process

All retrieved citations were imported into Zotero reference manager, and duplicates were removed automatically and manually. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria. Full texts of studies deemed potentially eligible were retrieved and assessed in detail. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion, and a third reviewer was consulted where consensus could not be reached. Ultimately, 15 studies were selected for data extraction and synthesis based on their relevance and methodological quality.

Data Extraction

A standardized and pilot-tested data extraction form was used to ensure consistency. The following data were extracted from each study:

• Author(s), year, country of study
• Study design and sample size
• Diagnostic or therapeutic approach examined
• Population characteristics (age, gender, disease duration)
• Outcome measures (e.g., SLEDAI score, renal function, biomarkers)
• Main findings and statistical significance
• Confounders controlled for in analyses

Extraction was conducted independently by two reviewers and verified by a third for accuracy and completeness.

Quality Assessment

The methodological quality and risk of bias of the included studies were evaluated using validated tools appropriate to study design:

• Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used for observational studies to assess selection, comparability, and outcome domains.
• Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 (RoB 2) was applied to randomized controlled trials to evaluate randomization, blinding, incomplete data, and reporting bias.

Studies were graded as high, moderate, or low risk of bias. Only studies deemed of moderate or high methodological quality were retained for synthesis.

Data Synthesis

Due to the heterogeneity of study designs, diagnostic tools, therapeutic modalities, and outcome measures, a narrative synthesis approach was employed. Findings were organized thematically around innovations in diagnosis (e.g., biomarkers, imaging) and treatment (e.g., biologics, combination therapies). Where applicable, effect estimates such as odds ratios (OR), relative risks (RR), or changes in disease activity scores were reported. Meta-analysis was not feasible due to inconsistencies in outcome definitions and intervention protocols across stud

Ethical Considerations

As this review involved the analysis of previously published studies and did not involve direct patient participation, ethical approval and informed consent were not required. However, it was ensured that all included studies were peer-reviewed and ethically conducted as indicated by their publication in reputable scientific journals.

Results

Summary and Interpretation of Included Studies on Advancements in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

The studies reviewed span the last decade and encompass a diverse range of clinical research methodologies including randomized controlled trials, cohort analyses, and comprehensive reviews. The sample sizes vary significantly—from small pilot trials (e.g., Singh et al., 2024, n = 68) to large-scale cohort studies (e.g., Morand et al., 2023, n > 1000). These studies collectively underscore significant improvements in both diagnostic precision (e.g., novel biomarker panels and genetic assays) and therapeutic efficacy, particularly with the incorporation of biologics and individualized treatment protocols.

The diagnostic advances include a shift from traditional serology toward multi-omics platforms, notably integrating genomic and proteomic biomarkers, as highlighted in the work of Huang et al. (2022) and Singh et al. (2024). Improvements in diagnostic timelines and specificity have reduced misclassification rates and enabled earlier intervention.

On the therapeutic front, biologics such as belimumab, anifrolumab, and novel B-cell inhibitors have significantly improved clinical outcomes, reducing disease activity by up to 60% in some cohorts (Aljeshi et al., 2025; Morand et al., 2023). Many studies also emphasized precision medicine strategies; tailoring treatment based on individual immune profiles.

Below is a structured table summarizing the general characteristics, designs, interventions, and primary outcomes of 15 peer-reviewed studies: (Table 1)

Discussion

The present systematic review highlights significant advancements in both the diagnosis and treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) over the past decade, reflecting an era of translational innovation and clinical refinement. The findings underscore those improvements in diagnostic criteria, biomarker development, and targeted therapies are converging to enable earlier detection, more accurate disease classification, and individualized treatment strategies (Fanouriakis et al., 2021).

One of the most notable diagnostic achievements has been the shift from rigid classification criteria toward integrated algorithms that combine clinical and immunological domains. The EULAR/ACR 2019 classification criteria, as discussed by Tunnicliffe et al. (2015), improve diagnostic specificity and allow for earlier identification of patients with incomplete or atypical presentations. This has had direct implications for treatment initiation, as timely therapeutic intervention is a critical determinant of long-term outcomes in SLE.

Emerging molecular diagnostic tools further enrich the diagnostic landscape. For instance, multi-omics approaches described by Huang et al. (2022) and Singh et al. (2024) offer substantial promise for identifying disease subtypes and predicting flares. The development of transcriptomic and proteomic classifiers—capable of distinguishing active from inactive disease with up to 85% accuracy—supports the case for integrating precision diagnostics into routine rheumatologic practice. However, broader validation across diverse populations remains essential.

In parallel, the therapeutic arena has witnessed a paradigm shift from generalized immunosuppression to biologic and targeted therapies. Clinical trials included in this review report favourable efficacy and safety profiles for agents such as belimumab, anifrolumab, and voclosporin, particularly among patients with refractory disease or lupus nephritis (Felten et al., 2019; Morand et al., 2023; Petri et al., 2020). These biologics have demonstrated reductions in disease activity of 47–60% and significantly improved renal remission rates, indicating a substantial step forward in disease control.

Despite these advancements, treatment efficacy is not uniform across all patient subgroups. Studies such as Mok et al. (2016) and Yap et al. (2018) highlighted persistent disparities in long-term outcomes, especially among patients with late-diagnosed or organ-damaging disease. These disparities point to the need for earlier diagnosis, standardized treatment pathways, and perhaps genetic or environmental considerations in therapy selection (Lazar & Kahlenberg, 2023).

Another critical insight pertains to treatment goals. A growing body of literature supports the adoption of low disease activity states (LLDAS) and remission as measurable, patient-centered endpoints. Doria et al. (2010) emphasized that early intervention, ideally within the first year of disease onset, correlates with a higher likelihood of achieving LLDAS. This aligns with newer trials aiming not only to reduce flares but also to improve quality of life and reduce cumulative organ damage (Wallace et al., 2022).

Nevertheless, challenges remain in integrating these novel tools and therapies into global clinical practice. Issues such as cost, access to biologics, and limited clinician familiarity with omics technologies could hinder widespread adoption. Furthermore, as Dubois (1956) presciently argued decades ago, no innovation can replace the nuanced judgment of a well-informed clinician. Continued education, decision support tools, and multidisciplinary approaches are thus critical complements to technological advancement.

Quality appraisal of the included studies indicated generally moderate to high methodological rigor, particularly among the randomized controlled trials. However, heterogeneity in outcome measures and patient populations across studies limited the feasibility of a meta-analytic approach. Standardization in future clinical trials—using consistent definitions for remission, response, and relapse—would enhance comparability and data pooling potential.

Lastly, the emergence of precision medicine offers hope for the future of SLE management. Genetic screening tools, such as those assessed by Singh et al. (2024), may soon be used to personalize treatment plans. Similarly, gut microbiota modulation and B-cell engineered therapies are entering early clinical testing stages and may transform future therapeutic paradigms (Thong & Olsen, 2017; Liu et al., 2013).

In conclusion, while significant strides have been made in refining the diagnosis and treatment of SLE, barriers to equity, accessibility, and implementation persist. Future research should prioritize longitudinal validation of diagnostic tools, cost-effectiveness analyses of biologic therapies, and strategies for integrating personalized medicine into real-world settings. Bridging the gap between innovation and implementation will ultimately determine the global impact of these scientific advances.

Conclusion

This systematic review underscores a transformative era in the management of systemic lupus erythematosus. Advances in diagnostic methodology—particularly omics-integrated classifiers and revised classification criteria—have improved diagnostic precision and enabled earlier disease identification. On the treatment front, the adoption of biologics such as anifrolumab, belimumab, and voclosporin has shown meaningful reductions in disease activity and organ-specific complications, especially in patients with refractory disease or lupus nephritis.

Despite these promising findings, significant challenges remain in ensuring the equitable and widespread implementation of these innovations. Disparities in healthcare access, cost barriers associated with biologics, and the underrepresentation of certain populations in clinical trials limit generalizability. Continued global efforts must focus not only on advancing scientific discovery but also on building infrastructure, education, and policy frameworks that allow these breakthroughs to benefit all patients living with SLE.

Limitations

This review has several limitations. First, due to heterogeneity in study designs, outcome measures, and interventions, a meta-analysis was not conducted. Instead, findings were synthesized narratively, which may reduce statistical precision. Second, only English-language studies published from 2010 to 2024 were included, which may introduce language and publication bias. Third, some potentially relevant data may have been missed if not indexed in the selected databases or published as grey literature. Lastly, while the studies reviewed were generally of moderate to high quality, variations in reporting standards and risk of bias could influence the interpretation of their findings.

References

Aljeshi, A., Zaman, M. A., & Kuraga, K. D. P. T. (2025). Treatment advances in systemic lupus erythematosus: A literature review. Medical Research Archives, 13(3), 1–12.

Dema, B., & Charles, N. (2014). Advances in mechanisms of systemic lupus erythematosus. Discovery Medicine, 17(94), 247–255.

Doria, A., Zen, M., Canova, M., Bettio, S., & Bassi, N. (2010). SLE diagnosis and treatment: When early is early. Autoimmunity Reviews, 10(1), 55–60.

Dubois, E. L. (1956). Systemic lupus erythematosus: Recent advances in its diagnosis and treatment. Annals of Internal Medicine, 45(2), 163–172.

Fanouriakis, A., Tziolos, N., & Bertsias, G. (2021). Update on the diagnosis and management of systemic lupus erythematosus. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 80(1), 14–25.

Fattah, Z., & Isenberg, D. A. (2014). Recent developments in the treatment of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: Focusing on biologic therapies. Expert Opinion on Investigational Drugs, 23(5), 593–605.

Felten, R., Scher, F., Sibilia, J., Chasset, F., & Arnaud, L. (2019). Advances in the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus: From back to the future, to the future and beyond. La Revue de Médecine Interne, 40(5), 274–279.

Ginzler, E. M., Wallace, D. J., Merrill, J. T., Furie, R. A., Stohl, W., Chatham, W. W., ... & Zhong, Z. J. (2014). Epratuzumab for patients with moderate to severe active systemic lupus erythematosus: A phase IIb dose-ranging study. Arthritis & Rheumatology, 66(5), 1172–1181.

Hasan, M. Y., & Ahmad, R. (2025). Introductory chapter: Systemic lupus erythematosus–Basics and developments. In Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (pp. 1–10). IntechOpen.

Huang, X., Zhang, Q., Zhang, H., & Lu, Q. (2022). A contemporary update on the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus. Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology, 62(1), 38–50.

Kuhn, A., Bonsmann, G., & Anders, H. J. (2015). The diagnosis and treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, 112(25), 423–432.

Lazar, S., & Kahlenberg, J. M. (2023). Systemic lupus erythematosus: New diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Annual Review of Medicine, 74(1), 297–310.

Liu, C. C., Kao, A. H., & Manzi, S. (2013). Biomarkers in systemic lupus erythematosus: Challenges and prospects for the future. Therapeutic Advances in Musculoskeletal Disease, 5(4), 210–233.

Mok, C. C., Ying, K. Y., Ma, K. M., Wong, N., & Lam, C. W. (2016). Long-term survival of patients with lupus nephritis treated with cyclophosphamide and mycophenolate mofetil: A retrospective observational study. Rheumatology, 55(10), 1837–1845.

Morand, E. F., Fernandez-Ruiz, R., Blazer, A., & Niewold, T. B. (2023). Advances in the management of systemic lupus erythematosus. BMJ, 383, e073980.

Petri, M., Rovin, B. H., Dooley, M. A., Levy, R. A., Furie, R., & van Vollenhoven, R. (2020). Randomized controlled trial of voclosporin in lupus nephritis. The New England Journal of Medicine, 383(12), 1119–1129.

Singh, A. P., Shaikh, M. K., & Borker, A. (2024). Genetic advancement in the detection of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, 125(3), 371–380.

Thong, B. Y. H., & Olsen, N. J. (2017). Systemic lupus erythematosus: Diagnosis and management. Rheumatology, 56(Suppl_1), i3–i13.

Tunnicliffe, D. J., Singh‐Grewal, D., & Kim, S. (2015). Diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus: A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines. Arthritis Care & Research, 67(10), 1440–1452.

Wallace, D. J., Furie, R. A., Tanaka, Y., Kalunian, K. C., Mosca, M., & Petri, M. A. (2022). Anifrolumab for systemic lupus erythematosus: 52-week results from a phase III trial. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 81(1), 50–58.

Yap, D. Y. H., Tang, C. S. O., Ma, M. K. M., Lam, M. F., & Chan, T. M. (2018). Long-term data on lupus nephritis: Real-world remission and renal survival rates in a longitudinal cohort. Clinical Rheumatology, 37, 1185–1192.