Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Lupus myelopathy
  1. Dominika D Raciborska1,
  2. Alastair John Noyce2,3,
  3. Dev Pyne4,
  4. Benjamin P Turner3
  1. 1 Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
  2. 2 Preventive Neurology Unit, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
  3. 3 Department of Neurology, Royal London Hospital, London, UK
  4. 4 Department of Rheumatology, Royal London Hospital, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dominika D Raciborska, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 1BB, UK; nika.raciborska{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Although neurological manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are well recognised, myelopathy complicating SLE is rare. A 35-year-old woman presented with non-specific symptoms and a respiratory tract infection but had serological evidence of SLE. She subsequently deteriorated rapidly, developing a catastrophic spinal cord syndrome. Her initial MRI was normal; but after 1 month, her encephalopathy having progressed, repeat imaging showed characteristic myelitic changes. She responded only slowly to a combination of cyclophosphamide and corticosteroids. This case exemplifies the mixed presentations of SLE, including the under-recognised ‘subpial leukomyelopathy’ of central nervous system lupus. It highlights the challenges in managing lupus-related myelopathy and the benefits of a multidisciplinary approach to care.

  • sle
  • myelopathy
  • neuroimmunology
  • rheumatology
  • neuropharmacology

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.

Footnotes

  • Contributors DR did literature review and provided the first drafts of the case. AN, DP and BT were involved in management of the patient as well as writing and reviewing the case.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Obtained.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed. This paper was reviewed by Fady Joseph, South Wales, UK.

Other content recommended for you