The aim: To study the rationale treatment in SLE patients. Materials and methods: We examined 112 consecutively SLE patients who met the diagnostic criteria of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLICC, M. Petri, 2009) included in Moldova Lupus Study. Special investigations focused assessment of disease activity and duration, organ involvement, flare, treatment and evaluation of patient satisfaction questionnaire (PSQ). Results: F- 89,2%, median age 42,5±11,7 (range 2060), disease duration 6,85 ±7,18 (range 0,1-29,3) years, disease activity by SLEDAI–12,1±8,1p, 92 (82,1%) pts were disabled by lupus, from them 22 and other 20 pts (37,5%) still working or studying. Among those patients 20 was primarily, 16-in remission, and 76 ptsexacerbation by SELENA. In our study 108 (96,4%) pts received GCS in deferent dosages, low dose glucocorticoid 7.5 mg prednisone equivalent daily - 64 (59,2 %) pts, medium 7.5-30 mg in 24 (22,2%), high doses between 30-100 mg - 20 (18,6%) cases, and including pulse therapy as a specific therapeutic entity that refers to the administration of >250 mg usually intravenously for one or a few (usually <5) days in 63 (58,3%) from them 26 (24,0%) patients are receiving programmed pulse therapy. Different dosages have distinct actions: genomic and non-genomic. For genomic effects the degree of cytosolic receptors saturation is a direct modulator of the intensity of effects, non-genomic producing immediate effects by high dosages, mediated GCS’s receptors. Analyzing treatment it was complex including steroidal and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory, antimalarials, antiagregants, anticoagulants and immunosuppressive drugs. The results of PSQ where compared with MOS baseline data showed: technical quality was 31,6 (±5,34), interpersonal aspects-21,4 (±3,99), financial aspects – 23,4 (±8,45), access to care/availability to health services/ convenience-36,6 (±8,09) and general satisfaction was 16,4 (±2,77) points. A higher score were obtained for communication 18 (±2,94) and time spent with doctor – 5,53 (±1,45) p, interpreted as good indices. Conclusion: Treatment must be adjusted to disease activity or flares, satisfying the patient’s interests, and objectified by clinical and paraclinical tools.