Capillaroscopy is a non-invasive and safe tool which allows the evaluation of the morphology of the microcirculation. Since its recent incorporation in the 2013 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) classification criteria for systemic sclerosis together with its assessed role to monitor disease progression, capillaroscopy became a 'mainstream' investigation for rheumatologists. Given its increasing use by a variety of physicians internationally both in daily practice to differentiate primary from secondary Raynaud's phenomenon, as well as in research context to predict disease progression and monitor treatment effects, standardisation in capillaroscopic image acquisition and analysis seems paramount. To step forward to this need, experts in the field of capillaroscopy/microcirculation provide in this very consensus paper their view on image acquisition and analysis, different capillaroscopic techniques, normal and abnormal capillaroscopic characteristics and their meaning, scoring systems and reliability of image acquisition and interpretation.

Objective: We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding the treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in adults with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs).Methods: We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions. A systematic literature review was then performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A panel of clinicians and patients reached consensus on the direction and strength of the recommendations.Results: Thirty‐five recommendations were generated (including two strong recommendations) for first‐line SARD‐ILD treatment, treatment of SARD‐ILD progression despite first‐line ILD therapy, and treatment of rapidly progressive ILD. The strong recommendations were against using glucocorticoids in systemic sclerosis–ILD as a first‐line ILD therapy and after ILD progression. Otherwise, glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended for first‐line ILD treatment in all other SARDs.Conclusion: This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the treatment of ILD in people with SARDs.

Objective: We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding screening for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the monitoring for ILD progression in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), specifically rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue disease, and Sjögren disease.Methods: We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions related to screening and monitoring for ILD in patients with SARDs. A systematic literature review was performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A Voting Panel of interdisciplinary clinician experts and patients achieved consensus on the direction and strength of each recommendation.Results: Fifteen recommendations were developed. For screening people with these SARDs at risk for ILD, we conditionally recommend pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high‐resolution computed tomography of the chest (HRCT chest); conditionally recommend against screening with 6‐minute walk test distance (6MWD), chest radiography, ambulatory desaturation testing, or bronchoscopy; and strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy. We conditionally recommend monitoring ILD with PFTs, HRCT chest, and ambulatory desaturation testing and conditionally recommend against monitoring with 6MWD, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy. We provide guidance on ILD risk factors and suggestions on frequency of testing to evaluate for the development of ILD in people with SARDs.Conclusion: This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the screening and monitoring of ILD in people with SARDs.

Objective: We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding the treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in adults with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs).Methods: We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions. A systematic literature review was then performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A panel of clinicians and patients reached consensus on the direction and strength of the recommendations.Results: Thirty‐five recommendations were generated (including two strong recommendations) for first‐line SARD‐ILD treatment, treatment of SARD‐ILD progression despite first‐line ILD therapy, and treatment of rapidly progressive ILD. The strong recommendations were against using glucocorticoids in systemic sclerosis–ILD as a first‐line ILD therapy and after ILD progression. Otherwise, glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended for first‐line ILD treatment in all other SARDs.Conclusion: This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the treatment of ILD in people with SARDs.

Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of lenabasum in diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc).Methods: A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, phase II study was conducted at 9 SSc clinics in the US. Adults with dcSSc of ≤6 years’ duration who were receiving stable standard‐of‐care treatment were randomized to receive lenabasum (n = 27) or placebo (n = 15). Lenabasum doses were 5 mg once daily, 20 mg once daily, or 20 mg twice daily for 4 weeks, followed by 20 mg twice daily for 8 weeks. Safety and efficacy were assessed at weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16.Results: Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 63% of the lenabasum group and 60% of the placebo group, with no serious AEs related to lenabasum. Compared to placebo, lenabasum treatment was associated with greater improvement in the American College of Rheumatology Combined Response Index in diffuse cutaneous Systemic Sclerosis (CRISS) score and other efficacy outcome measures that assessed overall disease, skin involvement, and patient‐reported function. The median CRISS score increased in the lenabasum group during the study, reaching 0.33, versus 0.00 in the placebo group, at week 16 (P = 0.07 by 2‐sided mixed‐effects model repeated‐measures analysis). Gene expression in inflammation and fibrosis pathways was reduced, and inflammation and fibrosis were improved on histologic evaluation of skin biopsy specimens, in the lenabasum group compared to the placebo group (all P ≤ 0.05).Conclusion: Despite a short trial duration in a small number of patients in this phase II study in dcSSc, our findings indicate that lenabasum improves efficacy outcomes and underlying disease pathology with a favorable safety profile.