Click on the article title to read more.

Objective To compare the cumulative survival and event free survival in patients with Jo-1 versus non-Jo-1 anti-tRNA synthetase autoantibodies (anti-synAb). Methods Anti-synAb positive patients initially evaluated from 1985 to 2009 were included regardless of the connective tissue disease (CTD) diagnosis. Clinical data were extracted from a prospectively collected database and chart review. Survival between Jo-1 and non-Jo-1 was compared by log rank and Cox proportional hazards methods. Results 202 patients possessed anti-synAb: 122 Jo-1 and 80 non-Jo-1 (35 PL-12; 25 PL-7; 9 EJ; 6 KS; 5 OJ). The diagnoses at first visit for Jo-1 and non-Jo-1 patients were myositis in 83% and 40.0%, overlap or undifferentiated CTD in 17% and 47.5%, and systemic sclerosis in 0% and 12.5%, respectively (p<0.001). The median delay in diagnosis was 0.4 years in Jo-1 patients versus 1.0 year in non-Jo-1 patients (p<0.001). The most common causes of death in the overall cohort were pulmonary fibrosis in 49% and pulmonary hypertension in 11%. The 5- and 10-year unadjusted cumulative survival was 90% and 70% for Jo-1 patients, and 75% and 47% for non-Jo-1 patients (p<0.005). The hazard ratio (HR) of non-Jo-1 patients compared with Jo-1 patients was 1.9 (p=0.01) for cumulative and 1.9 (p=0.008) for event free survival from diagnosis. Age at first diagnosis and diagnosis delay but not gender, ethnicity and CTD diagnosis influenced survival. Conclusions Non-Jo-1 anti-synAb positive patients have decreased survival compared with Jo-1 patients. The difference in survival may be partly attributable to a delay in diagnosis in the non-Jo-1 patients.

Objective: To identify the clinical and laboratory predictors of clinical improvement in a cohort of myositis patients treated with rituximab.Methods: We analyzed data for 195 patients with myositis (75 with adult polymyositis [PM], 72 with adult dermatomyositis [DM], and 48 with juvenile DM) in the Rituximab in Myositis trial. Clinical improvement was defined as 20% improvement in at least 3 of the following 6 core set measures of disease activity: physician's and patient's/parent's global assessment of disease activity, manual muscle testing, physical function, muscle enzymes, and extramuscular disease activity. We analyzed the association of the following baseline variables with improvement: myositis clinical subgroup, demographics, myositis damage, clinical and laboratory parameters, core set measures, rituximab treatment, and myositis autoantibodies (antisynthetase, anti–Mi‐2, anti–signal recognition particle, anti–transcription intermediary factor 1γ [TIF‐1γ], anti‐MJ, other autoantibodies, and no autoantibodies). All measures were univariately assessed for association with improvement using time‐to‐event analyses. A multivariable time‐dependent proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the association of individual predictive factors with improvement.Results: In the final multivariable model, the presence of an antisynthetase, primarily anti–Jo‐1 (hazard ratio [HR] 3.08, P < 0.01), anti–Mi‐2 (HR 2.5, P < 0.01), or other autoantibody (HR 1.4, P = 0.14) predicted a shorter time to improvement compared to the absence of autoantibodies. A lower physician's global assessment of damage (HR 2.32, P = 0.02) and juvenile DM (versus adult myositis) (HR 2.45, P = 0.01) also predicted improvement. Unlike autoantibody status, the predictive effect of physician's global assessment of damage and juvenile DM diminished by week 20. Rituximab treatment did not affect these associations.Conclusion: Our findings indicate that the presence of antisynthetase and anti–Mi‐2 autoantibodies, juvenile DM subset, and lower disease damage strongly predict clinical improvement in patients with refractory myositis.

Objective: Clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis (CADM) is a subset of dermatomyositis (DM) presenting with the characteristic rash of DM without objective muscle weakness. Asian studies report that anti–melanoma differentiation–associated gene 5 (anti–MDA‐5) autoantibody in CADM is associated with interstitial lung disease (ILD), particularly rapidly progressive ILD (RPILD). These associations have not been established in US myositis patients. The goal of our study was to determine the association of anti–MDA‐5 autoantibody with ILD, RPILD, and survival in US patients with CADM and classic DM.Methods: CADM patients were identified in the University of Pittsburgh Myositis Center Database and matched 1:1 (sex and age) to classic DM controls. Anti–MDA‐5 was measured by serum enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay. Kaplan‐Meier, log rank, and chi‐square tests were used for analysis.Results: We identified 61 CADM patients (62% women, mean age 48.2 years) and 61 classic DM controls (64% women, mean age 44.8 years). The frequencies of anti–MDA‐5 positivity, ILD, and RPILD were similar in the 2 cohorts (MDA‐5 positive: CADM 13.1% [8 of 61] and DM 13.1% [8 of 61], ILD positive: CADM 31.1% [19 of 61] and DM 26.2% [16 of 61], and RPILD positive: CADM 8.2% [5 of 61] and DM 5% [3 of 61]; P = 1, 0.55, and 0.46, respectively). Anti–MDA‐5 positivity was significantly associated with ILD, since 50% of MDA‐5–positive subjects (8 of 16) had ILD versus 25.5% of MDA‐5–negative subjects (27 of 106; P = 0.04). Anti–MDA‐5 was strongly associated with RPILD (P < 0.001). Anti–MDA‐5–positive patients with ILD had worse baseline pulmonary function testing variables compared to anti–MDA‐5–negative patients. Anti–MDA‐5 positivity was significantly associated with poor survival (P = 0.007).Conclusion: Anti–MDA‐5 antibody is significantly associated with ILD, RPILD, worse pulmonary outcome, and survival in US classic DM and CADM patients.

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.

How to manage a patient who has an elevated serum creatine kinase (CK) level but no or insignificant muscle-related signs and symptoms is a clinical conundrum. The authors provide a systematic approach, including repeat testing after a period of rest, defining higher thresholds over which pursuing a diagnosis is worthwhile, and evaluating for a variety of nonneuromuscular causes. They also outline a workup for neuromuscular causes.