Eng, Simon

ObjectiveThe study objective was to identify differences in gene expression between treatment responders (TRs) and treatment non‐responders (TNRs) diagnosed with juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM).MethodsGene expression analyses were performed using whole blood messenger RNA sequencing in patients with JDM (n = 17) and healthy controls (HCs; n = 10). Four analyses were performed (A1‐4) comparing differential gene expression and pathways analysis exploiting the timing of sample acquisition and the treatments received to perform these comparative analyses. Analyses were done at diagnosis and follow‐up, which averaged 7 months later in the cohort.ResultsAt diagnosis, the expression of 10 genes differed between TRs and TNRs. Hallmark and canonical pathway analysis revealed 11 and 60 pathways enriched in TRs and 3 and 21 pathways enriched in TNRs, respectively. Pathway enrichment at diagnosis in TRs was strongest in pathways involved in metabolism, complement activation, and cell signaling as mediated by IL‐8, p38/microtubule associated protein kinases (MAPK)/extracellular signal‐regulated kinases (ERK), Phosphatidylinositol 3 Kinase Gamma (PI3Kγ), and the B cell receptor. Follow‐up hallmark and canonical pathway analysis showed that 2 and 14 pathways were enriched in TRs, whereas 24 and 123 pathways were enriched in treatment TNRs, respectively. Prior treatment with glucocorticoids significantly altered expression of 13 genes in the analysis of subjects at diagnosis with JDM as compared with HCs.ConclusionNumerous genes and pathways differ between TRs and TNRs at diagnosis and follow‐up. Prior treatment with glucocorticoids prior to specimen acquisition had a small effect on the performed analyses.

ObjectivePublished predictive models of disease outcomes in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) are sparse and of limited accuracy due to disease heterogeneity. Computational methods may address this heterogeneity by partitioning patients based on clinical and biological phenotype.MethodsTo identify new patient groups, we applied similarity network fusion (SNF) to clinical and biological data from 168 patients with myositis (64 adult polymyositis [PM], 65 adult dermatomyositis [DM], and 39 juvenile DM [JDM]) in the Rituximab in Myositis trial. We generated a sparse proof‐of‐concept bedside classifier using multinomial regression and identified characteristics that distinguished these groups. We conducted χ2 tests to link new patient groups with the myositis subtypes.ResultsSNF identified five patient groups in the discovery cohort that subdivided the myositis subtypes. The sparse multinomial regressor to predict patient group assignments (areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve = [0.78, 0.97]; areas under the precision‐recall curve = [0.55, 0.96]) found that autoantibody enrichment defined four of these groups: anti–Mi‐2, anti–signal recognition peptide (SRP), anti–nuclear matrix protein 2 (NXP2), and anti‐synthetase (Syn). Depletion of immunoglobulin M (IgM) defined the fifth group. Each group was associated with one subtype, with adult DM being associated with anti–Mi‐2 and anti‐Syn autoantibodies, JDM being associated with anti‐NXP2 autoantibodies, and adult PM being associated with IgM depletion and anti‐SRP autoantibodies. These associations enabled us to further resolve the current myositis subtypes.ConclusionUsing unsupervised machine learning, we identified clinically and biologically homogeneous groups of patients with IIMs, forming the basis of an integrated disease classification based on both clinical and biological phenotype, thus validating other approaches and what has been previously described.