Denton, Christopher P.

Background Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) occurs in most (∼75%) patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) and significantly impacts quality of life. Current recommendations lack depth and therefore our aim was to produce practical, consensus-based recommendations for refractory SSc-related GORD. Methods An international, multidisciplinary steering board (SB) was assembled (n=19) consisting of clinicians (rheumatologists, gastroenterologists, gastrointestinal surgeons), an expert methodologist and patient representation. After reviewing the latest definitions of GORD and refractory GORD in the published literature, the SB collectively devised a practical definition of SSc refractory-GORD. Initial recommendations were drafted/agreed on by the SB based on review of the existing guidelines, published literature and expert opinion. Two online voting rounds were conducted to determine whether items should be accepted, with >75% and >60% SB agreement required for first and second rounds, respectively. Results There was a good response/completion rate for the initial (74%) and final (84%) voting rounds. The SB agreed on all 36 draft recommendations. The majority (n=34) were approved in the first round. Recommendations were organised according to the following categories: general approach to management (n=5), assessment (n=6), non-pharmacological (n=2) and pharmacological (n=10) management, endoscopic and surgical treatment (n=3), and special circumstances including refractory GORD and SSc-interstitial lung disease (n=3), myositis and SSc connective tissue disease-overlap (n=3) and perilung transplant (n=4). Conclusion The group of experts has drafted extended and practical recommendations for the management of SSc refractory-GORD. The necessity of a structured approach and a patient assessment is highlighted in order to provide a multidisciplinary approach to the tailored choice of the treatment. Our work also has also identified significant unmet needs and has provided a research agenda to advance the field.

Abstract Objectives To compare clinical characteristics, including the frequency of cutaneous, extramuscular manifestations and malignancy, between adults with anti-synthetase syndrome (ASyS) and DM. Methods Using data regarding adults from the MYONET registry, a cohort of DM patients with anti-Mi2/-TIF1γ/-NXP2/-SAE/-MDA5 autoantibodies, and a cohort of ASyS patients with anti-tRNA synthetase autoantibodies (anti-Jo1/-PL7/-PL12/-OJ/-EJ/-Zo/-KS) were identified. Patients with DM sine dermatitis or with discordant dual autoantibody specificities were excluded. Sub-cohorts of patients with ASyS with or without skin involvement were defined based on presence of DM-type rashes (heliotrope rash, Gottron’s papules/sign, violaceous rash, shawl sign, V-sign, erythroderma, and/or periorbital rash). Results In total 1054 patients were included (DM, n = 405; ASyS, n = 649). In the ASyS cohort, 31% (n = 203) had DM-type skin involvement (ASyS-DMskin). A higher frequency of extramuscular manifestations, including Mechanic’s hands, Raynaud’s phenomenon, arthritis, interstitial lung disease and cardiac involvement differentiated ASyS-DMskin from DM (all P < 0.001), whereas higher frequency of any of four DM-type rashes—heliotrope rash (n = 248, 61% vs n = 90, 44%), violaceous rash (n = 166, 41% vs n = 57, 9%), V-sign (n = 124, 31% vs n = 28, 4%), and shawl sign (n = 133, 33% vs n = 18, 3%)—differentiated DM from ASyS-DMskin (all P < 0.005). Cancer-associated myositis (CAM) was more frequent in DM (n = 67, 17%) compared with ASyS (n = 21, 3%) and ASyS-DMskin (n = 7, 3%) cohorts (both P < 0.001). Conclusion DM-type rashes are frequent in patients with ASyS; however, distinct clinical manifestations differentiate these patients from classical DM. Skin involvement in ASyS does not necessitate increased malignancy surveillance. These findings will inform future ASyS classification criteria and patient management.

Abstract Objectives To establish a framework by which experts define disease subsets in systemic sclerosis associated interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD). Methods A conceptual framework for subclinical, clinical and progressive ILD was provided to 83 experts, asking them to use the framework and classify actual SSc-ILD patients. Each patient profile was designed to be classified by at least four experts in terms of severity and risk of progression at baseline; progression was based on 1-year follow-up data. A consensus was reached if ≥75% of experts agreed. Experts provided information on which items were important in determining classification. Results Forty-four experts (53%) completed the survey. Consensus was achieved on the dimensions of severity (75%, 60 of 80 profiles), risk of progression (71%, 57 of 80 profiles) and progressive ILD (60%, 24 of 40 profiles). For profiles achieving consensus, most were classified as clinical ILD (92%), low risk (54%) and stable (71%). Severity and disease progression overlapped in terms of framework items that were most influential in classifying patients (forced vital capacity, extent of lung involvement on high resolution chest CT [HRCT]); risk of progression was influenced primarily by disease duration. Conclusions Using our proposed conceptual framework, international experts were able to achieve a consensus on classifying SSc-ILD patients along the dimensions of disease severity, risk of progression and progression over time. Experts rely on similar items when classifying disease severity and progression: a combination of spirometry and gas exchange and quantitative HRCT.