Langenfeld, Hannah E.

Objective To evaluate the efficacy of cytokine‐directed therapies in VEXAS (vacuoles, E1 enzyme, X‐linked, autoinflammatory somatic) syndrome using previously proposed treatment response criteria. Methods All patients with genetically confirmed VEXAS syndrome who received targeted therapies with JAK inhibitors (JAKi), tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors (TNFαi), or interleukin‐1 (IL‐1) or IL‐6 inhibitors were identified. Clinical and biochemical data were recorded for patients at time of targeted therapy initiation, and at 3‐, 6‐, and 12‐month follow‐up time points. Treatment response was labeled as complete response (CR; normalization of C‐reactive protein [CRP], prednisone <10 mg/day, and resolution of disease activity), partial response (PR; >50% improvement in CRP, >50% prednisone dose reduction, improvement or resolution of disease features), treatment failure (TF; worsening CRP, increasing prednisone, worsening of disease features), or no response (not meeting criteria for CR, PR, or TF). Results Overall, 52 patients received an IL‐1i, IL‐6i, or JAKi therapy. At six‐month follow‐up, 3 of 19 IL‐6i patients experienced CR, 4 of 19 experienced PR, and 7 of 19 experienced TF. 2 of 17 patients receiving JAKi experienced CR, 3 of 17 experienced PR, and 6 of 17 experienced TF. No patients receiving IL‐1i or TNFαi experienced CR, and only 1 of 5 IL‐1i patients experienced PR. Among those still receiving biologic therapy at 12 months, only 1 of 11 receiving IL‐6i and 0 of 7 receiving JAKi experienced CR. Conclusion IL‐6i and JAKi therapies demonstrated limited, unsustained efficacy for management of VEXAS syndrome. IL‐1i and TNFαi therapies were not efficacious. Useful application of previously reported treatment response criteria was demonstrated, but future incorporation of hematologic parameters may be beneficial.

Abstract Introduction The underlying immunopathogenesis of inflammatory arthritis (IA) immune-related adverse event (irAE) remains obscure. Unlike rheumatoid arthritis (RA), where autoantibodies and B cell dysfunction are central features, the contribution of humoral immunity to IA-irAE is unclear. Methods Here, we performed immunophenotyping of peripheral blood from IA-irAE patients, and compared them with seronegative RA patients, ICI-treated patients without irAE, and healthy controls. Results IA-irAE was marked with increased cytotoxic gene expression and metabolic activation in T cells, and reduced CXCR3 and CCR6 expression in CD4+ T cells. Contrary to seronegative RA, IA-irAE patients displayed no significant elevation in autoantibody levels or atypical CD11c+CD21⁻ B cells. IA-irAE was further characterized by elevated levels of IL-6, IL-12, and type I IFN, which correlated with the T cell activation phenotypes. Conclusion Altogether, our findings define IA-irAE as a disease with certain immunological features distinctive from RA, representing a potentially T cell driven, autoantibody-independent autoimmunity. These results offer insights into immune tolerance breakdown and therapeutic targeting in irAEs. Funding Source National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Mark E. and Mary A. Davis Initiative in Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research Topic Categories Basic Autoimmunity (BA)

The underlying immunopathogenesis of inflammatory arthritis (IA) immune-related adverse event (irAE) remains obscure. Unlike rheumatoid arthritis (RA), where autoantibodies and B cell dysfunction are central features, the contribution of humoral immunity to IA-irAE is unclear. Here, we performed immunophenotyping of peripheral blood from patients with IA-irAE and compared them with patients with seronegative RA, immune checkpoint inhibition–treated patients without irAE, and healthy controls. IA-irAE was marked with increased cytotoxic gene expression and metabolic activation in T cells and reduced CXCR3 and CCR6 expression in CD4 + T cells. Contrary to seronegative RA, patients with IA-irAE displayed no substantial elevation in autoantibody levels or atypical CD11c + CD21 − B cells. IA-irAE was further characterized by elevated levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), IL-12, and type I interferon, which correlated with the T cell activation phenotypes. Together, our findings define IA-irAE as a disease with certain immunological features distinctive from RA, representing a potentially T cell–driven, autoantibody-independent autoimmunity. These results offer insights into immune tolerance breakdown and therapeutic targeting in irAEs.

Objective Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES) is a clinicoradiological diagnosis that can be associated with SLE. The clinical presentation, risk factors and outcomes of PRES in patients with SLE remain insufficiently described. Methods We conducted a multicentre cohort study at the Mayo Clinic and performed a systematic literature review (SLR) of patients with incident PRES and SLE. We described the clinical features, treatments and outcomes. Across both the cohort study and SLR, we assessed neurological sequelae, recurrence and survival. Within the cohort study, we examined PRES risk factors and discontinuation of antiseizure medications (ASMs). We used logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with neurological sequelae and Cox regression to assess predictors of recurrence. Kaplan-Meier methods estimated the rates of recurrence, survival and ASMs discontinuation. Results 550 cases (53 from the cohort study) were included, of whom 92% were female. Across both cohort and SLR, the most common symptom was seizure, occurring in 80%. PRES was the first manifestation of SLE in 13% of cases. In the adjusted analysis, older age was associated with neurological sequelae (OR 1.63 per 10-year increase; 95% CI 1.12 to 2.39). After 5 years of follow-up, 11.5% (95% CI 2.3 to 19.9%) of patients had a recurrent PRES episode. 30-day and 180-day survival following PRES was observed in 96.3% (95% CI 93.5 to 99.1%) and 93.7% (95% CI 89.8 to 97.7%) patients, respectively. In the Mayo Clinic cohort, 81% of PRES cases were attributed to hypertension in the context of lupus nephritis (LN), and by the fifth year of follow-up, 78.1% (95% CI 58.7 to 88.4%) of patients had discontinued ASMs. Conclusions In this cohort, most of the incident PRES episodes were preceded by hypertension and occurred in patients with LN. Although short-term and long-term prognoses are favourable, older patients more frequently experienced neurological sequelae.

ObjectiveWe aimed to characterize presentation and care pathways of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and delays in access to SLE‐specialized care.MethodsWe included patients with incident SLE from the Lupus Midwest Network registry. Time from the first medical encounter for SLE clinical manifestation to access to SLE‐specialized care, physician diagnosis, and treatment was estimated. Delays were defined as ≥6 months to access specialized care. We compared SLE manifestations, disease activity, and Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology damage indexes (SDI) between patients with and without delays. Logistic regression models assessed associations with delays.ResultsThe study included 373 patients with SLE. The median time to access SLE‐specialized care was 1.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9–1.5) months, time to diagnosis was 30.6 (95% CI 18.9–48.1) months, and time to treatment initiation was 4.7 (95% CI 3.9–8.4) months. Approximately 25% of patients (93 out of 373) experienced delays accessing specialized care, which were associated with fewer SLE manifestations at first SLE‐related encounter (fewer than two SLE domains; 92% vs 72%, P < 0.001). Patients with mucocutaneous or musculoskeletal manifestations were less likely to experience delays, whereas hematologic (odds ratio [OR] 1.71, 95% CI 1.03–2.84) or antiphospholipid antibodies domains (OR 6.05, 95% CI 2.46–14.88) were associated with delays. Delays were associated with damage at first access to SLE‐specialized care (SDI ≥1; 30% vs 7%, P < 0.001).ConclusionPatients follow a heterogeneous pathway to receive care. One‐fourth of patients experienced delays accessing SLE‐specialized care, which was associated with disease‐related damage. Fewer manifestations, hematologic manifestations, or antiphospholipid antibodies were associated with delays.image

Abstract Objectives To examine the clinicopathologic features of patients with polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) who had thoracic aorta repair surgery. Findings were compared with those of a cohort of patients with giant cell arteritis (GCA) requiring thoracic aorta repair. Methods All patients evaluated at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, with Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for thoracic aorta repair surgery between 2000–2021 were identified. All patients were screened for prior PMR diagnosis. Patients with PMR and no signs of GCA were categorized as clinically isolated PMR. The medical records of all patients were manually reviewed, and pathologists re-examined all the aortic tissues. Results Of the 4621 patients with at least one CPT code for thoracic aorta repair surgery, 43 patients were diagnosed with clinically isolated PMR before the surgery. Detailed histopathological examination of the aortic tissues revealed active inflammation in 30/43 (70%) patients after a median (IQR) of 10.0 (4.7–13.3) years from the PMR diagnosis. When compared with aortic tissue from patients with a prior diagnosis of GCA, the aorta of patients with PMR had more severe inflammation (Grade 3: 15/30 [50%] vs 5/34 [15%], P = 0.002). Patients with PMR and thoracic aorta repair may experience a 40% increased risk of mortality compared with the general population, but this did not reach statistical significance (standardized mortality ratio: 1.40; 95% CI: 0.91–2.07). Conclusions Some patients with PMR have subclinical aortic inflammation that is detectable many years after initial diagnosis and may contribute to the development of aortic aneurysm.

Abstract Objectives ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) is currently categorized under the small vessel vasculitides. There is limited knowledge about large vessel involvement in AAV (L-AAV), mainly described in case reports and small series. L-AAV can involve temporal arteries (TA-AAV), aorta (A-AAV), and periaortic soft tissue (PA-AAV). We sought to characterize the features of patients with L-AAV. Methods Patients older than 18 years at diagnosis of TA-AAV, A-AAV and PA-AAV seen at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2021 were identified through a proprietary medical text search algorithm. Patients were included if diagnosed with L-AAV, fulfilled 2022 ACR/EULAR classification criteria for GPA, MPA or EGPA, had positive ANCA test results, and had more than one outpatient or inpatient visit. Results The study cohort consists of 36 patients with L-AAV. Of those, 23 had p-ANCA and/or MPO-ANCA, and 13 had c-ANCA and/or PR3-ANCA. Mean (s.d.) age at AAV diagnosis was 63.4 (12.79) years; 20 (56%) were male. Seventeen patients had TA-AAV, 10 had A-AAV and 9 had PA-AAV. Most patients (n = 25, 69%) were diagnosed with large vessel vasculitis and AAV within a 1-year timespan. Twenty-five (69%) patients had histopathological confirmation of AAV diagnosis in a location other than temporal artery, aorta or periaortic soft tissue. Glucocorticoids (36/36), rituximab (19/36) and methotrexate (18/36) were the most frequent treatments. Conclusion This is the largest single-centre cohort of patients with L-AAV to date. AAV can involve large arteries, albeit infrequent. AAV-targeted therapy should be considered in patients with L-AAV.