Mann, H.

Objective Vacuoles, E1 enzyme, X‐linked, autoinflammatory, somatic syndrome (VEXAS) syndrome is characterized by a complex spectrum of inflammatory and hematologic manifestations. Clinical research to identify effective therapies is urgently needed but is hindered by the lack of validated outcome measures. A VEXAS‐specific disease activity index (DAI) is an essential tool for reliably capturing changes in disease activity over time, thereby supporting clinical research and informing patient care in this emerging disease. This study aimed to develop a comprehensive DAI to assess disease‐related inflammation across affected organ systems in patients with VEXAS syndrome. Methods Inflammatory manifestations of VEXAS were previously identified through a systematic literature review and expert input. A multinational expert advisory committee developed the VEXAS‐DAI using modified Delphi methodology until consensus (defined as ≥75% concurrence) was reached. Item grading was adapted from the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Scoring criteria were developed based on 158 test cases using the Physician Global Assessment of Inflammation. Results Consensus on the VEXAS‐DAI was achieved after four Delphi rounds. The index assesses inflammatory activity at the time of evaluation across 12 domains: inflammatory rash, chondritis, periorbital, ophthalmologic, joint, pulmonary, cardiovascular, genitourinary, neurologic, oral and gastrointestinal, renal, and constitutional symptoms. The total score ranges from 0 to 40. Conclusion The VEXAS‐DAI is a novel instrument designed to quantify active inflammation over time in patients with VEXAS. Prospective validation within a clinical trial setting is ongoing. image

Objective Vacuoles E1 enzyme X‐linked autoinflammatory somatic syndrome (VEXAS) is a recently identified rare genetic disorder associated with somatic mutations in the UBA1 gene. VEXAS presents with a combination of inflammatory and hematologic manifestations, leading to increased morbidity and mortality. Methods Given the variability in disease presentation and the limited number of studies to date, no clinical documents currently exist to provide guidance to health care providers about the management of VEXAS. To address this gap, we formed an international multidisciplinary panel of VEXAS experts. Results Through formalized meetings and a voting process, the group developed consensus clinical guidance considerations for the management of VEXAS. These considerations offer practical advice on several key topics: (1) clinical features of VEXAS, (2) UBA1 screening methods, (3) the diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs) in patients with VEXAS, and (4) prognosis and management. The aim is to provide expert guidance on which patients to test, how to test for VEXAS, how to approach MDS in the context of VEXAS, and considerations for management. Conclusion This work marks the first formal international consensus guidance for VEXAS and is intended to be used as a resource for clinicians seeking to understand the disease and its management.

Abstract Objectives The lack of uniform terminology and abbreviations for anti-synthetase syndrome has led to significant challenges in research and clinical practice. This study aimed to establish an international consensus on a standardized nomenclature and abbreviation among a diverse group of global myositis experts and patient representatives. Methods This qualitative project was approved by the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS). Based on the outcomes of a literature review and preliminary survey, list of terms for nomenclature and abbreviations was finalized. Subsequently, two rounds of the Delphi survey were conducted among myositis experts and patient participants to ascertain current practices and preferences. Using Nominal Group Technique (NGT), the project steering committee developed a consensus nomenclature and abbreviation. Results A total of 241 and 132 myositis experts from six continents, 35 countries and 9 specialities participated in round 1 and round 2 of the Delphi survey, respectively. The results indicated a preference for the terms anti-synthetase syndrome, antisynthetase syndrome and anti-tRNA synthetase syndrome. The abbreviations ASS, ASyS and ASSD were most used, though ASS received notable disapproval. The steering committee, including twenty-five myositis experts and three patient representatives from diverse backgrounds and geographical locations, reached a consensus on ‘anti-synthetase syndrome’ as the preferred nomenclature and ASyS as the preferred abbreviation, with 100% and 93.1% votes, respectively. Conclusion The terms anti-synthetase syndrome and ASyS should be adopted as the standard nomenclature and abbreviation in both research and clinical practice. This standardization is expected to increase consistency within the literature.

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.

ObjectiveTo develop response criteria for adult dermatomyositis (DM) and polymyositis (PM).MethodsExpert surveys, logistic regression, and conjoint analysis were used to develop 287 definitions using core set measures. Myositis experts rated greater improvement among multiple pairwise scenarios in conjoint analysis surveys, where different levels of improvement in 2 core set measures were presented. The PAPRIKA (Potentially All Pairwise Rankings of All Possible Alternatives) method determined the relative weights of core set measures and conjoint analysis definitions. The performance characteristics of the definitions were evaluated on patient profiles using expert consensus (gold standard) and were validated using data from a clinical trial. The nominal group technique was used to reach consensus.ResultsConsensus was reached for a conjoint analysis–based continuous model using absolute percent change in core set measures (physician, patient, and extramuscular global activity, muscle strength, Health Assessment Questionnaire, and muscle enzyme levels). A total improvement score (range 0–100), determined by summing scores for each core set measure, was based on improvement in and relative weight of each core set measure. Thresholds for minimal, moderate, and major improvement were ≥20, ≥40, and ≥60 points in the total improvement score. The same criteria were chosen for juvenile DM, with different improvement thresholds. Sensitivity and specificity in DM/PM patient cohorts were 85% and 92%, 90% and 96%, and 92% and 98% for minimal, moderate, and major improvement, respectively. Definitions were validated in the clinical trial analysis for differentiating the physician rating of improvement (P < 0.001).ConclusionThe response criteria for adult DM/PM consisted of the conjoint analysis model based on absolute percent change in 6 core set measures, with thresholds for minimal, moderate, and major improvement.