Mann, Heřman

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

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.