Grayson, Peter C.

Objective To provide evidence‐based recommendations and expert guidance for the management of Kawasaki disease (KD), focusing on clinical scenarios more commonly addressed by rheumatologists. Methods Sixteen clinical questions regarding diagnostic testing, treatment, and management of KD were developed in the Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) question format. Systematic literature reviews were conducted for each PICO question. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation method to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations. Each recommendation required consensus from at least 70% of the Voting Panel. Results We present 1 good practice statement, 11 recommendations, and 1 ungraded position statement to guide the management of KD and clinical scenarios of suspected KD. These recommendations for KD are focused on situations in which input from rheumatologists may be requested by other managing specialists, such as in cases of treatment‐refractory, severe, or complicated KD. The good practice statement affirms that all patients with KD should receive initial treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). In addition, we developed 7 strong and 4 conditional recommendations for the management of KD or suspected KD. Strong recommendations include prompt treatment of incomplete KD, treatment with aspirin, and obtaining an echocardiogram in the setting of unexplained macrophage activation syndrome or shock. Conditional recommendations include use of IVIG with other adjuvant agents for patients with KD and high‐risk features of IVIG resistance and/or coronary artery aneurysms. These recommendations endorse minimizing risk to the patient by using established therapy promptly at disease onset and identifying situations in which adjunctive therapy may be warranted. Conclusion These recommendations provide guidance regarding diagnostic strategies, use of pharmacologic agents, and use of echocardiography in patients with suspected or confirmed KD.

Abstract Background VEXAS syndrome (vacuoles, E1 enzyme, X-linked, autoinflammatory, somatic) is due to a somatically acquired mutation of the E1-ubiquitin ligase UBA1, leading to the expression of a catalytically impaired isoform in myeloid cells. VEXAS syndrome combines severe auto-inflammatory manifestations and is frequently associated with myeloid neoplasia (MN). The outcome of VEXAS is poor, and most patients require high dose corticosteroids to reduce inflammation (Bourbon et al. Blood 2021). Therapeutic options besides steroids are currently limited in those patients. In this multicenter retrospective study, we report some clinical efficacy of JAK inhibitors (JAKi) in VEXAS patients. Patients We analyzed retrospectively 24 UBA1 mutated patients (Met41 or previously reported alternative splicing site) treated with JAKi (11 with ruxolitinib (RUXO), 11 with tofacitinib (TOFA), 1 with baricitinib, 1 with upadicitinib) in 7 French, 1 Portugese and 2 US centers. Complete clinical (CCR) and complete biological response (CBR) were defined as complete resolution of clinical symptoms and normalization of inflammation markers (C reactive protein, CRP) respectively. Partial clinical (PCR) and biological (PBR) response were defined by reduction of at least 50% of clinical or inflammation markers, respectively. Results All 24 patients were males with a median age at VEXAS diagnosis of 72 years [range 54-89]. Thirteen had documented myeloid neoplasia (MN) (1 CMML-0, 1 other MDS/MPN, 10 MDS). Clinical manifestations at VEXAS diagnosis include skin involvement (87.5%), arthritis or arthralgia (83.3%), vasculitis (37.5%), fever (75%), ocular manifestations (29.2%) and pulmonary infiltrates (41.6%). IPSS-R was very low/low/intermediate in 8/3/2 cases respectively. Median time between first VEXAS related clinical manifestations and JAKi onset was 2.45 years [0.15-5.45]. Prior to JAKi onset, patients had received a median of 2.5 immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory treatments [range 0-9]. After 1 month, 12/24 (50%) patients had achieved clinical and/or biological response. CCR and CBR was achieved in 7/11 (64%) and 6/11 (54%) patients treated with RUXO, and in 3/13 (23%) and 2/13 (15%) patients treated with other JAKi (figure A). After 3 months, CCR and CBR was 100% and 80% (10 evaluable patients) in the RUXO group as compared to 25% and 25 % in patients treated with other JAKi (8 evaluable patients) (p=0.0036 et 0.0055 respectively, figure B). RUXO efficacy was similar in patients with (n=9) or without (n=2) associated MN. In RUXO treated patients, median CRP and steroid dose reduction was 72.5% [range 21.5- 99.5] and 66.25% [range 0-75] respectively at 3 months. With a median follow-up of 4 months [range 1.4-12], only 1 RUXO treated patient had lost response, whereas median time to next of treatment was 3.4 months with other JAKi (figure C). Of the 13 patients with MN, 7 were RBC transfusion dependent at JAKi onset (6 with RUXO, 1 with other JAKi). Four of 6 patients treated with RUXO achieved RBC transfusion independence at 3 months, but not the patient treated with other JAKi. Regarding safety, severe adverse events were reported in 6 patients: 3 deep vein thrombosis, (2 with TOFA/1 with RUXO), 1 pneumonia (RUXO), 1 enterohemorrhagic E. Coli infection (RUXO), and 1 lethal legionellosis (TOFA)). Conclusion Ruxolitinib (and less often other JAK inhibitors used in this study) provides rapid response in most VEXAS patients, allowing in two third of the cases corticosteroid dose reduction/withdrawal and RBC transfusion independence in 4/6 patients with MN who were initially transfusion dependent. Those retrospective preliminary results, with limited follow up, must be interpreted with caution and will be updated at the meeting. The effect of RUXO on VEXAS patients with concomitant MN will soon be studied prospectively in a Groupe Francophone des Myélodysplasies (GFM) clinical study. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Galicier: Novartis Pharma Sas, Sanofi Aventis France: Consultancy; Lilly France, Baxalta France, Sanofi Aventis France Sas: Other: Payments as Speaker for Educational Program; Shire France SA, Janssen-Cilag, Pfizer Sas: Other: Invitation to Congress. Hirsch: Novartis Pharma: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo Oncology: Consultancy. Warrington: Eli Lilly: Research Funding; Kiniksa: Research Funding. Fenaux: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; JAZZ: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Syros Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria.

Objective To provide evidence‐based recommendations and expert guidance for the management of systemic polyarteritis nodosa (PAN). Methods Twenty‐one clinical questions regarding diagnostic testing, treatment, and management were developed in the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) format for systemic, non–hepatitis B–related PAN. Systematic literature reviews were conducted for each PICO question. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations. Each recommendation required ≥70% consensus among the Voting Panel. Results We present 16 recommendations and 1 ungraded position statement for PAN. Most recommendations were graded as conditional due to the paucity of evidence. These recommendations support early treatment of severe PAN with cyclophosphamide and glucocorticoids, limiting toxicity through minimizing long‐term exposure to both treatments, and the use of imaging and tissue biopsy for disease diagnosis. These recommendations endorse minimizing risk to the patient by using established therapy at disease onset and identify new areas where adjunctive therapy may be warranted. Conclusion These recommendations provide guidance regarding diagnostic strategies, use of pharmacologic agents, and imaging for patients with PAN.

Objective To provide evidence‐based recommendations and expert guidance for the management of giant cell arteritis (GCA) and Takayasu arteritis (TAK) as exemplars of large vessel vasculitis. Methods Clinical questions regarding diagnostic testing, treatment, and management were developed in the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) format for GCA and TAK (27 for GCA, 27 for TAK). Systematic literature reviews were conducted for each PICO question. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. Recommendations were developed by the Voting Panel, comprising adult and pediatric rheumatologists and patients. Each recommendation required ≥70% consensus among the Voting Panel. Results We present 22 recommendations and 2 ungraded position statements for GCA, and 20 recommendations and 1 ungraded position statement for TAK. These recommendations and statements address clinical questions relating to the use of diagnostic testing, including imaging, treatments, and surgical interventions in GCA and TAK. Recommendations for GCA include support for the use of glucocorticoid‐sparing immunosuppressive agents and the use of imaging to identify large vessel involvement. Recommendations for TAK include the use of nonglucocorticoid immunosuppressive agents with glucocorticoids as initial therapy. There were only 2 strong recommendations; the remaining recommendations were conditional due to the low quality of evidence available for most PICO questions. Conclusion These recommendations provide guidance regarding the evaluation and management of patients with GCA and TAK, including diagnostic strategies, use of pharmacologic agents, and surgical interventions.

Objective To provide evidence‐based recommendations and expert guidance for the management of systemic polyarteritis nodosa (PAN). Methods Twenty‐one clinical questions regarding diagnostic testing, treatment, and management were developed in the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) format for systemic, non–hepatitis B–related PAN. Systematic literature reviews were conducted for each PICO question. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations. Each recommendation required ≥70% consensus among the Voting Panel. Results We present 16 recommendations and 1 ungraded position statement for PAN. Most recommendations were graded as conditional due to the paucity of evidence. These recommendations support early treatment of severe PAN with cyclophosphamide and glucocorticoids, limiting toxicity through minimizing long‐term exposure to both treatments, and the use of imaging and tissue biopsy for disease diagnosis. These recommendations endorse minimizing risk to the patient by using established therapy at disease onset and identify new areas where adjunctive therapy may be warranted. Conclusion These recommendations provide guidance regarding diagnostic strategies, use of pharmacologic agents, and imaging for patients with PAN.

Objective To provide evidence‐based recommendations and expert guidance for the management of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis (AAV), including granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA). Methods Clinical questions regarding the treatment and management of AAV were developed in the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) format (47 for GPA/MPA, 34 for EGPA). Systematic literature reviews were conducted for each PICO question. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations. Each recommendation required ≥70% consensus among the Voting Panel. Results We present 26 recommendations and 5 ungraded position statements for GPA/MPA, and 15 recommendations and 5 ungraded position statements for EGPA. This guideline provides recommendations for remission induction and maintenance therapy as well as adjunctive treatment strategies in GPA, MPA, and EGPA. These recommendations include the use of rituximab for remission induction and maintenance in severe GPA and MPA and the use of mepolizumab in nonsevere EGPA. All recommendations are conditional due in part to the lack of multiple randomized controlled trials and/or low‐quality evidence supporting the recommendations. Conclusion This guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and the Vasculitis Foundation for the management of AAV and provides guidance to health care professionals on how to treat these diseases.

Objective To provide evidence‐based recommendations and expert guidance for the management of giant cell arteritis (GCA) and Takayasu arteritis (TAK) as exemplars of large vessel vasculitis. Methods Clinical questions regarding diagnostic testing, treatment, and management were developed in the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) format for GCA and TAK (27 for GCA, 27 for TAK). Systematic literature reviews were conducted for each PICO question. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. Recommendations were developed by the Voting Panel, comprising adult and pediatric rheumatologists and patients. Each recommendation required ≥70% consensus among the Voting Panel. Results We present 22 recommendations and 2 ungraded position statements for GCA, and 20 recommendations and 1 ungraded position statement for TAK. These recommendations and statements address clinical questions relating to the use of diagnostic testing, including imaging, treatments, and surgical interventions in GCA and TAK. Recommendations for GCA include support for the use of glucocorticoid‐sparing immunosuppressive agents and the use of imaging to identify large vessel involvement. Recommendations for TAK include the use of nonglucocorticoid immunosuppressive agents with glucocorticoids as initial therapy. There were only 2 strong recommendations; the remaining recommendations were conditional due to the low quality of evidence available for most PICO questions. Conclusion These recommendations provide guidance regarding the evaluation and management of patients with GCA and TAK, including diagnostic strategies, use of pharmacologic agents, and surgical interventions.

Objective To provide evidence‐based recommendations and expert guidance for the management of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis (AAV), including granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA). Methods Clinical questions regarding the treatment and management of AAV were developed in the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) format (47 for GPA/MPA, 34 for EGPA). Systematic literature reviews were conducted for each PICO question. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations. Each recommendation required ≥70% consensus among the Voting Panel. Results We present 26 recommendations and 5 ungraded position statements for GPA/MPA, and 15 recommendations and 5 ungraded position statements for EGPA. This guideline provides recommendations for remission induction and maintenance therapy as well as adjunctive treatment strategies in GPA, MPA, and EGPA. These recommendations include the use of rituximab for remission induction and maintenance in severe GPA and MPA and the use of mepolizumab in nonsevere EGPA. All recommendations are conditional due in part to the lack of multiple randomized controlled trials and/or low‐quality evidence supporting the recommendations. Conclusion This guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and the Vasculitis Foundation for the management of AAV and provides guidance to health care professionals on how to treat these diseases.

ObjectiveDeficiency of adenosine deaminase 2 (DADA2) is a monogenic form of vasculitis that can resemble polyarteritis nodosa (PAN). This study was undertaken to identify potential disease‐causing sequence variants in ADA2 in patients with idiopathic PAN, granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), or microscopic polyangiitis (MPA).MethodsPatients with idiopathic PAN (n = 118) and patients with GPA or MPA (n = 1,107) were screened for rare nonsynonymous variants in ADA2 using DNA sequencing methods. ADA‐2 enzyme activity was assessed in selected serum samples.ResultsNine of 118 patients with PAN (7.6%) were identified as having rare nonsynonymous variants in ADA2. Four patients (3.4%) were biallelic for pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, and 5 patients (4.2%) were monoallelic carriers for 3 variants of uncertain significance and 2 likely pathogenic variants. Serum samples from 2 patients with PAN with biallelic variants were available and showed markedly reduced ADA‐2 enzyme activity. ADA‐2 enzyme testing of 86 additional patients revealed 1 individual with strongly reduced ADA‐2 activity without detectable pathogenic variants. Patients with PAN and biallelic variants in ADA2 were younger at diagnosis than patients with 1 or no variant in ADA2, with no other clinical differences noted. None of the patients with GPA or MPA carried biallelic variants in ADA2.ConclusionA subset of patients with idiopathic PAN meet genetic criteria for DADA2. Given that tumor necrosis factor inhibition is efficacious in DADA2 but is not conventional therapy for PAN, these findings suggest that ADA‐2 testing should strongly be considered in patients with hepatitis B virus–negative idiopathic PAN.

Objective To identify and validate, using computer‐driven methods, patterns of arterial disease in Takayasu arteritis (TAK) and giant cell arteritis (GCA). Methods Patients with TAK or GCA were studied from the Diagnostic and Classification Criteria for Vasculitis (DCVAS) cohort and a combined North American cohort. Case inclusion required evidence of large‐vessel involvement, defined as stenosis, occlusion, or aneurysm by angiography/ultrasonography, or increased 18 F‐fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake by positron emission tomography (PET) in at least 1 of 11 specified arterial territories. K‐means cluster analysis identified groups of patients based on the pattern of arterial involvement. Cluster groups were identified in the DCVAS cohort and independently validated in the North American cohort. Results A total of 1,068 patients were included (DCVAS cohort: TAK = 461, GCA = 217; North American cohort: TAK = 225, GCA = 165). Six distinct clusters of patients were identified in DCVAS and validated in the North American cohort. Patients with TAK were more likely to have disease in the abdominal vasculature, bilateral disease of the subclavian and carotid arteries, or focal disease limited to the left subclavian artery than GCA ( P < 0.01). Patients with GCA were more likely to have diffuse disease, involvement of bilateral axillary/subclavian arteries, or minimal disease without a definable pattern than TAK ( P < 0.01). Patients with TAK were more likely to have damage by angiography, and patients with GCA were more likely to have arterial FDG uptake by PET without associated vascular damage. Conclusion Arterial patterns of disease highlight both shared and divergent vascular patterns between TAK and GCA and should be incorporated into classification criteria for large‐vessel vasculitis.