Citations

AbstractBackgroundThe pandemic presented unique challenges for individuals with autoimmune and rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) due to their underlying condition, the effects of immunosuppressive treatments, and increased vaccine hesitancy.ObjectivesThe COVID‐19 vaccination in autoimmune diseases (COVAD) study, a series of ongoing, patient self‐reported surveys were conceived with the vision of being a unique tool to gather patient perspectives on AIRDs. It involved a multinational, multicenter collaborative effort amidst a global lockdown.MethodsLeveraging social media as a research tool, COVAD collected data using validated patient‐reported outcomes (PROs). The study, comprising a core team, steering committee, and global collaborators, facilitated data collection and analysis. A pilot‐tested, validated survey, featuring questions regarding COVID‐19 infection, vaccination and outcomes, patient demographics, and PROs was circulated to patients with AIRDs and healthy controls (HCs).DiscussionWe present the challenges encountered during this international collaborative project, including coordination, data management, funding constraints, language barriers, and authorship concerns, while highlighting the measures taken to address them.ConclusionCollaborative virtual models offer a dynamic new frontier in medical research and are vital to studying rare diseases. The COVAD study demonstrates the potential of online platforms for conducting large‐scale, patient‐focused research and underscores the importance of integrating patient perspective into clinical care. Care of patients is our central motivation, and it is essential to recognize their voices as equal stakeholders and valued partners in the study of the conditions that affect them.

AbstractInterstitial lung disorders are a group of respiratory diseases characterized by interstitial compartment infiltration, varying degrees of infiltration, and fibrosis, with or without small airway involvement. Although some are idiopathic (e.g., idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, idiopathic interstitial pneumonias, and sarcoidosis), the great majority have an underlying etiology, such as systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease (SARD, also called Connective Tissue Diseases or CTD), inhalational exposure to organic matter, medications, and rarely, genetic disorders. This review focuses on diagnostic approaches in interstitial lung diseases associated with SARDs. To make an accurate diagnosis, a multidisciplinary, personalized approach is required, with input from various specialties, including pulmonary, rheumatology, radiology, and pathology, to reach a consensus. In a minority of patients, a definitive diagnosis cannot be established. Their clinical presentations and prognosis can be variable even within subsets of SARDs.

Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a common and serious complication of systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARD). The prevalence and prognosis of ILD vary depending on the type and severity of the underlying SARD. Recently, two drugs have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of ILD in SARD, and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) has issued guidelines for the screening and monitoring of these patients. Therefore, it is essential to detect and manage ILD in SARDs as early as possible. High-resolution CT of the chest is the current gold standard test for diagnosis of ILD, yet, it is not uniformly performed as an initial diagnostic test. This review discusses the latest advances in imaging techniques for the diagnosis, assessment, and follow-up of SARD-ILDs.

AbstractBackgroundUndifferentiated embryonal sarcoma of the liver (UESL) is a rare tumor for which there are few evidence‐based guidelines. The aim of this study was to define current management strategies and outcomes for these patients using a multi‐institutional dataset curated by the Pediatric Surgical Oncology Research Collaborative.MethodsData were collected retrospectively for patients with UESL treated across 17 children's hospitals in North America from 1989 to 2019. Factors analyzed included patient and tumor characteristics, PRETEXT group, operative details, and neoadjuvant/adjuvant regimens. Event‐free and overall survival (EFS, OS) were the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively.ResultsSeventy‐eight patients were identified with a median age of 9.9 years [interquartile range [IQR): 7–12]. Twenty‐seven patients underwent resection at diagnosis, and 47 patients underwent delayed resection, including eight liver transplants. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy led to a median change in maximum tumor diameter of 1.6 cm [IQR: 0.0–4.4] and greater than 90% tumor necrosis in 79% of the patients undergoing delayed resection. R0 resections were accomplished in 63 patients (81%). Univariate analysis found that metastatic disease impacted OS, and completeness of resection impacted both EFS and OS, while multivariate analysis revealed that R0 resection was associated with decreased expected hazards of experiencing an event [hazard ratio (HR): 0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.04–0.6]. At a median follow‐up of 4 years [IQR: 2–8], the EFS was 70.0% [95% CI: 60%–82%] and OS was 83% [95% CI: 75%–93%].ConclusionComplete resection is associated with improved survival for patients with UESL. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy causes minimal radiographic response, but significant tumor necrosis.

Abstract Objectives The objective of this study was to explore the prevalence, characteristics and risk factors of COVID-19 breakthrough infections (BIs) in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) using data from the COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) study. Methods A validated patient self-reporting e-survey was circulated by the COVAD study group to collect data on COVID-19 infection and vaccination in 2022. BIs were defined as COVID-19 occurring ≥14 days after two vaccine doses. We compared BI characteristics and severity among patients with IIMs, patients with other autoimmune rheumatic and non-rheumatic diseases (AIRD, nrAID), and healthy controls (HCs). Multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess the risk factors for BI, severe BI ,and hospitalizations among patients with IIMs. Results Among the 9449 included responses, BIs occurred in 1447 respondents (15.3%). The median age was 44 years [interquartile range (IQR) 21], 77.4% were female, and 182 BIs (12.9%) occurred among the 1406 patients with IIMs. Multivariable Cox regression among the data for patients with IIMs showed increasing age to be a protective factor for BIs [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.97–0.99], and HCQ and SSZ use were risk factors (HR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.24–2.64, and HR = 3.79, 95% CI = 1.69–8.42, respectively). Glucocorticoid use was a risk factor for a severe BI (HR = 3.61, 95% CI = 1.09–11.8). Non-white ethnicity (HR = 2.61, 95% CI = 1.03–6.59) was a risk factor for hospitalization. Compared with other groups, patients with IIMs required more supplemental oxygen therapy (IIMs = 6.0% vs AIRDs = 1.8%, nrAIDs = 2.2% and HCs = 0.9%), intensive care unit admission (IIMs = 2.2% vs AIRDs = 0.6%, nrAIDs and HCs = 0%), advanced treatment with antiviral or monoclonal antibodies (IIMs = 34.1% vs AIRDs = 25.8%, nrAIDs = 14.6% and HCs = 12.8%) and had more hospitalization (IIMs = 7.7% vs AIRDs = 4.6%, nrAIDs = 1.1% and HCs = 1.5%). Conclusion Patients with IIMs are susceptible to severe COVID-19 BIs. Age and immunosuppressive treatments were related to the risk of BIs.

Abstract Objectives To investigate health-related quality of life in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) compared with those with non-IIM autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs), non-rheumatic autoimmune diseases (nrAIDs) and without autoimmune diseases (controls) using Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) instrument data obtained from the second COVID-19 vaccination in autoimmune disease (COVAD-2) e-survey database. Methods Demographics, diagnosis, comorbidities, disease activity, treatments and PROMIS instrument data were analysed. Primary outcomes were PROMIS Global Physical Health (GPH) and Global Mental Health (GMH) scores. Factors affecting GPH and GMH scores in IIMs were identified using multivariable regression analysis. Results We analysed responses from 1582 IIM, 4700 non-IIM AIRD and 545 nrAID patients and 3675 controls gathered through 23 May 2022. The median GPH scores were the lowest in IIM and non-IIM AIRD patients {13 [interquartile range (IQR) 10–15] IIMs vs 13 [11–15] non-IIM AIRDs vs 15 [13–17] nrAIDs vs 17 [15–18] controls, P < 0.001}. The median GMH scores in IIM patients were also significantly lower compared with those without autoimmune diseases [13 (IQR 10–15) IIMs vs 15 (13–17) controls, P < 0.001]. Inclusion body myositis, comorbidities, active disease and glucocorticoid use were the determinants of lower GPH scores, whereas overlap myositis, interstitial lung disease, depression, active disease, lower PROMIS Physical Function 10a and higher PROMIS Fatigue 4a scores were associated with lower GMH scores in IIM patients. Conclusion Both physical and mental health are significantly impaired in IIM patients, particularly in those with comorbidities and increased fatigue, emphasizing the importance of patient-reported experiences and optimized multidisciplinary care to enhance well-being in people with IIMs.

AbstractBackgroundDiagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) can be challenging given varying symptom presentations, and complex multifactorial pathophysiology. The gold standard for GERD diagnosis is esophageal acid exposure time (AET) measured by pH‐metry. A variety of additional diagnostic tools are available. The goal of this consensus was to assess the individual merits of GERD diagnostic tools based on current evidence, and provide consensus recommendations following discussion and voting by experts.MethodsThis consensus was developed by 15 experts from nine countries, based on a systematic search of the literature, using GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation) methodology to assess the quality and strength of the evidence, and provide recommendations regarding the diagnostic utility of different GERD diagnosis tools, using AET as the reference standard.Key ResultsA proton pump inhibitor (PPI) trial is appropriate for patients with heartburn and no alarm symptoms, but nor for patients with regurgitation, chest pain, or extraesophageal presentations. Severe erosive esophagitis and abnormal reflux monitoring off PPI are clearly indicative of GERD. Esophagram, esophageal biopsies, laryngoscopy, and pharyngeal pH monitoring are not recommended to diagnose GERD. Patients with PPI‐refractory symptoms and normal endoscopy require reflux monitoring by pH or pH‐impedance to confirm or exclude GERD, and identify treatment failure mechanisms. GERD confounders need to be considered in some patients, pH‐impedance can identify supragrastric belching, impedance‐manometry can diagnose rumination.ConclusionsErosive esophagitis on endoscopy and abnormal pH or pH‐impedance monitoring are the most appropriate methods to establish a diagnosis of GERD. Other tools may add useful complementary information.