Salvarani, Carlo

The European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guideline on Primary Angiitis of the Central Nervous System (PACNS), developed according to ESO standard operating procedures (SOP) and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, was elaborated to assist clinicians in the diagnostic and treatment pathway of patients with PACNS in their decision making. A working group involving vascular neurologists, neuroradiologists, rheumatologists, a neuropathologist and a methodologist identified 17 relevant clinical questions; these were addressed according to the patient/population, intervention, comparison and outcomes (PICO) framework and systematic literature reviews were performed. Notably, each PICO was addressed with respect to large vessel (LV)-PACNS and small vessel (SV)-PACNS. Data to answer many questions were scarce or lacking and the quality of evidence was very low overall, so, for some PICOs, the recommendations reflect the ongoing uncertainty. When the absence of sufficient evidence precluded recommendations, Expert Consensus Statements were formulated. In some cases, this applied to interventions in the diagnosis and treatment of PACNS which are embedded widely in clinical practice, for example patterns of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) abnormalities. CSF analysis for hyperproteinorrachia and pleocytosis does not have evidence supporting their use as diagnostic tools. The working group recommended that caution is employed in the interpretation of non-invasive vascular imaging due to lack of validation and the different sensitivities in comparison with digital subtraction angiography (DSA) and histopathological analyses. Moreover, there is not a neuroimaging pattern specific for PACNS and neurovascular issues are largely underreported in PACNS patients. The group’s recommendations on induction and maintenance of treatment and for primary or secondary prevention of vascular events also reflect uncertainty due to lack of evidence. Being uncertain the role and practical usefulness of current diagnostic criteria and being not comparable the main treatment strategies, it is suggested to have a multidisciplinary team approach in an expert center during both work up and management of patients with suspected PACNS. Highlighting the limitations of the currently accepted diagnostic criteria, we hope to facilitate the design of multicenter, prospective clinical studies and trials. A standardization of neuroimaging techniques and reporting to improve the level of evidence underpinning interventions employed in the diagnosis and management of PACNS. We anticipate that this guideline, the first comprehensive European guideline on PACNS management using GRADE methodology, will assist clinicians to choose the most effective management strategy for PACNS.

ObjectiveThis study was undertaken to explore the gene expression profile of primary central nervous system vasculitis (PCNSV).MethodsBrain specimens of 4 patients with granulomatous vasculitis (GV), 5 with lymphocytic vasculitis (LV), 4 with amyloid β‐related angiitis (ABRA), and 4 normal controls were studied. RNA‐sequencing was performed using the Illumina Hiseq‐4,000 platform and the Illumina TruSeq Total‐RNA library. Student t test and false discovery rate tests were performed for each of the differentially expressed transcripts. Ingenuity Pathway Analysis was used for the pathway expression analysis. CIBERSORT was used to estimate the abundances of different immune cell subsets in the tissues based on gene expression data.ResultsTranscripts differentially expressed between PCNSV and normal brain indicated that endosomal, mitochondrial, and ribosome dysfunction, alterations in protein synthesis, and noncoding RNAs might be involved in PCNSV. Pathway analysis revealed the activation of dendritic cell maturation and antigen processing as well as neuroinflammation in PCNSV versus normal brain, whereas oxidative phosphorylation was inhibited. CIBERSORT estimation of immune cell subsets suggested that activated NK cells, M1 macrophages, memory B cells, and follicular helper T cells were likely to be more prevalent in PCNSV samples. Naïve CD4 T cells and monocytes were mainly estimated to be present in GV and ABRA. Plasma cell and γδ T‐cell signatures were mainly found in LV and normal brain. GV showed higher levels of genes associated with macrophage activities and T cells. ABRA showed higher levels of long noncoding RNAs and miR‐616. LV showed higher levels of genes encoding immunoglobulins.InterpretationRNA sequencing confirmed PCNSV heterogeneity. ANN NEUROL 2023;93:120–130

ObjectiveTo compare patients with large‐vessel giant cell arteritis (LV‐GCA) characterized by wall thickening, stenosis, and/or occlusion of subclavian arteries to those with subclavian dilatation.MethodsFor the purposes of the present retrospective study, 2 different subsets of LV‐GCA were identified and compared from an established cohort of patients with radiographic evidence of subclavian artery vasculitis secondary to GCA: LV‐GCA with wall thickening, stenosis, and/or occlusion of subclavian arteries (Group 1), and LV‐GCA with dilatation of subclavian arteries without wall thickening or stenotic changes (Group 2).ResultsThe study included 109 patients in Group 1 and 11 in Group 2. Large‐vessel involvement secondary to GCA was diagnosed significantly later in patients from Group 2 compared to those from Group 1 (median 15.3 versus 0.0 months; P = 0.010). Compared to patients from Group 1, those from Group 2 were more frequently male (17% versus 45%; P = 0.027), ever smokers (42% versus 73%; P = 0.048), and more frequently had a history of coronary artery disease (11% versus 36%; P = 0.018). At LV‐GCA diagnosis, 10 of the 11 patients (91%) from Group 2 had aortic dilatation compared to 13 of 109 patients (12%) from Group 1 (P < 0.001). During the followup period, the prevalence of aortic aneurysm was significantly higher in patients from Group 2 compared with those from Group 1 (64% versus 7% at 5 years; P < 0.001).ConclusionTwo different subsets of LV‐GCA were identified. Given the strong association between subclavian artery dilatation and aortic aneurysm, such patients should be evaluated and monitored carefully for aortic dilatation.

ObjectivePolyarteritis nodosa (PAN) is a systemic necrotizing vasculitis of medium‐sized visceral vessels. However, cutaneous arteritis (CA) and gastrointestinal (GI) vasculitis are forms of single‐organ vasculitis having indistinguishable histopathologic findings from PAN. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the clinical characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of patients with systemic PAN, CA, and GI vasculitis.MethodsRetrospective cohorts were assembled, consisting of patients with PAN, CA, and GI vasculitis between 1980 and 2014. The demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of patients were abstracted from medical records.ResultsWe included 48 patients with PAN, 41 patients with CA, and 19 patients with GI vasculitis. The disease of 1 patient evolved from CA to systemic PAN during the disease course. At diagnosis, 94% of patients with PAN, 93% of patients with CA, and 67% of patients with GI vasculitis were treated with glucocorticoids. Additional immunosuppressive agents were used in 67% of PAN, 37% of GI vasculitis, and 32% of CA cases. The 5‐year cumulative relapse rate was 45.2% in CA, and only 9.6% in PAN during a followup of approximately 6 years. No deaths were observed in the CA group. The survival rate at 10 years was 66% in the PAN group and 61% in the GI vasculitis group.ConclusionSystemic PAN, CA, and GI vasculitis take different clinical courses and therefore may be different diseases, rather than existing on a spectrum of the same disease. Progression of CA to systemic PAN is very rare. Relapse risk is low during followup in PAN. Patients with CA have a higher relapse rate than those with systemic PAN, possibly due to less use of immunosuppressive therapy in CA.

Abstract Therapy for polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) varies widely in clinical practice as international recommendations for PMR treatment are not currently available. In this paper, we report the 2015 European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommendations for the management of PMR. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology as a framework for the project. Accordingly, the direction and strength of the recommendations are based on the quality of evidence, the balance between desirable and undesirable effects, patients’ and clinicians’ values and preferences, and resource use. Eight overarching principles and nine specific recommendations were developed covering several aspects of PMR, including basic and follow‐up investigations of patients under treatment, risk factor assessment, medical access for patients and specialist referral, treatment strategies such as initial glucocorticoid (GC) doses and subsequent tapering regimens, use of intramuscular GCs and disease modifying anti‐rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), as well as the roles of non‐steroidal anti‐rheumatic drugs and non‐pharmacological interventions. These recommendations will inform primary, secondary and tertiary care physicians about an international consensus on the management of PMR. These recommendations should serve to inform clinicians about best practices in the care of patients with PMR.