Citations

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.

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding the treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in adults with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions. A systematic literature review was then performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A panel of clinicians and patients reached consensus on the direction and strength of the recommendations. Results Thirty‐five recommendations were generated (including two strong recommendations) for first‐line SARD‐ILD treatment, treatment of SARD‐ILD progression despite first‐line ILD therapy, and treatment of rapidly progressive ILD. The strong recommendations were against using glucocorticoids in systemic sclerosis–ILD as a first‐line ILD therapy and after ILD progression. Otherwise, glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended for first‐line ILD treatment in all other SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the treatment of ILD in people with SARDs.

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding the treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in adults with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions. A systematic literature review was then performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A panel of clinicians and patients reached consensus on the direction and strength of the recommendations. Results Thirty‐five recommendations were generated (including two strong recommendations) for first‐line SARD‐ILD treatment, treatment of SARD‐ILD progression despite first‐line ILD therapy, and treatment of rapidly progressive ILD. The strong recommendations were against using glucocorticoids in systemic sclerosis–ILD as a first‐line ILD therapy and after ILD progression. Otherwise, glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended for first‐line ILD treatment in all other SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the treatment of ILD in people with SARDs.

ObjectiveWe provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding screening for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the monitoring for ILD progression in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), specifically rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue disease, and Sjögren disease.MethodsWe developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions related to screening and monitoring for ILD in patients with SARDs. A systematic literature review was performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A Voting Panel of interdisciplinary clinician experts and patients achieved consensus on the direction and strength of each recommendation.ResultsFifteen recommendations were developed. For screening people with these SARDs at risk for ILD, we conditionally recommend pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high‐resolution computed tomography of the chest (HRCT chest); conditionally recommend against screening with 6‐minute walk test distance (6MWD), chest radiography, ambulatory desaturation testing, or bronchoscopy; and strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy. We conditionally recommend monitoring ILD with PFTs, HRCT chest, and ambulatory desaturation testing and conditionally recommend against monitoring with 6MWD, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy. We provide guidance on ILD risk factors and suggestions on frequency of testing to evaluate for the development of ILD in people with SARDs.ConclusionThis clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the screening and monitoring of ILD in people with SARDs.

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding screening for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the monitoring for ILD progression in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), specifically rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue disease, and Sjögren disease. Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions related to screening and monitoring for ILD in patients with SARDs. A systematic literature review was performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A Voting Panel of interdisciplinary clinician experts and patients achieved consensus on the direction and strength of each recommendation. Results Fifteen recommendations were developed. For screening people with these SARDs at risk for ILD, we conditionally recommend pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high‐resolution computed tomography of the chest (HRCT chest); conditionally recommend against screening with 6‐minute walk test distance (6MWD), chest radiography, ambulatory desaturation testing, or bronchoscopy; and strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy. We conditionally recommend monitoring ILD with PFTs, HRCT chest, and ambulatory desaturation testing and conditionally recommend against monitoring with 6MWD, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy. We provide guidance on ILD risk factors and suggestions on frequency of testing to evaluate for the development of ILD in people with SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the screening and monitoring of ILD in people with SARDs.

AbstractBackgroundDespite the overall safety and efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccinations, rare cases of systemic autoimmune diseases (SAIDs) have been reported post‐vaccination. This study used a global survey to analyze SAIDs in susceptible individuals' post‐vaccination.MethodsA cross‐sectional study was conducted among participants with self‐reported new‐onset SAIDs using the COVID‐19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) 2 study dataset—a validated, patient‐reported e‐survey—to analyze the long‐term safety of COVID‐19 vaccines. Baseline characteristics of patients with new‐onset SAIDs and vaccinated healthy controls (HCs) were compared after propensity score matching based on age and sex in a 1:4 ratio.ResultsOf 16 750 individuals, 74 (median age 52 years, 79.9% females, and 76.7% Caucasians) had new‐onset SAID post‐vaccination, mainly idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) (n = 23, 31.51%), arthritis (n = 15; 20.53%), and polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) (n = 12, 16.40%). Higher odds of new‐onset SAIDs were noted among Caucasians (OR = 5.3; 95% CI = 2.9–9.7; p < .001) and Moderna vaccine recipients (OR = 2.7; 95% CI = 1.3–5.3; p = .004). New‐onset SAIDs were associated with AID multimorbidity (OR = 1.4; 95% CI = 1.1–1.7; p < .001), mental health disorders (OR = 1.6; 95% CI = 1.3–1.9; p < .001), and mixed race (OR = 2.2; 95% CI = 1.2–4.2; p = .010), where those aged >60 years (OR = 0.6; 95% CI = 0.4–0.8; p = .007) and from high/medium human development index (HDI) countries (compared to very high HDI) reported fewer events than HCs.ConclusionThis study reports a low occurrence of new‐onset SAIDs following COVID‐19 vaccination, primarily IIMs, PMR, and inflammatory arthritis. Identified risk factors included pre‐existing AID multimorbidity, mental health diseases, and mixed race. Revaccination was well tolerated by most patients; therefore, we recommend continuing COVID‐19 vaccination in the general population. However, long‐term studies are needed to understand the autoimmune phenomena arising post‐vaccination.

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.

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.