Search

Objective The ACR-EULAR Myositis Response Criteria (MRC) were developed as a composite measure using absolute percentage change in six core set measures (CSMs). We aimed to further validate the MRC by assessing the contribution of each CSM, frequency of strength vs extramuscular activity improvement, representation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM), and frequency of CSM worsening. Methods Data from adult dermatomyositis/polymyositis patients in the rituximab (n  = 147), etanercept (n  = 14), and abatacept (n  = 19) trials, and consensus patient profiles (n  = 232) were evaluated. The Total Improvement Score (TIS), number of improving vs worsening CSMs, frequency of improvement with and without muscle-related CSMs, and contribution of PROM were evaluated by MRC category. Regression analysis was performed to assess contribution of each CSM to the MRC. Results Of 412 adults with dermatomyositis/polymyositis, there were 37%, 24%, 25%, and 14% with no, minimal, moderate, and major MRC improvement, respectively. The number of improving CSMs and absolute percentage change in all CSMs increased by improvement category. In minimal-moderate improvement, only physician-reported disease activity contributed significantly more than expected by MRC. Of patients with at least minimal improvement, 95% had improvement in muscle-related measures and a majority (84%) had improvement in PROM. Patients with minimal improvement had worsening in a median of 1 CSM, and most patients with moderate-major improvement had no worsening CSMs. Physician assessment of change generally agreed with MRC improvement categories. Conclusion The ACR-EULAR MRC performs consistently across multiple studies, further supporting its use as an efficacy end point in future myositis therapeutic trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Inclusion body myositis (IBM) is characterized by a combination of inflammatory and degenerative changes affecting muscle. While the primary cause of IBM is unknown, genetic factors may influence disease susceptibility. To determine genetic factors contributing to the etiology of IBM, we conducted the largest genetic association study of the disease to date, investigating immune-related genes using the Immunochip. Methods A total of 252 Caucasian patients with IBM were recruited from 11 countries through the Myositis Genetics Consortium and compared with 1,008 ethnically matched controls. Classic HLA alleles and amino acids were imputed using SNP2HLA. Results The HLA region was confirmed as the most strongly associated region in IBM ( P = 3.58 × 10−33). HLA imputation identified 3 independent associations (with HLA-DRB1*03:01, DRB1*01:01, and DRB1*13:01), although the strongest association was with amino acid positions 26 and 11 of the HLA-DRB1 molecule. No association with anti-cytosolic 5′-nucleotidase 1A-positive status was found independent of HLA-DRB1*03:01. There was no association of HLA genotypes with age at onset of IBM. Three non-HLA regions reached suggestive significance, including the chromosome 3 p21.31 region, an established risk locus for autoimmune disease, where a frameshift mutation in CCR5 is thought to be the causal variant. Conclusion This is the largest, most comprehensive genetic association study to date in IBM. The data confirm that HLA is the most strongly associated region and identifies novel amino acid associations that may explain the risk in this locus. These amino acid associations differentiate IBM from polymyositis and dermatomyositis and may determine properties of the peptide-binding groove, allowing it to preferentially bind autoantigenic peptides. A novel suggestive association within the chromosome 3 p21.31 region suggests a role for CCR5. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To develop and validate new classification criteria for adult and juvenile idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) and their major subgroups., Methods: Candidate variables were assembled from published criteria and expert opinion using consensus methodology. Data were collected from 47 rheumatology, dermatology, neurology and paediatric clinics worldwide. Several statistical methods were used to derive the classification criteria., Results: Based on data from 976 IIM patients (74% adults; 26% children) and 624 non-IIM patients with mimicking conditions (82% adults; 18% children), new criteria were derived. Each item is assigned a weighted score. The total score corresponds to a probability of having IIM. Subclassification is performed using a classification tree. A probability cut-off of 55%, corresponding to a score of 5.5 (6.7 with muscle biopsy) 'probable IIM', had best sensitivity/specificity (87%/82% without biopsies, 93%/88% with biopsies) and is recommended as a minimum to classify a patient as having IIM. A probability of ≥90%, corresponding to a score of ≥7.5 (≥8.7 with muscle biopsy), corresponds to 'definite IIM'. A probability of <50%, corresponding to a score of <5.3 (<6.5 with muscle biopsy), rules out IIM, leaving a probability of ≥50 to <55% as 'possible IIM'., Conclusions: The European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology (EULAR/ACR) classification criteria for IIM have been endorsed by international rheumatology, dermatology, neurology and paediatric groups. They employ easily accessible and operationally defined elements, and have been partially validated. They allow classification of 'definite', 'probable' and 'possible' IIM, in addition to the major subgroups of IIM, including juvenile IIM. They generally perform better than existing criteria., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JAS has received research grants from Takeda and Savient and consultant fees from Savient, Takeda, Regeneron, Merz, Iroko, Bioiberica, Crealta and Allergan. JAS serves as the principal investigator for an investigator-initiated study funded by Horizon pharmaceuticals through a grant to DINORA, Inc., a 501 (c)(3) entity. JAS is a member of the executive committee of OMERACT, an organisation that develops outcome measures in rheumatology and receives arms-length funding from 36 companies; a member of the American College of Rheumatology’s (ACR) Annual Meeting Planning Committee (AMPC); Chair of the ACR Meet-the-Professor, Workshop and Study Group Subcommittee; and a member of the Veterans Affairs Rheumatology Field Advisory Committee. HC and RGC’s work in myositis is partly funded by grants from Arthritis Research UK (18474) and the Medical Research Council (MR/N003322/1). JV’s work in myositis is supported by Project (Ministry of Health, Czech Republic) for conceptual development of research organization 00023728., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objective: To develop response criteria for adult dermatomyositis (DM) and polymyositis (PM)., Methods: Expert 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., Results: Consensus 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)., Conclusion: The 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., (© 2017, American College of Rheumatology.)