Search

Infections and neoplastic lesions are possible complications of ILD in dermatomyositis patients under immunosuppressive therapy, and the radiological characteristics of the lesion may not be enough for proper discrimination. We report the case of a 69-year-old woman, a never-smoker, with anti-melanoma differentiation-associated gene-5 (MDA5) antibody-positive amyopathic dermatomyositis (ADM) and autoimmune thrombocytopenia anti-glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antibodies. [Extracted from the article]

Background: To investigate the frequency of difficult-to-treat (D2T) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients early escalated to biologic/targeted synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) after failure of treat-to-target with methotrexate (MTX)., Methods: From a prospective cohort of early RA, all patients with their first access in the years 2005-2018, and eventually starting a b/tsDMARD before the end of 2022, were included and followed-up until April 2024. Study outcomes included drug survival on each consecutive b/tsDMARDs, development of D2T (according to the EULAR definition and subsequent modifications), and its predictors., Results: Of a total cohort of 722 early RA patients treated with initial MTX and followed-up for at least 3 years from diagnosis, 155 (21.5%) had started a b/tsDMARD after a median of 19 months. In more than 70% of the cases, RA was uncontrolled despite optimal doses of MTX of ≥ 15 mg/day. The retention rates of the first and the second b/tsDMARD were approximatively 70% after 1 year but dropped to 40% after 5 years. After a median (IQR) follow up of 72.6 (34.5-134.2) months, 45 patients (29%) fulfilled the EULAR D2T criteria. At multivariable analysis, higher number of swollen joints and worse pain scores were confirmed as predictors of D2T. Furthermore, in this early RA cohort, shorter disease duration at the start of treatment with b/tsDMARDs, together with negativity for autoantibodies, were also independent predictors of D2T., Conclusions: Early implementation of treatment after failure of treat-to-target with MTX may not prevent the development of D2T in RA. Patients showing early refractoriness to conventional drugs and those lacking autoantibodies are at higher risk of multiple treatment failures., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

IgG4-related disease is a rare fibroinflammatory condition. Prompt recognition is fundamental to initiate treatment and to prevent organ damage. Diagnostic and classification criteria are primarily intended for use by clinicians with established expertise in IgG4-related disease. Absence of disease awareness among primary care physicians and specialists without expertise in IgG4-related disease remains the main cause of diagnostic delay. We aimed to identify red flags that might increase the suspicion of IgG4-related disease in primary and secondary care settings. A task force of experts in IgG4-related disease from the European Reference Network for Rare Connective Tissue Diseases (ERN-ReCONNET), patient representatives, and primary care physicians derived potential red flags for IgG4-related disease through a systematic literature search and a level of agreement exercise. Five red flags reached 100% agreement among experts: swelling in one or more organ system; pancreatic and biliary tree involvement; increased serum IgG4; IgG4 + plasma cell tissue infiltration; and obliterative phlebitis. Red flags for IgG4-related disease are intended for use in primary and secondary care to improve referral to centres of expertise and prompt early diagnosis., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests GPG received funding from The European Commission within the contract SANTE/2018/B3/030-SI2·813822 to support collaboration with European Reference Network (ERN) ReCONNET as a methodologist in the systematic review on red flags for IgG4-related disease. FF received honoraria from GSK for lectures and plenary presentations at educational events. TA received travel grants from AbbVie and Neovil; declares study support from Janssen; and received honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, GSK, and Neovil for lectures and plenary presentations at educational events. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Objectives: Increased circulating levels of CXCL13 reflect synovial production and indicate immune dysregulation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Here we tested whether CXCL13 predicts response to first-line treatment with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with early RA, independently and in association with anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) and IgM-rheumatoid factor (RF)., Methods: A prospective cohort of 243 early RA patients undergoing treat-to-target with MTX was evaluated. CXCL13, ACPA and IgM-RF were determined on baseline sera. Short-term variations of CXCL13 were measured after 2 months. The association of high CXCL13 (≥100 pg/ml) with disease remission after 6 months and escalation to second-line therapies within year 2 was evaluated in the total population and in ACPA-subgroups separately., Results: High levels of CXCL13 were found in 53.6% of ACPA-positive and 31.5% of ACPA-negative patients, with minimal association with disease activity and RF. Serum CXCL13 remained stable after 2 months. High baseline CXCL13 independently predicted failure to achieve remission and more frequent requirement of second-line treatment in ACPA-positive patients, with adjusted ORs in the range of 0.17-0.49 for remission and 6.75 for second-line treatment. In ACPA-negative patients with high CXCL13, remission occurred at the expense of higher doses of MTX, and levels of CXCL13 predicted MTX escalations with an adjusted OR (95% CI) of 2.69 (1.35-5.34)., Conclusions: High serum levels of CXCL13 identify a subgroup of RA patients who are more refractory to first-line treatment with MTX. CXCL13 appears a promising biomarker of response to MTX in both ACPA-positive and -negative early RA., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: Autoantibody-negative RA differs from autoantibody-positive RA in several clinical aspects, possibly underpinned by pathogenetic differences. At present, the role of adaptive immune responses in autoantibody-negative RA remains unclear. Here, we investigated the synovial and serum immunophenotype indicative of B lymphocyte involvement across the spectrum of autoantibody-positive and -negative chronic arthritides., Methods: Ultrasound-guided synovial biopsies were retrieved from 131 patients: 43 autoantibody-positive RA, 35 autoantibody-negative RA, 25 polyarticular PsA and 28 oligoarticular PsA. Samples were analysed for the degree of histological inflammation, B lymphocyte infiltration and the distribution of different pathotypes (lympho-myeloid, myeloid, pauci-immune). Serum levels of the B cell chemoattractant CXCL13 were compared among groups., Results: Synovitis scores and CD68+ sublining macrophage infiltration were comparable irrespective of clinical diagnosis and disease subtype. In contrast, the degree of B lymphocyte infiltration and the frequency of lympho-myeloid synovitis in autoantibody-negative RA were lower than those of autoantibody-positive RA (mean [s.d.] 1.8 [1] vs 2.4 [0.6], P = 0.03, and 38.2% vs 62.9%, P = 0.07, respectively), and similar to polyarticular PsA. Oligoarticular PsA had the lowest B cell scores. Serum CXCL13 was associated with lympho-myeloid synovitis and followed a similar gradient, with the highest levels in autoantibody-positive RA, intermediate and comparable levels in autoantibody-negative RA and polyarticular PsA, and low levels in oligoarticular PsA., Conclusions: The synovial and serum immunophenotype indicative of B lymphocyte involvement in autoantibody-negative RA differs from that of autoantibody-positive RA and more closely resembles that observed in polyarticular PsA. The pathobiological stratification of chronic inflammatory arthritides beyond clinical diagnosis may fuel personalized treatment strategies., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: The CLASS (Classification Criteria of Anti-Synthetase Syndrome) project is a large international multicentre study that aims to create the first data-driven anti-synthetase syndrome (ASSD) classification criteria. Identifying anti-aminoacyl tRNA synthetase antibodies (anti-ARS) is crucial for diagnosis, and several commercial immunoassays are now available for this purpose. However, using these assays risks yielding false-positive or false-negative results, potentially leading to misdiagnosis. The established reference standard for detecting anti-ARS is immunoprecipitation (IP), typically employed in research rather than routine autoantibody testing. We gathered samples from participating centers and results from local anti-ARS testing. As an "ad-interim" study within the CLASS project, we aimed to assess how local immunoassays perform in real-world settings compared to our central definition of anti-ARS positivity., Methods: We collected 787 serum samples from participating centres for the CLASS project and their local anti-ARS test results. These samples underwent initial central testing using RNA-IP. Following this, the specificity of ARS was reconfirmed centrally through ELISA, line-blot assay (LIA), and, in cases of conflicting results, protein-IP. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio and positive and negative predictive values were evaluated. We also calculated the inter-rater agreement between central and local results using a weighted κ co-efficient., Results: Our analysis demonstrates that local, real-world detection of anti-Jo1 is reliable with high sensitivity and specificity with a very good level of agreement with our central definition of anti-Jo1 antibody positivity. However, the agreement between local immunoassay and central determination of anti-non-Jo1 antibodies varied, especially among results obtained using local LIA, ELISA and "other" methods., Conclusions: Our study evaluates the performance of real-world identification of anti-synthetase antibodies in a large cohort of multi-national patients with ASSD and controls. Our analysis reinforces the reliability of real-world anti-Jo1 detection methods. In contrast, challenges persist for anti-non-Jo1 identification, particularly anti-PL7 and rarer antibodies such as anti-OJ/KS. Clinicians should exercise caution when interpreting anti-synthetase antibodies, especially when commercial immunoassays test positive for non-anti-Jo1 antibodies.

Pain remains one of the most difficult-to-treat domains in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In clinical trials, the Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) have demonstrated good efficacy in pain relief. Aim of our study was to evaluate the real-life effectiveness of JAKis in improving pain in patients with RA in different states of baseline disease activity. A monocentric prospective cohort of 181 RA patients starting treatment with JAKis was studied. Pain was evaluated on a 0-100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Clinically meaningful improvements over 24 weeks were defined as follows: proportion of patients achieving ≥ 30%, ≥ 50%, and ≥ 70% pain relief, and remaining pain ≤ 20 or ≤ 10 mm. Results were analysed after stratification for baseline inflammatory activity; patients with swollen joints and C-reactive protein ≤ 1 at treatment start were considered pauci-inflammatory. Proportion of patients who achieved ≥ 30%, ≥ 50% and ≥ 70% pain improvement at 24 weeks was 61.4%, 49.3% and 32.9%. Furthermore, 40.6% and 28.5% of the patients achieved thresholds of remaining pain equivalent to mild pain or no/limited pain. Pain improvements were more evident in patients naive to previous biologics, although nearly 30% of multiple failures achieved VAS ≤ 20 mm. No significant differences were observed in relation to monotherapy. Pauci-inflammatory patients at treatment start achieved good outcomes, with 40.4% experiencing ≥ 70% pain improvement, and 35.7% VAS ≤ 10 mm. JAKis show efficacy in pain relief in real life. The improvement of painful symptoms also in those patients with limited objective inflammation may open new perspectives on the management of difficult-to-treat RA., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has a protean clinical picture, in rare instances manifesting as systemic autoimmune disorders such as vasculitides. HIV-induced autoimmune diseases often do not respond well to systemic immunosuppressive therapy. Opportunistic infections may occur in patients with either acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) or heavy immunosuppressive treatment, and can further complicate the clinical presentation., Case Presentation: A patient presenting with immunoglobulin A (IgA) vasculitis (IgAV) with treatment-refractory purpuric skin rash and suspect intestinal vasculitis was discovered to have AIDS. HIV was the trigger of IgAV, and cytomegalovirus (CMV) colitis mimicked intestinal vasculitis. Antiretroviral treatment improved both CMV colitis and the control of the autoimmune disease., Conclusions: An autoimmune disease relapsing despite adequate immunosuppressive treatment and/or the presence of recurrent severe opportunistic infections may be clues to an underlying HIV infection., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

In the past 20 years, earlier diagnosis and more intensive management have considerably improved the prognosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with milder disease course achieved in particular in seropositive patients. In contrast, seronegative RA has remained largely neglected, and continues to be surrounded by uncertainties regarding its correct diagnosis, clinical phenotype, optimal treatment strategies and relevant outcomes.The purpose of this review is to summarise new insights about the pathogenic, clinical and prognostic peculiarities of seronegative RA that emerged during 2022, and that make this disease subset at least partially different from its seropositive counterpart.

Objectives: To analyse humoral and cellular immune response to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in patients with GCA., Methods: Consecutive patients with a diagnosis of GCA receiving two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine were assessed at baseline and 3 weeks from the second vaccine dose. Healthy subjects (n = 51) were included as controls (HC). Humoral response was assessed with Spike-specific IgG antibody response (S-IgG) and neutralizing antibodies (NtAb). Specific T cell response was assessed by enzyme linked immunosorbent spot (ELISpot)., Results: Of 56 included patients with GCA, 44 were eligible after exclusion of previous evidence of COVID-19 and incomplete follow-up. A significant proportion of patients with GCA (91%) demonstrated antibody (S-IgG) response, but this was significantly lower than HCs (100%); P < 0.0001. Neutralizing activity was not detected in 16% of patients with GCA. Antibody titres (S-IgG and NtAb) were significantly lower compared with HCs. Humoral response (S-IgG and NtAb) was significantly hampered by treatment with MTX. Cellular response was lacking in 30% of patients with GCA (vs 0% in HCs; P < 0.0001). Cellular response was significantly influenced by the levels of baseline peripheral T-lymphocytes and by glucocorticoid treatment. Treatment with tocilizumab did not affect any level of the immune response elicited by vaccination., Conclusions: Although patients with GCA apparently achieve a robust antibody seroconversion, there is a significant impairment of the neutralizing activity. MTX significantly reduced all levels of the humoral response. Up to one-third of patients do not develop a cellular immune protection in response to COVID-19 vaccination., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: To multidimensionally characterize macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) complicating adult-onset Still's disease (AOSD) considering cytokine profile, inflammatory markers and multi-visceral involvement of the disease. To perform a high-dimensional phenotypic analysis of circulating immune cells in AOSD patients with and without MAS. To assess interferon (IFN)-related pathways in AOSD synovial tissues by a bulky RNA sequencing., Methods: Clinical and biologic data were collected and compared in AOSD patients with and without MAS. Sera biomolecules were analysed by Luminex multiplexing technology. Mass cytometry (CyTOF) was used to characterize circulating immune cells. A bulky RNA sequencing was performed in AOSD synovial tissues., Results: Forty consecutive AOSD patients were assessed, 14 complicated with MAS. Paralleling with increases of systemic score and ferritin, MAS patients showed higher levels of IL-1α, IL-1β, IL-1Ra, IL-2Ra, IL-6, IL-10, IL-17A, IFN-γ, G-CSF, MCP-1, MIP-1α and SCF. Combining the discriminatory ability of these data in identifying MAS, the best model was composed by systemic score, ferritin, IFN-γ and IL-10. By CyTOF analysis, MAS patients showed an increase of circulating 'classical monocytes' and a reduction of total NK cells. Our assessment showed 3477 IFN-related genes (IRGs) were differently expressed in AOSD synovial tissues., Conclusions: A multidimensional characterization of AOSD patients suggested that IFN-γ, IL-10, ferritin and systemic score discriminated the occurrence of cytokine storm syndrome associated with MAS. The inflammatory milieu of AOSD and MAS may be related to a signature of circulating immune cells. Finally, our results about IRGs reinforced the role of IFN-γ in these patients., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: Although antisynthetase antibodies (ARS) are the established markers of the so-called antisynthetase syndrome (ASSD), in these patients the concomitant positivity of anti-Ro52 antibodies, reported in up to the 50% of cases, is not rare. Several studies focused on the effect of different ARS specificities on the evolution of ASSD, the most recent showing no effects. On the contrary, the role of co-occurring anti-Ro52 antibodies in ASSD is still debated. We investigated the potential of anti-Ro52 antibodies in identifying a clinical phenotype of ASSD or influencing prognosis, irrespectively to the underlying ARS specificity., Methods: Retrospective analysis of clinical, imaging and laboratory characteristics, therapeutic approaches and outcome at baseline and at last follow-up, of 60 ASSD patients progressively enrolled at our Hospital., Results: We identified 34 anti-Ro+ and 26 anti-Ro- ASSD patients. Classic triad prevalence at baseline was similar between the two groups, whereas interstitial lung disease (ILD) (p value=0.01) and myositis (p value=0.03) were significantly more prevalent in anti-Ro52+ and in anti-Ro52- patients at last follow up, respectively. No differences in therapeutic approaches, oxygen need and ILD patterns were observed. Overall mortality was 25% (15 subjects). No differences in mortality, overall and disease related, between anti-Ro52+ and anti-Ro52- patients were observed (p value=0.764), despite the more frequent ILD occurrence in anti-Ro52+ patients. Survival curves were not different at any time point (Log-rank test, p value 0.98)., Conclusions: Anti-Ro52 antibodies affect time course and clinical characteristics of ASSD. Although ILD is significantly more associated to anti-Ro52 antibodies, no difference in mortality was observed compared to anti-Ro52 negative patients.

Immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4)-related disease (IgG4-RD) is a chronic, clinically heterogenous fibroinflammatory condition, characterised by an accumulation of IgG4 secreting plasma cells in affected tissues and associated with increased serum IgG4 concentrations. Despite a growing recognition of the disease among clinicians from different specialties worldwide, its indolent nature, lack of a single diagnostic test and ability to mimic other malignant, infective and inflammatory conditions, makes the diagnosis challenging. As treatment options evolve, biomarkers correlating with disease activity, predicting prognosis and response to treatment are deemed required. A multidisciplinary panel of experts from the European Reference Network for Rare and Complex Connective tissue diseases (ERN ReCONNET) and affiliated international partners have performed a narrative literature search and reviewed the current evidence of biomarkers in IgG4-RD, including immunoglobulins, cytokines, chemokines and other soluble immune mediators, and cellular components of the immune system. The aim of this paper is to provide useful information for clinicians as to the utility of biomarkers for diagnosing and monitoring IgG4-RD in clinical routine and sets out recommendations for clinical decision making.

Identification of a pathological change in the course of systemic chronic immune-inflammatory diseases is key to delivering effective treatment strategies. In this context, one of the most compelling issues is the concept of flare. The multifaceted expression of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) makes it challenging to provide an omni-comprehensive definition of flare, encompassing the pathology's different objective and subjective domains. Our incomplete understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying this process contributes to the partial comprehension of its potential clinical expression. This review focuses on the proposed pathophysiological processes underlying disease recrudescence in RA and the variable definitions adopted to capture flare in clinical practice through its objective, subjective, and temporal domains. Overall, what emerges is a complex landscape far from being unraveled., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Bozzalla-Cassione, Grignaschi, Xoxi, Luvaro, Greco, Mazzucchelli, Bugatti, Montecucco and Manzo.)

Question Addressed by the Study: Methotrexate (MTX) is a key anchor drug for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management. Fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a common complication of RA. Whether MTX exposure increases the risk of ILD in patients with RA is disputed. We aimed to evaluate the association of prior MTX use with development of RA-ILD., Methods: Through a case-control study design with discovery and international replication samples, we examined the association of MTX exposure with ILD in 410 patients with chronic fibrotic ILD associated with RA (RA-ILD) and 673 patients with RA without ILD. Estimates were pooled over the different samples using meta-analysis techniques., Results: Analysis of the discovery sample revealed an inverse relationship between MTX exposure and RA-ILD (adjusted OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24-0.90; p=0.022), which was confirmed in the replication samples (pooled adjusted OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.79; p=0.009). The combined estimate using both the derivation and validation samples revealed an adjusted OR of 0.43 (95% CI 0.26-0.69; p=0.0006). MTX ever-users were less frequent among patients with RA-ILD compared to those without ILD, irrespective of chest high-resolution computed tomography pattern. In patients with RA-ILD, ILD detection was significantly delayed in MTX ever-users compared to never-users (11.4±10.4 years and 4.0±7.4 years, respectively; p<0.001)., Answer to the Question: Our results suggest that MTX use is not associated with an increased risk of RA-ILD in patients with RA, and that ILD was detected later in MTX-treated patients., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: P-A. Juge has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J.S. Lee reports grants from NIH, personal fees for advisory board work from Genentech and Celgene, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: J. Lau has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: L. Kawano-Dourado has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Rojas-Serrano has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M. Sebastiani has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: G. Koduri has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: E. Matteson has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: K. Bonfiglioli has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M. Sawamura has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: R. Kairalla has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: L. Cavagna has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: E. Bozzalla Cassione has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: A. Manfredi has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M. Mejia has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: P. Rodríguez-Henriquez has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M.I. González Pérez has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: R. Falfán-Valencia has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: I. Buendia-Roldán has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: G. Pérez-Rubio has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: E. Ebstein reports personal fees from Sanofi, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: S. Gazal has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: R. Borie reports grants and personal fees for lectures from Roche and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: S. Ottaviani has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: C. Kannengiesser has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: B. Wallaert reports grants and personal fees for advisory board work and meeting attendance from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: Y. Uzunhan reports personal fees from Roche and Boehringer Ingelheim, non-financial support from Oxyvie, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: H. Nunes has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: D. Valeyre reports personal fees for advisory board work from Roche and Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees for lectures from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: N. Saidenberg-Kermanac'h has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M-C. Boissier has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: L. Wemeau-Stervinou reports personal fees for lectures and travel support from Roche, personal fees for lectures and advisory board work, and travel support from Boehringer-Ingelheim, personal fees for lectures from Janssen-Cilag and Bristol-Myers-Squibb, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: R.M. Flipo reports grants and personal fees from Roche Chugai, Abbvie and Pfizer, personal fees from Bristol-Meyers Squibb, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: S. Marchand-Adam reports fees for research, lectures, meeting attendance, consultancy and advisory board work from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: P. Richette reports personal fees from Ipsen/Menarini, AstraZeneca, Savient and Grünenthal, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: Y. Allanore reports personal fees from Actelion, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer and Inventiva, grants from Sanofi and Roche, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: C. Dromer has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M-E. Truchetet has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: C. Richez has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: T. Schaeverbeke has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: H. Lioté has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: G. Thabut reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: K.D. Deane has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Solomon has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: T. Doyle has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J.H. Ryu has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: I. Rosas reports personal fees for advisory board work from Genentech, Boehringer and Three Lakes Partners, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: V.M. Holers reports grants from NIH/NIAID (U01 Grant), during the conduct of the study. Conflict of interest: C. Boileau has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M-P. Debray reports personal fees and non-financial support for travel to meetings from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: R. Porcher has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: D.A. Schwartz reports grants from NIH-NHLBI (P01 HL092870, R01 HL097163, R33 HL120770 and UH2 HL123442) and DOD Focused Program (W81XWH-17-1-0597), during the conduct of the study; personal fees for consultancy and advisory board work from NuMedii, Inc., and is an employee of Eleven P15, Inc., outside the submitted work; and has a patent Compositions and Methods of Treating or Preventing Fibrotic Diseases pending, a patent Biomarkers for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Fibrotic Lung Disease pending, and a patent Methods and Compositions for Risk Prediction, Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Treatment of Pulmonary Disorders issued. Conflict of interest: R. Vassallo reports grants from Pfizer, Bristol-Myers-Squibb and SunPharma, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: B. Crestani reports grants from Apellis and MedImmune, grants and personal fees for lectures from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche, personal fees for lectures from AstraZeneca and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: P. Dieudé reports fees for consultancy from Pfizer, Abbvie and MSD, grants and personal fees for consultancy and lectures from Roche, Chugai and BMS, outside the submitted work., (Copyright ©ERS 2021.)