A case of antisynthetase syndrome presenting solely with life-threatening interstitial lung disease.

A previously fit and well 38-year-old man presented during the COVID-19 pandemic with dyspnoea, cough and palpitations. C-reactive protein was elevated and chest X-ray demonstrated bilateral lower zone consolidation. SARS CoV-2 swab was negative. He was diagnosed with community-acquired pneumonia and treated with oral antibiotics. He developed severe type 1 respiratory failure and was admitted to the high-dependency unit for non-invasive ventilation. CTPA was negative for pulmonary embolism, instead demonstrating bilateral organising pneumonia. Empirical treatment for swab-negative COVID-19 pneumonitis was started; however, further deterioration ensued and prompted intubation and ventilation. Microbiological testing did not yield any positive results, thereby raising suspicion for the presence of an autoimmune disease. Pulsed intravenous methylprednisolone was administered with good effect. ENA screen was positive for anti-Jo1 and myositis-specific autoantibodies were positive for Ro-52, Ku and PL-12. The patient was extubated and did not exhibit any muscle weakness on clinical examination. Creatine kinase was only mildly elevated. He was diagnosed with amyopathic antisynthetase syndrome - frequently considered as a form of idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM) - and treated with further intravenous methylprednisolone and cyclophosphamide. Oxygen therapy was gradually weaned and the patient discharged on mycophenolate mofetil and a weaning course of oral steroids.

Drug-survival profiling of second-line biologic therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: Choice of another tumour necrosis factor inhibitor or a biologic of different mode of action?

OBJECTIVES: To assess the best choice of second-line therapy between tumour necrosis factor-inhibitor (TNFi) and biologics of different-mode-of-action (BDMA-rituximab/tocilizumab/abatacept) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by evaluating drug-survival following discontinuation of the first-line TNFi. METHODS: This retrospective drug-survival study was performed across two different hospitals by conventional-statistics and machine-learning approach. RESULTS: From a total of 435 patients, 213 (48.9%; TNFi = 122, BDMA = 91) discontinued their second-line biologic {median drug-survival: TNFi, 27 months [95% confidence interval (95%CI) 22-32] vs BDMA, 37 months (95%CI 32-52)}. As a second-line biologic, BDMA was likely to reduce the risk of treatment-discontinuation [hazard-ratio (HR) 0.63, 95%CI 0.48-0.83] compared to TNFi, but only in seropositive-patients (HR 0.52, 95%CI 0.38-0.73), not in seronegative-RA. Drug-survival benefit of BDMA over TNFi was not observed if the seropositive-patients were previously exposed to monoclonal-TNFi (HR 0.77, 95%CI 0.49-1.22) versus soluble-TNFi (etanercept/biosimilars) or if the first-line TNFi was terminated within 23.9 months of initiation (HR 0.97, 95%CI 0.56-1.68). CONCLUSIONS: BDMA, as a second-line biologic, is more likely to be sustained in seropositive-patients, particularly without prior exposure to monoclonal-TNFi. The drug-survival benefit of BDMA was not observed in seronegative-patients or if the first-line TNFi was stopped within 2 years.