Utility of positron emission tomography as a new tool for muscle involvement in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myositis: a controlled study.

OBJECTIVES: Idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIM) represents a rare group of disease that can affect multiple organs in addition to the muscles. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is an emerging scanning method that is widely used in diagnosing, staging and response to treatment in patients with cancer. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the muscle involvement in PET/CT which was performed for malignancy screening and its correlation with myositis-specific antibodies (MSA) and/or myositis-associated antibodies (MAA) in patients with IIM. METHODS: IIM patients who fulfilled 2017 EULAR/ACR classification criteria and had PET-CT scans during the active phase of myositis (within two weeks of starting steroids) were included into the study. Age and sex matched participants with history of malignancy (non-IIM patients) were defined as control group. RESULTS: Data of 160 IIM patients were evaluated and 34 patients (of 64.7% female) whose PET/CT results were available, included into the study. Fourteen patients with diagnosis of malignancy without IIM (non-IIM patients) defined as the control group. Sensitivity and specificity of a positive FDG muscle uptake were 37.1% and 100%, 65.7% and 92.9%, 91.4% and 7.1% compared to liver, mediastinum and LTM uptakes, respectively. In multivariate analysis, higher baseline CRP (p=0.017, confidence interval [CI] 95%: 1.03-1.36, OR:1.18) and LDH (p=0.029, CI 95%:1.001-1.017, OR:1.01) levels were associated with muscle PET/CT positivity. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with active IIM, median muscle FDG uptake with PET/CT was higher compared to non-IIM. PET/CT may be used for the evaluation of extent and activity in patients with IIM.

Criteria for Hyperinflammation Developing in COVID-19: Analysis of 2 Cohorts From Different Periods of the Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Hyperinflammation (HI) that develops in week 2 of COVID-19 contributes to a worse outcome. Because week 2 laboratory findings can be relatively mild, the available criteria for classification of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis or macrophage activation syndrome are not helpful. METHODS: Our study included a discovery cohort of patients from Turkey with symptomatic COVID-19 who were followed up while hospitalized during the initial wave and a replication cohort of hospitalized patients from a later period, all of whom required oxygen support and received glucocorticoids. Diagnosis of HI was made by an expert panel; most patients with COVID-19-associated HI (HIC) received tocilizumab or anakinra. Clinical and laboratory data from start day of treatment with tocilizumab or anakinra in HIC patients were compared with the data from day 5-6 in patients without HIC. Values maximizing the sensitivity and specificity of each parameter were calculated to determine criteria items. RESULTS: The discovery cohort included 685 patients, and the replication cohort included 156 patients, with 150 and 61 patients receiving treatment for HI, respectively. Mortality rate in HI patients in the discovery cohort (23.3%) was higher than the rate in patients without HI (3.7%) and the rate in patients in the overall replication cohort (10.3%). The 12-item criteria that we developed for HIC showed that a score of 35 provided 85.3% sensitivity and 81.7% specificity for identification of HIC. In the replication cohort, the same criteria resulted in 90.0% sensitivity for HIC; however, lower specificity values were observed because of the inclusion of milder cases of HIC responding only to glucocorticoids. CONCLUSION: The use of the 12-item criteria for HIC can better define patients with HIC with reasonable sensitivity and specificity and enables an earlier treatment start.

Performances of different classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus in a single-center cohort from Turkey.

OBJECTIVE: Sensitivity and specificity of SLE classification criteria may vary in different populations and clinical settings. In this study, we aimed to compare the performances of three criteria sets/rules (1997, 2012, and 2019) in a large cohort of patients and relevant diseased controls. METHODS: The medical records of consecutive SLE patients and diseased controls were reviewed for clinical and laboratory features relevant to all sets of criteria. Criteria sets/rules were analyzed based on sensitivity, positive predictive value, specificity, and negative predictive value, using clinical diagnosis with at least 6 months of follow-up as the gold standard. A subgroup analysis was performed in ANA positive patients. RESULTS: A total of 393 SLE patients and 308 non-SLE diseased controls were included. Sensitivity was 78.4% for 1997 criteria and was more than 90% for both 2012 (91.9%) and 2019 (94.4%) criteria. Specificity was the highest (95.1%) for 1997 ACR criteria, 91.5% for 2012 SLICC criteria and 91.2% for 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria. When only ANA positive patients were analyzed, sensitivity of each criteria increased by 1%, 0.8%, and 2.2%, respectively. Specificity of 1997 criteria decreased by 2% and specificity of 2012 and 2019 criteria both decreased to less than 90%. CONCLUSION: EULAR/ACR criteria were more sensitive than 1997 criteria and had a comparable performance with SLICC criteria. When only ANA positive patients were analyzed, the presence of false positive results (originated from patients with Sjögren's disease and antiphospholipid syndrome mainly) decreased the specificity of both SLICC and EULAR/ACR criteria.