Macrophage activation syndrome in adults with rheumatic disease / Síndrome de activación macrofágica en adultos con enfermedad reumática

INTRODUCTION: Macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) is a pathological systemic inflammatory reaction that is often fatal and underdiagnosed. There may be multiple organ failure that could be triggered in association with rheumatic, neoplastic or infectious diseases and/or drugs. It has been reported more in children than adults, probably as it is often associated with genetic abnormalities not described yet undescribed, genetic abnormalities. In most cases the genetic defect is not recognized in adults, or has a different etiology. The signs and symptoms of macrophage activation syndrome have been defined. Not suspecting its presence may lead to not making the diagnosis and thus, an increase in mortality. Diagnosis is a challenge, treatment has to be started early and be aggressive to reduce the high mortality rate. OBJECTIVES: To describe four adult patients with five MAS episodes related to different under-lying diseases, with the aim of making it familiar to the reader, to look for the syndrome and make a diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients evaluated in outpatients and while in the hospital. RESULTS: We present the characteristics of MAS, with the diagnostic approach and the ther-apeutic possibilities and their outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: MAS is not looked for in the adult and could be fatal. It requires identification and early treatment to reduce the risk of mortality. It still needs to be studied to define the genetic defect, or other causes that may be responsible for the development of the syndrome.

INTRODUCCIÓN: El síndrome de activación macrofágica (SAM) es una reacción patológica inflamatoria sistémica, frecuentemente fatal y comúnmente no diagnosticada, que se acompaña de una falla multiorgánica y puede desencadenarse asociada a enfermedades reumáticas, neoplásicas, infecciosas o a drogas. Más descrita en niños que en adultos, probablemente en muchas ocasiones se relaciona con alteraciones genéticas aún no descritas. Sus síntomas y signos han sido definidos. El no sospecharlo conlleva a no diagnosticarlo y como consecuencia a un incremento importante del riesgo de mortalidad en el paciente; es por esto que el diagnóstico es un reto y el tratamiento debe de ser temprano y agresivo. OBJETIVOS: Describir 4 pacientes adultos con 5 episodios de SAM relacionado con diferentes enfermedades reumáticas, con el interés de familiarizar al lector con la búsqueda del síndrome y de realizar su diagnóstico. MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: Estudio descriptivo de pacientes adultos evaluados en la consulta y hospitalizados. RESULTADO: Presentamos las características de los pacientes con SAM, el enfoque diagnóstico, las posibilidades terapéuticas y la evolución. CONCLUSIONES: El SAM es una enfermedad no buscada en el adulto que puede ser fatal, requiere ser identificada y tratada tempranamente para disminuir el riesgo de mortalidad. Aún requiere ser estudiada para definir defectos genéticos u otras etiologías que puedan ser responsables de este síndrome.

2016 Classification Criteria for Macrophage Activation Syndrome Complicating Systemic Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: A European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology/Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation Collaborative Initiative.

To develop criteria for the classification of macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) in patients with systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). A multistep process, based on a combination of expert consensus and analysis of real patient data, was conducted. A panel of 28 experts was first asked to classify 428 patient profiles as having or not having MAS, based on clinical and laboratory features at the time of disease onset. The 428 profiles comprised 161 patients with systemic JIA-associated MAS and 267 patients with a condition that could potentially be confused with MAS (active systemic JIA without evidence of MAS, or systemic infection). Next, the ability of candidate criteria to classify individual patients as having MAS or not having MAS was assessed by evaluating the agreement between the classification yielded using the criteria and the consensus classification of the experts. The final criteria were selected in a consensus conference. Experts achieved consensus on the classification of 391 of the 428 patient profiles (91.4%). A total of 982 candidate criteria were tested statistically. The 37 best-performing criteria and 8 criteria obtained from the literature were evaluated at the consensus conference. During the conference, 82% consensus among experts was reached on the final MAS classification criteria. In validation analyses, these criteria had a sensitivity of 0.73 and a specificity of 0.99. Agreement between the classification (MAS or not MAS) obtained using the criteria and the original diagnosis made by the treating physician was high (κ=0.76). We have developed a set of classification criteria for MAS complicating systemic JIA and provided preliminary evidence of its validity. Use of these criteria will potentially improve understanding of MAS in systemic JIA and enhance efforts to discover effective therapies, by ensuring appropriate patient enrollment in studies.

Expert consensus on dynamics of laboratory tests for diagnosis of macrophage activation syndrome complicating systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To identify which laboratory tests that change over time are most valuable for the timely diagnosis of macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) complicating systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA). METHODS: A multistep process, based on a combination of expert consensus and analysis of real patient data, was conducted. A panel of experts was first asked to evaluate 115 profiles of patients with MAS, which included the values of laboratory tests at the pre-MAS visit and at MAS onset, and the change in values between the two time points. The experts were asked to choose the 5 laboratory tests in which change was most important for the diagnosis of MAS and to rank the 5 selected tests in order of importance. The relevance of change in laboratory parameters was further discussed and ranked by the same experts at a consensus conference. RESULTS: Platelet count was the most frequently selected test, followed by ferritin level, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), white cell count, neutrophil count, and fibrinogen and erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Ferritin was most frequently assigned the highest score. At the end of the process, platelet count, ferritin level and AST were the laboratory tests in which the experts found change over time to be most important. CONCLUSIONS: We identified the laboratory tests in which change over time is most valuable for the early diagnosis of MAS in sJIA. The dynamics of laboratory values during the course of MAS should be further scrutinised in a prospective study in order to establish the optimal cut-off values for their variation.

2016 Classification Criteria for Macrophage Activation Syndrome Complicating Systemic Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: A European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology/Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation Collaborative Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To develop criteria for the classification of macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) in patients with systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). METHODS: A multistep process, based on a combination of expert consensus and analysis of real patient data, was conducted. A panel of 28 experts was first asked to classify 428 patient profiles as having or not having MAS, based on clinical and laboratory features at the time of disease onset. The 428 profiles comprised 161 patients with systemic JIA-associated MAS and 267 patients with a condition that could potentially be confused with MAS (active systemic JIA without evidence of MAS, or systemic infection). Next, the ability of candidate criteria to classify individual patients as having MAS or not having MAS was assessed by evaluating the agreement between the classification yielded using the criteria and the consensus classification of the experts. The final criteria were selected in a consensus conference. RESULTS: Experts achieved consensus on the classification of 391 of the 428 patient profiles (91.4%). A total of 982 candidate criteria were tested statistically. The 37 best-performing criteria and 8 criteria obtained from the literature were evaluated at the consensus conference. During the conference, 82% consensus among experts was reached on the final MAS classification criteria. In validation analyses, these criteria had a sensitivity of 0.73 and a specificity of 0.99. Agreement between the classification (MAS or not MAS) obtained using the criteria and the original diagnosis made by the treating physician was high (κ = 0.76). CONCLUSION: We have developed a set of classification criteria for MAS complicating systemic JIA and provided preliminary evidence of its validity. Use of these criteria will potentially improve understanding of MAS in systemic JIA and enhance efforts to discover effective therapies, by ensuring appropriate patient enrollment in studies.

Prednisone versus prednisone plus ciclosporin versus prednisone plus methotrexate in new-onset juvenile dermatomyositis: a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Most data for treatment of dermatomyositis and juvenile dermatomyositis are from anecdotal, non-randomised case series. We aimed to compare, in a randomised trial, the efficacy and safety of prednisone alone with that of prednisone plus either methotrexate or ciclosporin in children with new-onset juvenile dermatomyositis. METHODS: We did a randomised trial at 54 centres in 22 countries. We enrolled patients aged 18 years or younger with new-onset juvenile dermatomyositis who had received no previous treatment and did not have cutaneous or gastrointestinal ulceration. We randomly allocated 139 patients via a computer-based system to prednisone alone or in combination with either ciclosporin or methotrexate. We did not mask patients or investigators to treatment assignments. Our primary outcomes were the proportion of patients achieving a juvenile dermatomyositis PRINTO 20 level of improvement (20% improvement in three of six core set variables at 6 months), time to clinical remission, and time to treatment failure. We compared the three treatment groups with the Kruskal-Wallis test and Friedman's test, and we analysed survival with Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test. Analysis was by intention to treat. Here, we present results after at least 2 years of treatment (induction and maintenance phases). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00323960. FINDINGS: Between May 31, 2006, and Nov 12, 2010, 47 patients were randomly assigned prednisone alone, 46 were allocated prednisone plus ciclosporin, and 46 were randomised prednisone plus methotrexate. Median duration of follow-up was 35.5 months. At month 6, 24 (51%) of 47 patients assigned prednisone, 32 (70%) of 46 allocated prednisone plus ciclosporin, and 33 (72%) of 46 administered prednisone plus methotrexate achieved a juvenile dermatomyositis PRINTO 20 improvement (p=0.0228). Median time to clinical remission was 41.9 months in patients assigned prednisone plus methotrexate but was not observable in the other two treatment groups (2.45 fold [95% CI 1.2-5.0] increase with prednisone plus methotrexate; p=0.012). Median time to treatment failure was 16.7 months in patients allocated prednisone, 53.3 months in those assigned prednisone plus ciclosporin, but was not observable in patients randomised to prednisone plus methotrexate (1.95 fold [95% CI 1.20-3.15] increase with prednisone; p=0.009). Median time to prednisone discontinuation was 35.8 months with prednisone alone compared with 29.4-29.7 months in the combination groups (p=0.002). A significantly greater proportion of patients assigned prednisone plus ciclosporin had adverse events, affecting the skin and subcutaneous tissues, gastrointestinal system, and general disorders. Infections and infestations were significantly increased in patients assigned prednisone plus ciclosporin and prednisone plus methotrexate. No patients died during the study. INTERPRETATION: Combined treatment with prednisone and either ciclosporin or methotrexate was more effective than prednisone alone. The safety profile and steroid-sparing effect favoured the combination of prednisone plus methotrexate. FUNDING: Italian Agency of Drug Evaluation, Istituto Giannina Gaslini (Genoa, Italy), Myositis Association (USA).

Performance of current guidelines for diagnosis of macrophage activation syndrome complicating systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the capacity of the 2004 diagnostic guidelines for hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH-2004) with the capacity of the preliminary diagnostic guidelines for systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA)-associated macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) to discriminate MAS complicating systemic JIA from 2 potentially confusable conditions, represented by active systemic JIA without MAS and systemic infection. METHODS: International pediatric rheumatologists and hemato-oncologists were asked to retrospectively collect clinical information from patients with systemic JIA-associated MAS and confusable conditions. The ability of the guidelines to differentiate MAS from the control diseases was evaluated by calculating the sensitivity and specificity of each set of guidelines and the kappa statistics for concordance with the physician's diagnosis. Owing to the fact that not all patients were assessed for hemophagocytosis on bone marrow aspirates and given the lack of data on natural killer cell activity and soluble CD25 levels, the HLH-2004 guidelines were adapted to enable the diagnosis of MAS when 3 of 5 of the remaining items (3/5-adapted) or 4 of 5 of the remaining items (4/5-adapted) were present. RESULTS: The study sample included 362 patients with systemic JIA and MAS, 404 patients with active systemic JIA without MAS, and 345 patients with systemic infection. The best capacity to differentiate MAS from systemic JIA without MAS was found when the preliminary MAS guidelines were applied. The 3/5-adapted HLH-2004 guidelines performed better than the 4/5-adapted guidelines in distinguishing MAS from active systemic JIA without MAS. The 3/5-adapted HLH-2004 guidelines and the preliminary MAS guidelines with the addition of ferritin levels ≥500 ng/ml discriminated best between MAS and systemic infections. CONCLUSION: The preliminary MAS guidelines showed the strongest ability to identify MAS in systemic JIA. The addition of hyperferritinemia enhanced their capacity to differentiate MAS from systemic infections. The HLH-2004 guidelines are likely not appropriate for identification of MAS in children with systemic JIA.

Controlling inflammation: contemporary treatments for autoinflammatory diseases and syndromes.

The continuous advance in the search for the cause and pathogenesis of the autoinflammatory syndromes, as well as reports of the efficacy of specific inflammation-mediator suppressors, has changed the way these syndromes are approached and treated; both the acute and long-term treatment of these diseases has improved significantly. Etiologic and pathophysiologic manipulation is and will be the future for controlling, even curing, this new and rare set of diseases.

Macrophage activation syndrome in juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus: a multinational multicenter study of thirty-eight patients.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical and laboratory features of macrophage activation syndrome as a complication of juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS: Cases of juvenile SLE-associated macrophage activation syndrome were provided by investigators belonging to 3 pediatric rheumatology networks or were found in the literature. Patients who had evidence of macrophage hemophagocytosis on bone marrow aspiration were considered to have definite macrophage activation syndrome, and those who did not have such evidence were considered to have probable macrophage activation syndrome. Clinical and laboratory findings in patients with macrophage activation syndrome were contrasted with those of 2 control groups composed of patients with active juvenile SLE without macrophage activation syndrome. The ability of each feature to discriminate macrophage activation syndrome from active disease was evaluated by calculating sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: The study included 38 patients (20 with definite macrophage activation syndrome and 18 with probable macrophage activation syndrome). Patients with definite and probable macrophage activation syndrome were comparable with regard to all clinical and laboratory features of the syndrome, except for a greater frequency of lymphadenopathy, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia in patients with definite macrophage activation syndrome. Overall, clinical features had better specificity than sensitivity, except for fever, which was highly sensitive but had low specificity. Among laboratory features, the best sensitivity and specificity was achieved using hyperferritinemia, followed by increased levels of lactate dehydrogenase, hypertriglyceridemia, and hypofibrinogenemia. Based on the results of statistical analysis, preliminary diagnostic guidelines for macrophage activation syndrome in juvenile SLE were developed. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that the occurrence of unexplained fever and cytopenia, when associated with hyperferritinemia, in a patient with juvenile SLE should raise the suspicion of macrophage activation syndrome. We propose preliminary guidelines for this syndrome in juvenile SLE to facilitate timely diagnosis and correct classification of patients.