NICE has accredited the process used by BSR to create its clinical guidelines. The term began on 27 February 2012 and the current renewed accreditation is valid until 28 January 2023. More information on accreditation can be viewed at www.nice.org.uk/accreditation.
Scope and purpose
Background
Idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM) is a multi-system autoimmune condition characterised by muscle inflammation (myositis), interstitial lung disease (ILD), and skin manifestations with an incidence of up to 19 per 1,000,000 person-years in adults and up to 4 per 1,000,000 person-years in children. Estimated UK prevalence (for adult-onset IIM) is 10, 000 [1, 2].
Need for guideline
No rigorously produced evidence-based guidelines for IIM spanning juvenile and adult-onset disease exists. Assimilating key research relating to management and formation of practical evidence-based recommendations will aid clinicians and help optimize management and outcomes.
Target audience
The target readership is clinicians caring for patients with IIM, including paediatric and adult rheumatologists, neurologists, dermatologists, respiratory physicians, oncologists, gastroenterologists, and cardiologists. Rheumatology and neurology nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, podiatrists, speech and language therapists, specialist rheumatology pharmacists, and psychologists will also find these recommendations relevant.
Areas the guideline does not cover
Diagnosis, classification, and investigation of suspected IIM are not addressed. Inclusion body myositis is not covered.
Stakeholder involvement
The project was led by an executive committee (J.B.L., A.G.S.O., H.C., N.M., L.M.). A multidisciplinary working group was convened with input from rheumatologists (D.I., H.G., H.T., N.Mc., A.P., P.G., S.T., H.C., P.K., P.M.M., A.G.S.O.), paediatric rheumatologists (C.Pi., C.Pa., N.Ma., K.W., L.M., T.A.), neurologists (J.B.L., M.H.), a paediatric neurologist (S.Sp.), a nurse (P.L.), a pharmacist (O.A.), a dermatologist (S.M.), paediatric dermatologist (R.M.), physiotherapists (V.C., S.M., W.J.G.), and a former GP/Specialty Doctor in Rheumatology (J.J.). Lay (patient and relative) input was also received throughout the process (P.T., Y.T., J.S., P.R.). The guideline production process was informed by a EULAR Recommended Methodologist (P.M.M.) and literature searches were carried out by experts at the Centre for Rheumatic Diseases, Kings College London (J.G., K.B., M.Y.).
Rigour of development
This guideline was developed in line with the BSR Creating Clinical Guidelines Protocol using AGREEII (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II) methodology.
Selection of key questions
Starting March 2018, the executive committee and working group agreed the guideline scope and created key questions structured using the PICO (patient or population, intervention, comparison, outcome) format. Each question was subdivided into focused clinical questions during the evidence review and recommendation formulation process.
Literature search—scope and search strategy
Using key questions as a basis, a literature search was undertaken using Ovid (see ‘Search terms’ in Supplementary Material S1, available at Rheumatology online). Search results and additional manually identified references up to October 2020 were included. Evidence published after October 2020 was not included as this was the cut-off for eligibility. A potential limitation of this guideline is that relevant literature may have been published since October 2020; data or information from these studies could not be included in the recommendation formation process.
Eligibility criteria
Published peer reviewed clinical studies relating to any IIM subtype except inclusion body myositis were included. Case reports/series were limited to those describing outcomes for three or more subjects. Review articles, editorials, conference proceedings, and existing clinical guidelines were excluded. Non-English language papers were excluded unless a translation was published. Basic science studies without clear clinical applicability were excluded. Abstracts of papers were reviewed by two authors to determine eligibility against these criteria (PRISMA flow diagram shown in Supplementary Fig. S1, available at Rheumatology online).
Methods used to formulate recommendations
The full text of each eligible paper was reviewed by two assessors using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology. Each reference was categorized as high (A), moderate (B) or low/very low (C) quality. A third assessor resolved disagreements.
A total of 213 papers were used to form recommendations. See Supplementary Table S1 (available at Rheumatology online) for details of evidence base contributing to recommendations.
Draft recommendations were created and categorized as applicable to all patients, adult-specific or paediatric-specific. The process outlined by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) [3] was used to summarize the quality of body of evidence for each recommendation: high (A), moderate (B), low (C) or very low (D), according to GRADE methodology.
Content, wording, strength of recommendation (strong = 1, conditional = 2), and quality of supporting evidence for each recommendation were subjected to a formal consensus building process using a combination of face-to-face meetings and online surveys. Strength of agreement (SoA) for finalized recommendations was determined using a simple binary voting system for each voter and is presented as a percentage. Authors were free to abstain from voting on areas where they did not feel clinically competent, with the percentage reflecting voters. Only recommendations with a SoA >80% were included in the guideline.
Policy for updates
Requirement for updates will be considered by the BSR Standards, Audit, and Guidelines Working Group and according to principles outlined in the BSR Creating Clinical Guidelines Protocol.
Recommendations
Recommendations are followed by parentheses detailing GRADE and SoA details (strength of recommendation, quality of body of evidence, SoA).
(i) How should skeletal muscle inflammation (myositis) be treated?
1-High dose glucocorticoids should be used to treat active muscle inflammation at time of treatment induction (1, B, 100%).
1a-Adult-specific. Oral prednisolone at a dose of 0.5–1 mg/kg/day, usually 40–60 mg, is recommended (1, B, 100%).
1b-Paediatric-specific. Oral prednisolone at a dose of 1–2 mg/kg/day or intravenous methylprednisolone pulses 30 mg/kg/day, maximum 1 g daily i.v. dose is recommended (1, B, 100%).
1c-Intravenous methylprednisolone is to be considered, especially when there are concerns about gastrointestinal absorption. Use of intravenous methylprednisolone may allow increased therapeutic effect and less toxicity compared with oral glucocorticoid (2, B, 96%).
2-Oral prednisolone should be tapered according to clinical response (1, B, 100%).
3-Disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs should be used to reduce muscle inflammation, achieve clinical remission and reduce steroid burden (1, C, 100%).
3a-Paediatric-specific. Early, complete control of muscle weakness and inflammation should be sought in juvenile-onset IIM, with the aim of improving outcomes and reducing disease-related complications (1, B, 100%).
3b-Paediatric-specific. A combination of high dose glucocorticoid and methotrexate should be used as first-line treatment in most cases (1, B, 100%).
3c-Paediatric-specific. A combination of prednisolone and methotrexate, as opposed to prednisolone and ciclosporin, should be used for the treatment of juvenile-onset IIM as this has a more favourable side effect profile (1, B, 100%).
3d-Paediatric-specific. Mycophenolate mofetil is to be considered as a treatment option to improve skin and muscle disease (2, C, 100%).
3e-Adult-specific. Methotrexate, azathioprine, tacrolimus, ciclosporin, and mycophenolate mofetil are to be considered for the treatment of active myositis and long-term maintenance of disease remission (2, C, 96%).
4-Intravenous immunoglobulin should be considered as a treatment of severe and/or refractory muscle inflammation (1, B, 100%).
5-Management of IIM should include a safe and appropriate exercise programme led and monitored by a specialist physiotherapist and/or a specialist occupational therapist to improve quality of life and function (1, B, 100%).
6-Rituximab is to be considered as a treatment option for refractory myositis and may be particularly effective in (2, A, 100%):
Juvenile-onset disease
Patients with a positive myositis autoantibody profile
Patients with lower burden of disease damage
7-Cyclophosphamide should be considered as a treatment option for severe and/or refractory IIM (1, B, 100%).
8-Adult-specific. Abatacept is to be considered as a treatment option in refractory adult IIM (2, B, 100%).
Glucocorticoids are crucial for myositis remission induction and maintenance. Glucocorticoid dose should be weaned when disease activity, considered across all domains, substantially improves, usually after around 6 weeks of treatment initiation. Available evidence precludes evidence-based recommendations regarding rate of glucocorticoid dose reduction. Whilst dosages per kilogram are included in recommendations for juvenile onset disease, it is important to note that ceiling doses may apply. Steroid-free remission can be facilitated using DMARDs and/or additional immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory treatments. Evidence exists to support use of conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) (tacrolimus, azathioprine, methotrexate, ciclosporin, mycophenolate mofetil) alongside glucocorticoids early in the disease course to induce and maintain remission, although conflicting results exist in some cases [4–10]. Evidence does not exist to allow recommendation of specific csDMARDs as first-/second-/third-line for adults. DMARDs should be prescribed and monitored according to existing age-appropriate BSR guidelines [11, 12].
Exercise is safe and effective for people with IIM and can improve quality of life and function. Specialist physiotherapy and occupational therapy input is important for management of patients with IIM and should be considered in service planning to ensure appropriate access for all patients.
Evidence exists allowing recommendation of use of ‘second-line’ treatments, such as CYC, rituximab (RTX), IVIG and abatacept, for patients with persistent active disease despite glucocorticoid and csDMARD therapy. A prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase III study, completed after the cut-off date for evidence inclusion, has demonstrated efficacy of IVIG [13].
CYC is an option for severe and/or refractory IIM. Route of administration should be considered since intravenous (i.v.) CYC (intermittent pulses), compared with oral CYC, is associated with fewer side effects. CYC is usually administered by i.v. infusion [14], reducing risk of leucopenia, haemorrhagic cystitis, and gonadal toxicity [15, 16].
RTX and IVIG are options for management of active IIM (e.g. myositis, dysphagia, refractory skin disease) refractory to glucocorticoid/csDMARD-based immunosuppression. In England, RTX and IVIG can only be used according to NHS England (NHSE) commissioning stipulations and should be prescribed in conjunction with a specialist centre [17, 18]. NHSE guidance does not apply in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland. In Scotland, the National Plasma Products Expert Advisory Group (NPPEAG) indicates IVIG as appropriate for patients with resistant or aggressive disease [19]. A single prospective delayed-start study has demonstrated the benefit of abatacept in adult-onset IIM [20]. Future studies are required to confirm efficacy.
At time of recommendation consensus forming there was insufficient evidence to recommend anti-TNF-α therapy for treatment of myositis. There was also insufficient evidence to recommend use of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors in IIM treatment; however, published case series are promising and future clinical trials may provide a stronger evidence base [21–23].
(ii) How should IIM-related skin manifestations be treated?
1-Rituximab is to be considered for the treatment of skin disease refractory to glucocorticoid/csDMARD-based immunosuppression (2, B, 100%).
2-IVIG should be considered for the treatment of skin disease refractory to glucocorticoid/csDMARD-based immunosuppression (1, B, 100%).
3-Sun avoidance and regular use of high factor broad spectrum sun cream is to be considered to reduce likelihood of a disease flare affecting skin or muscle (2, C, 100%).
4-Paediatric-specific. Systemic immunosuppressive drugs are to be considered for the treatment of ongoing skin disease activity, including reduced nailfold capillary density (2, C, 100%).
5-Paediatric-specific. An early increase in treatment is to be considered in patients with persistent skin disease to aid remission and reduce development of calcinosis (2, C, 100%).
Inadequate evidence exists to allow recommendation of topical agents to treat IIM-specific skin manifestations; however, topical tacrolimus and glucocorticoids could be considered alongside dermatology input.
Evidence relating to treatment of IIM-related skin manifestations is limited; however, studies indicate the ability of both IVIG and RTX to treat skin manifestations refractory to glucocorticoid/csDMARD-based immunosuppression. Nailfold capillary abnormalities in children with IIM can reflect systemic disease activity and should be considered when making treatment decisions [24].
Studies indicate sun exposure is associated with cutaneous and non-cutaneous DM and JDM disease flares [25]. Sun avoidance may thus form part of the management strategy for DM/JDM.
(iii) How should IIM-related ILD be managed?
1-Paediatric-specific. Routine assessment of pulmonary function, including measurement of diffusing capacity or transfer factor of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO or TLCO) in juvenile-onset IIM should be performed, as pulmonary function abnormalities are frequent and may be asymptomatic (1, B, 100%).
2-Adult-specific. Interstitial lung disease should be screened for in high-risk patients (1, B, 100%).
3-Adult-specific. In the treatment of rapidly progressive interstitial lung disease (RP-ILD):
Induction therapy with high dose steroids is to be considered (2, C, 96%).
The use of ciclosporin or tacrolimus, alongside steroids, is to be considered in patients with RP-ILD (2, C, 96%).
Cyclophosphamide or rituximab therapy is to be considered early, potentially as part of the induction regimen (2, C, 96%).
4-Adult-specific. In the treatment of chronic IIM-associated interstitial lung disease:
Immunosuppression using steroids with or without a single DMARD (azathioprine, ciclosporin, tacrolimus, mycophenolate) is to be considered (2, C, 100%).
Rituximab or cyclophosphamide is to be considered in treatment-resistant patients (2, C, 100%).
IIM-related ILD management should be carried out alongside ILD-specialist respiratory physicians. ILD risk is increased with anti-synthetase syndrome, presence of an anti-synthetase-associated autoantibody, anti-melanoma differentiation-associated protein 5 autoantibody positivity, and scleroderma overlap. ILD screening methods include plain chest X-ray radiography, pulmonary function tests (including DLCO), and where indicated, high resolution CT scanning. Insufficient evidence exists to advise ILD screening frequency.
Insufficient evidence exists to form recommendations regarding pharmacological management of IIM-associated ILD in paediatric patients.
(iv) What management steps should be taken to reduce fracture risk in people with IIM?
1-Adult-specific. A bone health assessment should be performed, regardless of glucocorticoid therapy, and appropriate management instigated (1, B, 100%).
Fracture risk consideration in IIM is important given glucocorticoid use, female preponderance, and average age of onset for adult disease [26]. Fragility fracture risk assessment should be carried out in accordance with NICE guidance at time of diagnosis and whenever risk factors change [27]. Glucocorticoid weaning, once remission is attained, may reduce fragility fracture risk.
Studies, although limited by small populations, suggest JDM is associated with increased vertebral fracture risk, even before substantial corticosteroid exposure [28].
(v) What key prognostic and management factors should be considered for children with IIM?
1-Paediatric-specific. Juvenile-onset IIM should be managed by paediatric specialists as it differs from adult-onset IIM in several ways, including greater presence of subcutaneous calcification, less disease damage, lack of association with cancer, increased risk of vasculitis, and different autoantibody associations (1, C, 95%).
2-Paediatric-specific. Shorter time to diagnosis is associated with improved disease outcome, therefore early referral to a specialist service is to be considered (2, C, 100%).
3-Paediatric-specific. Age-specific considerations should be taken into account when using tools that measure muscle strength, function, and quality of life (1, B, 100%).
4-Paediatric-specific. Healthcare professionals should look for signs of connective tissue disease overlap, which is associated with increased risk of mortality (1, C, 89%).
5-Paediatric-specific. Patients with juvenile-onset IIM should be assessed for calcinosis (1, C, 100%).
Age appropriate tools such as the Childhood Myositis Assessment Score, Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire, and Juvenile Dermatomyositis Multidimensional Assessment Report should be used to assess muscle strength, function, and quality of life [29, 30]. There is significantly higher mortality in patients with overlapping connective tissue disease features compared with those with JDM [31]. Patients should therefore be carefully screened for overlapping connective tissue disease features and wider organ involvement.
Factors associated with increased risk of calcinosis include younger age at disease onset, particularly disease onset in infancy, delay to diagnosis or delay to treatment initiation, more severe disease, prolonged disease duration, and presence of anti-nuclear matrix protein 2 (NXP2) autoantibodies [32, 33]. Clinical examination and plain X-ray radiography can be used to identify calcinosis.
(vi) Is autoantibody testing useful in people with IIM?
1-Patients should be tested for myositis auto-antibodies (1, B, 100%).
Myositis-specific antibodies and myositis-associated autoantibodies can facilitate diagnosis, inform disease phenotype and prognosis, and may help tailor treatment [34, 35]. Interpretation of immunoblot results should be carried out in the context of the patient’s overall clinical presentation. Autoantibody titres should not be used to monitor disease activity.
(vii) How should cancer be screened for in people with an IIM?
1-Paediatric-specific. Routine screening for cancer is not warranted in juvenile-onset IIM (1, B, 100%).
2-Adult-specific. The risk of cancer should be considered in all patients and screening should be particularly considered in those with the following risk factors (1, B, 100%):
Older age at onset
Male gender
Dysphagia
Cutaneous necrosis
Resistance to immunosuppressive therapy
Rapid disease onset
Positive anti-TIF1-γ autoantibodies
Positive anti-NXP2 autoantibodies
Negative for known myositis-specific autoantibodies
There is an association between adult-onset IIM and malignancy. Evidence pertaining to effective cancer screening is limited but indicates the utility of CT scanning of the thorax, abdomen, and pelvis for at-risk patients, such as anti-transcriptional intermediary factor-1γ (anti-TIF1-γ) positive patients. Tumour markers and 18F-FDG PET/CT scanning can be considered in selected patients.
In contrast with adult-onset IIM, juvenile onset IIM is not associated with cancer, with literature consisting only of isolated case reports. Routine cancer screening in juvenile-onset IIM is not advised unless underlying cancer is suspected.
(viii) How should IIM treatment during pregnancy and the breastfeeding period be amended?
1-Those wishing to conceive should be advised to plan conception whilst their disease is well controlled (1, B, 100%).
2-Pregnancy should be managed in conjunction with maternal medicine specialists (1, B, 96%).
3-Increased vigilance is required post-partum as patients may be at risk of disease flare (1, C, 96%).
Pregnancy should be managed alongside maternal medicine specialists due to lower mean birth weight, increased risk of obstetric complications, such as pre-eclampsia and eclampsia, and longer hospitalization duration during delivery. Evidence, although limited, indicates good IIM control is associated with better pregnancy outcomes [36]. Conception should be planned once disease remission is established using medications compatible with pregnancy according to the BSR guideline on prescribing drugs in pregnancy and breastfeeding [37].
(ix) How should IIM-related cardiovascular disease be assessed for and treated?
1-Adult-specific. Patients should undergo a regular cardiovascular risk assessment (1, C, 100%).
2-Paediatric-specific. Assessment and management of cardiovascular risk factors is to be considered, including hypertension, obesity or metabolic abnormalities (lipids/insulin resistance) (2, C, 100%).
IIM is associated with an increased incidence of hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidaemia, obesity, and coronary artery disease (adult-specific) representing an opportunity for intervention to reduce cardiovascular risk [38, 39]; however, insufficient evidence exists to advise screening frequency.
Micro-vasculopathy and glucocorticoid treatment are considered responsible for the hypertension observed in 25–50% of patients with JDM [40]. Studies have identified altered cardiovascular risk factors in JDM patients [41] that may lead to increased risk of early atherosclerosis later in adulthood [42].
(x) How should cardiac involvement in IIM be screened for?
1-Adult-specific. Patients should undergo screening for cardiac involvement; serum cardiac damage markers, ECG, echocardiography, and cardiac MRI are to be considered (2, B, 100%).
2-Adult-specific. Cardiac troponin I (not cardiac troponin T) should be used as the preferred serum marker for screening and monitoring cardiac involvement (1, B, 100%).
3-Paediatric-specific. Screening for cardiac involvement in patients with juvenile-onset IIM with ECG and echocardiogram is to be considered (2, C, 100%).
Cardiac myositis is associated with increased morbidity and mortality risk. Raised serum cardiac damage markers may indicate cardiac involvement. However, some ‘cardiac-specific’ markers, particularly cardiac troponin T, can also be expressed and released from regenerating skeletal muscle, potentially causing ambiguity. Measuring cardiac troponin I is recommended. Several cardiac abnormalities, including left ventricular dysfunction, ECG abnormalities, and reduced heart rate variability [43, 44], have been reported in people with IIM.
(xi) How should IIM-related dysphagia be screened for and managed?
1-Routine assessment of dysphagia is to be considered in all patients (2, C, 92%).
2-Swallowing assessment and involvement of speech and language therapist/gastroenterology teams is to be considered in those with dysphagia (2, C, 100%).
3-IVIG therapy for active disease and dysphagia resistant to other treatments is to be considered (2, C, 100%).
Dysphagia is common, impacts upon quality of life, and is associated with weight loss and aspiration pneumonia, which can be fatal. Swallowing dysfunction may not always be predicted by generalized muscle weakness [45]. Risk is increased with anti-NXP2 positivity or malignancy [46]. Clinicians should routinely enquire for dysphagia-related symptoms and consider early involvement of speech and language therapists when required.
Dysphagia is recognized as an indication for IVIG treatment by NHSE [18]. IVIG and other immunomodulatory therapies including glucocorticoid, csDMARDs (methotrexate, azathioprine, ciclosporin, tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, hydroxychloroquine), CYC, and RTX have been reported to improve symptoms of dysphagia and/or objective swallow assessments.
(xii) How should quality of life and mental wellbeing be assessed and treated in people with IIM?
1-Psychological wellbeing and psychiatric comorbidities should be assessed (1, C, 92%).
2-Psychological wellbeing and health-related quality of life should be routinely assessed using an age-appropriate tool (1, B, 100%).
3-Factors negatively impacting upon health-related quality of life (e.g. skin involvement, pruritis, steroid adverse effects) should be addressed (1, C, 96%).
4-Paediatric-specific. Factors negatively impacting upon health-related quality of life in children include pain, muscle weakness, and poor sleep, and should be managed appropriately (1, C, 95%).
5-Individually tailored exercise and/or rehabilitation should be encouraged across all ranges of disease activity with the aim of improving psychological wellbeing (1, B, 96%).
6-Where relevant, targeted exercises given by a specialist physiotherapist and/or a specialist occupational therapist to improve grip strength should be considered, due to the negative impact of poor grip strength on activities of daily living and quality of life (2, C, 96%).
Significant deficits are evident in measures of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in both adult and juvenile-onset IIM. Evidence suggests a number of IIM-specific factors that can negatively impact HRQoL, such as active disease, increased functional impairment, and decreased muscle strength [47]. HRQoL can be assessed using tools such as the Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ-50) and the 36-Item Short Form Survey (adult-specific) [48]. Minimizing functional impairment via specialist physiotherapy and/or occupational therapy should be considered. Screening for concerns such as low mood and anxiety, and offering psychological interventions as early possible where needed can be considered.
(xiii) What IIM management considerations should be made for certain ethnic groups?
1-Ethnicity is to be considered when assessing patients; clinical manifestations, associated autoantibodies, and underlying risk factors may vary according to ethnicity (2, C, 96%).
Ethnic minority groups appear to be at increased risk of anti-signal recognition particle (anti-SRP) autoantibody-related disease, increased cardiovascular risk, and more at risk of juvenile polymyositis/juvenile connective tissue myopathy. Calcinosis rates are higher in black children with JDM in North American [49] and South African cohorts [50].
Applicability and utility
Supplementary Fig. S2 (available at Rheumatology online) shows an overview of recommendations. There should be no barriers to implementation in the UK. Use of the audit tool (Supplementary Table S2, available at Rheumatology online) is encouraged.
This guideline highlights the limited high-quality evidence base available for IIM, with relative absence of RCTs or head-to-head comparison of treatments. Recommendations are therefore predominantly based on observational studies. Controlled trials are crucial to further evaluate promising treatments. Long-term outcomes especially related to cardiovascular or cerebrovascular risks needs better definition. Impact of IIM on mental health and quality of life should not be underestimated. Patients and carers should be fully integrated in defining priorities for future IIM research.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgements
Myositis UK and JDCBS endorse the British Society for Rheumatology guideline on the management of paediatric, adolescent and adult patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy, which has followed NICE accredited processes in its development and production. The authors would like to thank BSR for support provided throughout each stage of formation of the guideline. The authors would also like to thank Myositis UK for funding provision that supported formation of the guideline. The authors would like to thank Dr Jennifer Hannah who took part in voting during the consensus meeting.
J.B.L., A.G.S.O., H.C., N.M. and L.M. led guideline formation throughout all stages. J.B.L., A.G.S.O., H.C., N.M., L.M. and C.Pa. prepared the guideline manuscript, which was reviewed and approved by all co-authors. J.G., K.B. and M.Y. led the systematic review process. P.T., Y.T., J.S. and P.R. provided lay (patient and relative) input throughout the process. All authors contributed to the consensus building and recommendation finalisation process and approved the final manuscript.
Funding: A.G.S.O. and H.C. are supported by the National Institute for Health Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre Funding Scheme. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the National Institute for Health Research, or the Department of Health. During production of these guidelines A.G.S.O. received salary support from Myositis UK and Versus Arthritis (Award Number: 21993); J.B.L. held an NIHR Clinical Lectureship in Neurology (NWN/006/025/A); P.L. was funded by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)/Health Education England (HEE) Clinical Doctoral Research Fellowship (ICA-CDRF-2016-02-032); S.L.T. held an NIHR Clinical Lectureship in Rheumatology (SEV/008/020A) funded by Royal United Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and the Bath Institute for Rheumatic Diseases; and K.B. was funded by the Medical Research Council in the form of a Clinical Training Research Fellowship (CTRF MR/R001332/1). Support was also received from the British Society for Rheumatology to fund travel and other expenses associated with a face-to-face consensus building meeting.
Disclosure statement: All authors have made declarations of interest in line with BSR policy (see Supplementary Material, available at Rheumatology online). J.B.L. has received honoraria from Sanofi Genzyme, Biogen, and Roche. P.M.M. has received honoraria from Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB. J.J. works in a unit that has received funding from Pfizer. H.C. works in a unit that has received funding from Eli Lilly, MedImmune, and Novartis; has received educational funding support from Corbus Pharmaceuticals; and has received honoraria from Argenx, Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Orphazyme, UCB, Biogen, and Novartis. P.K. has received honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Sanofi, and Sobi. W.J.G. has received educational funding support from UCB, and has received honoraria from Pfizer and Novartis. H.T. has received honoraria from Eli Lilly, Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, Biogen, and UCB. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Data availability statement
All relevant data produced during the guideline development process are presented in this manuscript or in the accompanying supplementary material.
Supplementary data
Supplementary data are available at Rheumatology online.
References
- 1. Meyer A, Meyer N, Schaeffer M. et al. Incidence and prevalence of inflammatory myopathies: a systematic review. Rheumatology 2021;54:50–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Parker MJS, Oldroyd A, Roberts ME. et al. Increasing incidence of adult idiopathic inflammatory myopathies in the City of Salford, UK: a 10-year epidemiological study. Rheumatol Adv Pract 2018;2:rky035. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. SIGN 50 – A Guideline Developer’s Handbook. 2011. https://www.sign.ac.uk/assets/sign50_2011.pdf (10 February 2022, date last accessed).
- 4. Tomasova Studynkova J, Mann H, Jarosova K. et al. OP0289 a prospective, randomized, open-label, assessor-blind, multicenter study of efficacy and safety of combined treatment of methotrexate + glucocorticoids versus glucocorticoids alone in patients with polymyositis and dermatomyositis (prometheus trial). Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:171. [Google Scholar]
- 5. Ueno KI, Shimojima Y, Kishida D, Sekijima Y, Ikeda SI.. Advantage of administering tacrolimus for improving prognosis of patients with polymyositis and dermatomyositis. Int J Rheum Dis 2016;19:1322–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Keyßer G, Zierz S, Kornhuber M.. Treatment of adult idiopathic inflammatory myopathies with conventional immunosuppressive drugs: results of a retrospective study. Z Rheumatol 2019;78:183–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Ruperto N, Pistorio A, Oliveira S. et al. Prednisone versus prednisone plus ciclosporin versus prednisone plus methotrexate in new-onset juvenile dermatomyositis: a randomised trial. Lancet 2016;387:671–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Casal-Dominguez M, Pinal-Fernandez I, Huapaya J. et al. Efficacy and adverse effects of methotrexate compared with azathioprine in the antisynthetase syndrome. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2019;37:858–61. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Villalba L, Hicks JE, Adams EM. et al. Treatment of refractory myositis: a randomized crossover study of two new cytotoxic regimens. Arthritis Rheum 1998;41:392–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Newman ED, Scott DW.. The use of low-dose oral methotrexate in the treatment of polymyositis and dermatomyositis. J Clin Rheumatol 1995;1:99–102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Ledingham J, Gullick N, Irving K. et al. BSR and BHPR guideline for the prescription and monitoring of non-biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. Rheumatology 2017;56:865–68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.British Society for Rheumatology. Guidance on prescribing for children and young people. London. 2018. https://www.rheumatology.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Guidelines/Paediatric%20guidelines/Guidance_prescribing_children_young_people_June_2018_BSR.pdf?ver=2019-02-06-161133-300 (1 Jun 2021, date last accessed).
- 13. Aggarwal R, Charles-Schoeman C, Schessl J. et al. Prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase III study evaluating efficacy and safety of octagam 10% in patients with dermatomyositis (“ProDERM Study”). Medicine (Baltimore) 2021;100:e23677. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Deakin C, Campanilho-Marques R, Simou S. et al. ; Juvenile Dermatomyositis Research Group. Efficacy and safety of cyclophosphamide treatment in severe juvenile dermatomyositis shown by marginal structural modeling. Arthritis Rheumatol 2018;70:785–93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. De Groot K, Adu D, Savage COS; EUVAS (European vasculitis study group). The value of pulse cyclophosphamide in ANCA-associated vasculitis: meta-analysis and critical review. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2001;16:2018–27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Monach PA, Arnold LM, Merkel PA.. Incidence and prevention of bladder toxicity from cyclophosphamide in the treatment of rheumatic diseases: a data-driven review. Arthritis Rheum 2010;62:9–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.NHS England. Clinical Commissioning Policy: Rituximab for the treatment of dermatomyositis and polymyositis (adults). 2016. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Rituximab-for-the-treatment-of-dermatomyositis-and-polymyositis-adults.pdf (10 February 2022, date last accessed).
- 18.NHS England. Updated Commissioning Guidance for the use of therapeutic immunoglobulin (Ig) in immunology, haematology, neurology and infectious diseases in England. 2018. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/PSS9-Immunoglobulin-Commissioning-Guidance-CQUIN-1920.pdf (10 February 2022, date last accessed).
- 19.NHS Scotland. Clinical Guidelines for Immunglobulin Use. 2012. https://www.nppeag.scot.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Scottish-guidelines-v2.pdf (10 February 2022, date last accessed).
- 20. Tjärnlund A, Tang Q, Wick C. et al. Abatacept in the treatment of adult dermatomyositis and polymyositis: a randomised, phase IIb treatment delayed-start trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2018;77:55–62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Ladislau L, Suárez-Calvet X, Toquet S. et al. JAK inhibitor improves type I interferon induced damage: proof of concept in dermatomyositis. Brain 2018;141:1609–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Kim H, Dill S, O'Brien M. et al. Janus kinase (JAK) inhibition with baricitinib in refractory juvenile dermatomyositis. Ann Rheum Dis 2021;80:406–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Paik JJ, Casciola-Rosen L, Shin JY. et al. Study of tofacitinib in refractory dermatomyositis: an open-label pilot study of ten patients. Arthritis Rheumatol 2021;73:858–65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Barth Z, Schwartz T, Flatø B. et al. Association between nailfold capillary density and pulmonary and cardiac involvement in medium to longstanding juvenile dermatomyositis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2019;71:492–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Mamyrova G, Rider LG, Ehrlich A. et al. Environmental factors associated with disease flare in juvenile and adult dermatomyositis. Rheumatology 2017;56:1342–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Gupta L, Lawrence A, Edavalath S, Misra R.. Prevalence and predictors of asymptomatic vertebral fractures in inflammatory myositis. Int J Rheum Dis 2018;21:725–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.NICE. Osteoporosis: assessing the risk of fragility fracture. 2017. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg146 (10 February 2022, date last accessed). [PubMed]
- 28. Huber AM, Ward LM.. The impact of underlying disease on fracture risk and bone mineral density in children with rheumatic disorders: a review of current literature. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2016;46:49–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Rennebohm RM, Jones K, Huber AM. et al. ; Juvenile Dermatomyositis Disease Activity Collaborative Study Group. Normal scores for nine maneuvers of the childhood myositis assessment scale. Arthritis Care Res 2004;51:365–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Quiñones R, Morgan GA, Amoruso M. et al. Lack of achievement of a full score on the childhood myositis assessment scale by healthy four-year-olds and those recovering from juvenile dermatomyositis. Arthritis Care Res 2013;65:1697–701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Huber AM, Mamyrova G, Lachenbruch PA. et al. ; Childhood Myositis Heterogeneity Collaborative Study Group. Early illness features associated with mortality in the juvenile idiopathic inflammatory myopathies. Arthritis Care Res 2014;66:732–40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Tansley SL, Betteridge ZE, Shaddick G. et al. ; Juvenile Dermatomyositis Research Group. Calcinosis in juvenile dermatomyositis is influenced by both anti-NXP2 autoantibody status and age at disease onset. Rheumatology 2014;53:2204–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Gunawardena H, Wedderburn LR, Chinoy H. et al. ; Juvenile Dermatomyositis Research Group, UK and Ireland. Autoantibodies to a 140-kd protein in juvenile dermatomyositis are associated with calcinosis. Arthritis Rheum 2009;60:1807–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Betteridge Z, McHugh N.. Myositis-specific autoantibodies: an important tool to support diagnosis of myositis. J Intern Med 2016;280:8–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Tansley SL, Simou S, Shaddick G. et al. Autoantibodies in juvenile-onset myositis: their diagnostic value and associated clinical phenotype in a large UK cohort. J Autoimmun 2017;184:55–64. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Váncsa A, Ponyi A, Constantin T, Zeher M, Dankó K.. Pregnancy outcome in idiopathic inflammatory myopathy. Rheumatol Int 2007;27:435–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Flint J, Panchal S, Hurrell A. et al. ; BSR and BHPR Standards, Guidelines and Audit Working Group. Guidelines BSR and BHPR guideline on prescribing drugs in pregnancy and breastfeeding-Part I: standard and biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and corticosteroids on behalf of the BSR and BHPR Standards. Rheumatology 2016;55:1693–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Párraga Prieto C, Ibrahim F, Campbell R. et al. Similar risk of cardiovascular events in idiopathic inflammatory myopathy and rheumatoid arthritis in the first 5 years after diagnosis. Clin Rheumatol 2021;40:231–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Diederichsen LP, Diederichsen ACP, Simonsen JA. et al. Traditional cardiovascular risk factors and coronary artery calcification in adults with polymyositis and dermatomyositis: a Danish multicenter study. Arthritis Care Res 2015;67:848–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Gitiaux C, De Antonio M, Aouizerate J. et al. Vasculopathy-related clinical and pathological features are associated with severe juvenile dermatomyositis. Rheumatology 2016;55:470–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Coyle K, Rother KI, Weise M. et al. Metabolic abnormalities and cardiovascular risk factors in children with myositis. J Pediatr 2009;155:882–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Eimer MJ, Brickman WJ, Seshadri R. et al. Clinical status and cardiovascular risk profile of adults with a history of juvenile dermatomyositis. J Pediatr 2011;159:795–801. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Na SJ, Kim SM, Sunwoo IN, Choi YC.. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of juvenile and adult dermatomyositis. J Korean Med Sci 2009;24:715–21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Schwartz T, Sanner H, Gjesdal O, Flatø B, Sjaastad I.. In juvenile dermatomyositis, cardiac systolic dysfunction is present after long-term follow-up and is predicted by sustained early skin activity. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:1805–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Williams RB, Grehan MJ, Hersch M, Andre J, Cook IJ.. Biomechanics, diagnosis, and treatment outcome in inflammatory myopathy presenting as oropharyngeal dysphagia. Gut 2003;52:471–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Labeit B, Pawlitzki M, Ruck T. et al. The impact of dysphagia in myositis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Med 2020;9:2150. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Apaz MT, Saad-Magalhaes C, Pistorio A. et al. ; Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation. Health-related quality of life of patients with juvenile dermatomyositis: results from the paediatric rheumatology international trials organisation multinational quality of life cohort study. Arthritis Care Res 2009;61:509–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Rider LG, Werth VP, Huber AM. et al. Measures of adult and juvenile dermatomyositis, polymyositis, and inclusion body myositis: physician and Patient/Parent Global Activity, Manual Muscle Testing (MMT), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ)/Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (C-HAQ). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011;63:S118–57. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Phillippi K, Hoeltzel M, B, Robinson A. et al. Race, income, and disease outcomes in juvenile dermatomyositis. J Pediatr 2017;184:38–44.e1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Faller G, Mistry BJ, Tikly M.. Juvenile dermatomyositis in South African children is characterised by frequent dystropic calcification: a cross sectional study. Pediatr Rheumatol 2014;12:2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
All relevant data produced during the guideline development process are presented in this manuscript or in the accompanying supplementary material.