OBJECTIVES: To determine if serologic phenotypes could be identified in systemic lupus erythematosus patients developing interstitial lung disease (ILD) and/or myositis. METHODS: Adult SLE patients (without myositis/ILD at baseline) had annual assessments and serum sampling between 2000 and 2017. New-onset ILD was identified using the SDI pulmonary fibrosis item. New-onset myositis was identified using the SLICC Damage Index muscle atrophy/weakness item, the SLEDAI-2K item for myositis, and annual creatinine kinase testing. Chart review confirmed ILD/myositis cases and randomly sampled SLE patients from baseline formed our sub-cohort (N = 72). Cases and sub-cohort were compared regarding myositis-related biomarkers at baseline and at a randomly selected follow-up between baseline and end of observation (date of ILD/myositis diagnosis or Dec. 31, 2017). Descriptive analyses and hazards ratios (HRs) were generated for ILD/myositis incidence, focusing on baseline serology and adjusting for sex, race/ethnicity, age at SLE diagnosis, and SLE duration. RESULTS: Fourteen SLE patients developed ILD (N = 9), myositis (N = 3), and/or both (N = 2). Thirteen of those (92.9%) developing ILD/myositis had at least one biomarker at baseline, versus 47 (65.3%) SLE patients who never developed myositis/ILD. The most common biomarkers in myositis/ILD were KL-6, anti-Ro52, and anti-Ku. Baseline biomarkers tended to remain positive in follow-up. In multivariate Cox regressions, SLE patients had higher risk of developing myositis/ILD with elevated baseline KL-6 (adjusted hazard ratio 3.66; 95% confidence interval 1.01, 13.3). When updating biomarkers over time, we also saw correlations between anti-Smith and ILD/myositis. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline myositis-related biomarkers were highly associated with ILD/myositis incidence. This is the first identification of biomarker phenotypes with ILD/myositis risk in SLE.
OBJECTIVES: To determine if serologic phenotypes could be identified in systemic lupus erythematosus patients developing interstitial lung disease (ILD) and/or myositis. METHODS: Adult SLE patients (without myositis/ILD at baseline) had annual assessments and serum sampling between 2000 and 2017. New-onset ILD was identified using the SDI pulmonary fibrosis item. New-onset myositis was identified using the SLICC Damage Index muscle atrophy/weakness item, the SLEDAI-2K item for myositis, and annual creatinine kinase testing. Chart review confirmed ILD/myositis cases and randomly sampled SLE patients from baseline formed our sub-cohort (N = 72). Cases and sub-cohort were compared regarding myositis-related biomarkers at baseline and at a randomly selected follow-up between baseline and end of observation (date of ILD/myositis diagnosis or Dec. 31, 2017). Descriptive analyses and hazards ratios (HRs) were generated for ILD/myositis incidence, focusing on baseline serology and adjusting for sex, race/ethnicity, age at SLE diagnosis, and SLE duration. RESULTS: Fourteen SLE patients developed ILD (N = 9), myositis (N = 3), and/or both (N = 2). Thirteen of those (92.9%) developing ILD/myositis had at least one biomarker at baseline, versus 47 (65.3%) SLE patients who never developed myositis/ILD. The most common biomarkers in myositis/ILD were KL-6, anti-Ro52, and anti-Ku. Baseline biomarkers tended to remain positive in follow-up. In multivariate Cox regressions, SLE patients had higher risk of developing myositis/ILD with elevated baseline KL-6 (adjusted hazard ratio 3.66; 95% confidence interval 1.01, 13.3). When updating biomarkers over time, we also saw correlations between anti-Smith and ILD/myositis. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline myositis-related biomarkers were highly associated with ILD/myositis incidence. This is the first identification of biomarker phenotypes with ILD/myositis risk in SLE.