Background: and Purpose This study evaluated the diagnostic utility of an anti-signal-recognition particle 54 (anti-SRP54) antibody-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) as well as the clinical, serological, and pathological characteristics of patients with SRP immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM). Methods: We evaluated 87 patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy and 107 healthy participants between January 2002 and December 2023. The sensitivity and specificity of the ELISA for anti-SRP54 antibodies were assessed, and the clinical profiles of patients with antiSRP54 antibodies were determined. Results: The ELISA for anti-SRP54 antibodies had a sensitivity and specificity of 88% and 99%, respectively, along with a test–retest reliability of 0.92 (p<0.001). The 32 patients diagnosed with anti-SRP IMNM using a line-blot immunoassay included 28 (88%) who tested positive for anti-SRP54 antibodies using the ELISA, comprising 12 (43%) males and 16 (57%) females whose median ages at symptom onset and diagnosis were 43.0 years and 43.5 years, respectively. Symptoms included proximal muscle weakness in all 28 (100%) patients, neck weakness in 9 (32%), myalgia in 15 (54%), dysphagia in 5 (18%), dyspnea in 4 (14%), dysarthria in 2 (7%), interstitial lung disease in 2 (7%), and myocarditis in 2 (7%). The median serum creatine kinase (CK) level was 7,261 U/L (interquartile range: 5,086–10,007 U/L), and the median anti-SRP54 antibody level was 2.0 U/mL (interquartile range: 1.0–5.6 U/mL). The serum CK level was significantly higher in patients with coexisting anti-Ro-52 antibodies. Conclusions This study has confirmed the reliability of the ELISA for anti-SRP54 antibodies and provided insights into the clinical, serological, and pathological characteristics of South Korean patients with anti-SRP IMNM.

Background: and Purpose This study evaluated the diagnostic utility of an anti-signal-recognition particle 54 (anti-SRP54) antibody-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) as well as the clinical, serological, and pathological characteristics of patients with SRP immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM). Methods: We evaluated 87 patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy and 107 healthy participants between January 2002 and December 2023. The sensitivity and specificity of the ELISA for anti-SRP54 antibodies were assessed, and the clinical profiles of patients with antiSRP54 antibodies were determined. Results: The ELISA for anti-SRP54 antibodies had a sensitivity and specificity of 88% and 99%, respectively, along with a test–retest reliability of 0.92 (p<0.001). The 32 patients diagnosed with anti-SRP IMNM using a line-blot immunoassay included 28 (88%) who tested positive for anti-SRP54 antibodies using the ELISA, comprising 12 (43%) males and 16 (57%) females whose median ages at symptom onset and diagnosis were 43.0 years and 43.5 years, respectively. Symptoms included proximal muscle weakness in all 28 (100%) patients, neck weakness in 9 (32%), myalgia in 15 (54%), dysphagia in 5 (18%), dyspnea in 4 (14%), dysarthria in 2 (7%), interstitial lung disease in 2 (7%), and myocarditis in 2 (7%). The median serum creatine kinase (CK) level was 7,261 U/L (interquartile range: 5,086–10,007 U/L), and the median anti-SRP54 antibody level was 2.0 U/mL (interquartile range: 1.0–5.6 U/mL). The serum CK level was significantly higher in patients with coexisting anti-Ro-52 antibodies. Conclusions This study has confirmed the reliability of the ELISA for anti-SRP54 antibodies and provided insights into the clinical, serological, and pathological characteristics of South Korean patients with anti-SRP IMNM.

Background: and Purpose This study evaluated the diagnostic utility of an anti-signal-recognition particle 54 (anti-SRP54) antibody-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) as well as the clinical, serological, and pathological characteristics of patients with SRP immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM). Methods: We evaluated 87 patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy and 107 healthy participants between January 2002 and December 2023. The sensitivity and specificity of the ELISA for anti-SRP54 antibodies were assessed, and the clinical profiles of patients with antiSRP54 antibodies were determined. Results: The ELISA for anti-SRP54 antibodies had a sensitivity and specificity of 88% and 99%, respectively, along with a test–retest reliability of 0.92 (p<0.001). The 32 patients diagnosed with anti-SRP IMNM using a line-blot immunoassay included 28 (88%) who tested positive for anti-SRP54 antibodies using the ELISA, comprising 12 (43%) males and 16 (57%) females whose median ages at symptom onset and diagnosis were 43.0 years and 43.5 years, respectively. Symptoms included proximal muscle weakness in all 28 (100%) patients, neck weakness in 9 (32%), myalgia in 15 (54%), dysphagia in 5 (18%), dyspnea in 4 (14%), dysarthria in 2 (7%), interstitial lung disease in 2 (7%), and myocarditis in 2 (7%). The median serum creatine kinase (CK) level was 7,261 U/L (interquartile range: 5,086–10,007 U/L), and the median anti-SRP54 antibody level was 2.0 U/mL (interquartile range: 1.0–5.6 U/mL). The serum CK level was significantly higher in patients with coexisting anti-Ro-52 antibodies. Conclusions This study has confirmed the reliability of the ELISA for anti-SRP54 antibodies and provided insights into the clinical, serological, and pathological characteristics of South Korean patients with anti-SRP IMNM.

Objective: To determine the preventive effect of changing gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) to reduce the recurrence of GBCA-associated acute adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Materials and Methods: This retrospective, observational, single-center study—conducted between January 2016 and December 2021—included 238743 consecutive GBCA-enhanced MRI examinations. We focused on a subgroup of patients who experienced acute GBCA-associated ADRs during any of these examinations and subsequently underwent follow-up GBCAenhanced MRI examinations up until July 2023. The follow-up examinations involved either the same (non-change group) or different (change group) GBCAs compared to the ones that initially caused the acute ADR. Baseline participant characteristics, generic profile of the GBCAs, administration of premedication, history of prior ADR to iodinated contrast media, and symptoms of GBCA-associated acute ADRs were retrospectively analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression with generalized estimating equations and propensity score matching were used. Results: A total of 1042 instances of acute ADRs (0.44%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41%–0.46%) were reported. Threehundred and seventy-three patients underwent GBCA-enhanced MRI examinations after experiencing GBCA-associated acute ADRs within the study period; 31.9% (119/373) reexperienced acute ADRs at any of the follow-up examinations. The ADR recurrence was significantly lower in the GBCA change group than in the non-change group according to multivariable logistic regression (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.13–0.90; P = 0.03) and analysis with propensity score matching (14.3% [6/42] vs. 36.9% [31/84], respectively; OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.11–0.94; P = 0.04). A history of an ADR to iodinated contrast media (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.68–1.90; P = 0.62) and premedication (adjusted OR: 2.09, 95% CI: 0.93–4.68; P = 0.07) were not significantly associated with GBCA-associated acute ADR recurrence. A separate analysis for recurrent allergic-like hypersensitivity reactions demonstrated similar results (adjusted OR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.06–0.65; P < 0.01). Conclusion Changing GBCAs may reduce the risk of GBCA-associated acute ADR recurrence.

Background: This study aimed to compare the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) and disease flares after vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and influenza in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs). Methods: Between November 2021 and March 2022, a survey was conducted among patients with ARD who received COVID-19 and influenza vaccinations. The questionnaire included 11 mandatory and closed-ended questions, and the following items were collected: medical history, immunization history, type of vaccine, patient-reported AEs, flare-up of the underlying disease after vaccination, and a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 or influenza. We compared the occurrence of vaccine-related adverse reactions to the COVID-19 and influenza vaccines based on the survey results. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify the factors affecting AEs or disease flares and to compare the post-vaccine response to mixed and matched vaccines. Results: We analyzed 601 adults with ARD who received the COVID-19 vaccine, with a mean age of 49.6 years (80.5% female). A total of 255 participants (42.4%) received a complete course of primary vaccination, 342 (56.9%) completed the booster dose, and 132 (38.6%) received a mixed vaccine. The frequencies of AEs (188 [52.2%] vs. 21 [5.8%]; P< 0.001) and disease flares (58 [16.2%] vs. 5 [1.4%]; P < 0.001) after COVID-19 vaccination were significantly higher than those after influenza vaccination. In the risk factor analysis, previous allergic reaction to other vaccines (odds ratio, 1.95; confidence interval, 1.07–3.70; P = 0.034) was the only factor associated with the occurrence of AEs. There was no difference in the post-vaccine responses between the mixed and matched vaccines. Results: We analyzed 601 adults with ARD who received the COVID-19 vaccine, with a mean age of 49.6 years (80.5% female). A total of 255 participants (42.4%) received a complete course of primary vaccination, 342 (56.9%) completed the booster dose, and 132 (38.6%) received a mixed vaccine. The frequencies of AEs (188 [52.2%] vs. 21 [5.8%]; P < 0.001) and disease flares (58 [16.2%] vs. 5 [1.4%]; P < 0.001) after COVID-19 vaccination were significantly higher than those after influenza vaccination. In the risk factor analysis, previous allergic reaction to other vaccines (odds ratio, 1.95; confidence interval, 1.07–3.70; P = 0.034) was the only factor associated with the occurrence of AEs. There was no difference in the post-vaccine responses between the mixed and matched vaccines. Conclusion The results of the survey of patients with ARD revealed that patient-reported AEs and underlying disease flares after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine were significantly higher than those after the influenza vaccine.