BACKGROUNDAdult-onset inflammatory syndromes often manifest with overlapping clinical features. Variants in ubiquitin-related genes, previously implicated in autoinflammatory disease, may define new disorders. METHODSWe analyzed peripheral-blood exome sequence data independent of clinical phenotype and inheritance pattern to identify deleterious mutations in ubiquitin-related genes. Sanger sequencing, immunoblotting, immunohistochemical testing, flow cytometry, and transcriptome and cytokine profiling were performed. CRISPR-Cas9edited zebrafish were used as an in vivo model to assess gene function. RESULTSWe identified 25 men with somatic mutations affecting methionine-41 (p.Met41) in UBA1, the major E1 enzyme that initiates ubiquitylation. (The gene UBA1 lies on the X chromosome.) In such patients, an often fatal, treatment-refractory inflammatory syndrome develops in late adulthood, with fevers, cytopenias, characteristic vacuoles in myeloid and erythroid precursor cells, dysplastic bone marrow, neutrophilic cutaneous and pulmonary inflammation, chondritis, and vasculitis. Most of these 25 patients met clinical criteria for an inflammatory syndrome (relapsing polychondritis, Sweet's syndrome, polyarteritis nodosa, or giant-cell arteritis) or a hematologic condition (myelodysplastic syndrome or multiple myeloma) or both. Mutations were found in more than half the hematopoietic stem cells, including peripheral-blood myeloid cells but not lymphocytes or fibroblasts. Mutations affecting p.Met41 resulted in loss of the canonical cytoplasmic isoform of UBA1 and in expression of a novel, catalytically impaired isoform initiated at p.Met67. Mutant peripheral-blood cells showed decreased ubiquitylation and activated innate immune pathways. Knockout of the cytoplasmic UBA1 isoform homologue in zebrafish caused systemic inflammation. CONCLUSIONSUsing a genotype-driven approach, we identified a disorder that connects seemingly unrelated adult-onset inflammatory syndromes. We named this disorder the VEXAS (vacuoles, E1 enzyme, X-linked, autoinflammatory, somatic) syndrome.

Objective. A novel rodent model and a recent randomized trial of hyperuricemic adolescents with hypertension suggest a pathogenetic role of uric acid in hypertension, but it remains unknown whether these findings would be applicable to adult populations where the larger disease burden exists. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine if hyperuricemia was associated with incident hypertension, particularly in various demographic subgroups. Methods. We searched major electronic databases using medical subject headings and keywords without language restrictions (through April 2010). We included prospective cohort studies with data on incident hypertension related to serum uric acid levels. Data abstraction was conducted in duplicate. We analyzed age, sex, and race subgroups. Results. A total of 18 prospective cohort studies representing data from 55,607 participants were included. Hyperuricemia was associated with an increased risk for incident hypertension (adjusted risk ratio [RR] 1.41, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.23-1.58). For a 1 mg/dl increase in uric acid level, the pooled RR for incident hypertension after adjusting for potential confounding was 1.13 (95% CI 1.06 -1.20). These effects were significantly larger in younger study populations (P ‫؍‬ 0.02) and tended to be larger in women (P ‫؍‬ 0.059). Two studies suggested that the effect may also be larger among African American individuals. Furthermore, later publication year and US-based studies were significantly associated with a lower effect estimate (P values <0.02). Conclusion. Hyperuricemia is associated with an increased risk for incident hypertension, independent of traditional hypertension risk factors. This risk appears more pronounced in younger individuals and women.

Objective. To provide evidence-based recommendations and expert guidance for the management of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis (AAV), including granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA).Methods. Clinical questions regarding the treatment and management of AAV were developed in the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) format (47 for GPA/MPA, 34 for EGPA). Systematic literature reviews were conducted for each PICO question. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations. Each recommendation required ≥70% consensus among the Voting Panel.Results. We present 26 recommendations and 5 ungraded position statements for GPA/MPA, and 15 recommendations and 5 ungraded position statements for EGPA. This guideline provides recommendations for remission induction and maintenance therapy as well as adjunctive treatment strategies in GPA, MPA, and EGPA. These recommendations include the use of rituximab for remission induction and maintenance in severe GPA and MPA and the use of mepolizumab in nonsevere EGPA. All recommendations are conditional due in part to the lack of multiple randomized controlled trials and/or low-quality evidence supporting the recommendations.Conclusion. This guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and the Vasculitis Foundation for the management of AAV and provides guidance to health care professionals on how to treat these diseases.Guidelines and recommendations developed and/or endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) are intended to provide guidance for particular patterns of practice and not to dictate the care of a particular patient. The ACR considers adherence to the recommendations within this guideline to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in light of each patient's individual circumstances. Guidelines and recommendations are intended to promote beneficial or desirable outcomes but cannot guarantee any specific outcome. Guidelines and recommendations developed and endorsed by the ACR are subject to periodic revision as warranted by the evolution of medical knowledge, technology, and practice. ACR recommendations are not intended to dictate payment or insurance decisions, and drug formularies or other third-party analyses that cite ACR guidelines should state this. These recommendations cannot adequately convey all uncertainties and nuances of patient care.