
==== Front
Med Sci Monit
Med Sci Monit
Medical Science Monitor
Medical Science Monitor : International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research
1234-1010
1643-3750
International Scientific Literature, Inc.

39275800
10.12659/MSM.944564
944564
Review Articles
Pharmacological Strategies in Dermatomyositis: Current Treatments and Future Directions
Guo Jinqiang https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0751-0401
EF*
Wang Weiwei EF*
Huang Anbin E
Mei Chunli AE
Department of Rheumatology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, PR China
Corresponding Author: Chunli Mei, e-mail: chunlimeidr@126.com
A Study Design

B Data Collection

C Statistical Analysis

D Data Interpretation

E Manuscript Preparation

F Literature Search

G Funds Collection

* Jinqiang Guo and Weiwei Wang contributed equally to this work

2024
22 8 2024
14 9 2024
30 e944564-1e944564-8
20 3 2024
19 7 2024
© Med Sci Monit, 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This work is licensed under Creative Common Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
Dermatomyositis (DM) is a complex and rare autoimmune disease characterized by muscle weakness and distinctive skin rashes. Its pathogenesis involves a combination of genetic susceptibility, environmental triggers, and immunological factors, with interferon pathways and specific gene upregulations playing crucial roles. Diagnosis is based on clinical presentation, laboratory findings, and imaging, with particular emphasis on myositis-specific antibodies and characteristic muscle and skin changes. The clinical heterogeneity of DM, including variants such as clinically amyopathic DM and DM-associated interstitial lung disease, necessitates a personalized diagnostic and therapeutic approach. Current pharmacological treatments for DM include glucocorticoids, which remain the first-line therapy despite their long-term adverse effects. Immunosuppressants, such as azathioprine, methotrexate, and mycophenolate mofetil, are commonly used in combination with glucocorticoids to enhance efficacy and reduce steroid dependence. Biologics, such as rituximab and intravenous immunoglobulin, have shown effectiveness in refractory cases. Emerging therapies, particularly Janus kinase inhibitors, offer promise for treatment-resistant DM, although they present significant safety concerns, including increased risks of infections and cardiovascular events. Despite significant advancements, managing DM remains challenging due to its rarity and variability. Future research should prioritize the development of precision medicine approaches tailored to individual genetic and pathological features. Additionally, integrated treatment strategies combining pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions are crucial to improving patient outcomes and quality of life. Understanding the etiology and pathogenesis of DM more deeply will be vital for developing more effective and targeted treatments, ultimately leading to better disease management and prognosis.

Dermatomyositis
Immunosuppressive Agents
Randomized Controlled Trial
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies comprise a diverse set of autoimmune conditions. Within this group, polymyositis (PM) and dermatomyositis (DM) are prevalent subtypes [1]. DM predominantly affects women, with a global annual incidence ranging from 1 to 2 per 100 000, and this incidence is rising annually [2].

DM is caused by a combination of genetic, environmental, and immunological factors. Certain HLA subtypes increase genetic susceptibility. Environmental triggers, such as ultraviolet radiation, infections, and certain medications, can initiate DM in predisposed individuals. Immunologically, DM involves aberrant activation of the innate and adaptive immune systems, with interferon pathways playing a crucial role in disease development [3]. Furthermore, transcriptomic studies have demonstrated the significance of upregulated interferon-related genes in the pathogenesis of DM [4]. These form the foundation for using immunosuppressants and immunomodulators in treating patients with DM.

Clinically, diagnosing DM requires a blend of clinical, laboratory, and imaging assessments. DM is marked by symmetrical proximal muscle weakness and distinct rashes, such as heliotrope rash and Gottron papules. Laboratory tests typically show elevated muscle enzymes, such as creatine kinase and aldolase, along with myositis-specific antibodies, including anti-Mi2, anti-NXP2, anti-TIF1-γ, anti-MDA5, and anti-SAE. Magnetic resonance imaging is crucial for detecting muscle edema, while muscle biopsy confirming perifascicular atrophy and inflammatory infiltrates solidifies the diagnosis [5]. However, the disease heterogeneity of DM is significant, with some patients presenting only with typical skin rash without obvious muscle weakness symptoms, known as clinically amyopathic DM, some experiencing severe muscle involvement, such as difficulty swallowing and myocarditis, and others showing predominant lung involvement. The clinical manifestations and response to treatment vary among different subtypes of DM, based on antibody positivity. The rarity and heterogeneity of the disease pose significant challenges in the diagnosis and treatment of DM. Therefore, each patient with DM requires a personalized diagnostic and therapeutic approach, considering disease severity, systemic involvement, and the presence of malignancy.

The introduction of the 2017 EULAR/ACR criteria marks a significant advancement in the field of rheumatology. The consensus derived from 2 comparative studies underscores the importance of the 2017 EULAR/ACR classification criteria in the diagnosis and treatment of DM. The new criteria demonstrate superior sensitivity and specificity, compared with that of the Bohan and Peter criteria, allowing for more precise differentiation of idiopathic inflammatory myopathy subtypes. This precision facilitates early intervention and the implementation of individualized treatment strategies, thereby improving patient prognosis [6,7]. Overall, managing DM involves pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Pharmacologically, treatments include glucocorticoids, immunosuppressants, like azathioprine, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), biologics, such as rituximab, and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg). Non-pharmacological strategies focus on physical therapy to maintain muscle strength and preventive measures against ultraviolet exposure to protect the skin. These comprehensive strategies aim to control disease activity and improve patient outcomes.

In this article, we aim to review current approaches to the management of DM (Table 1).

Glucocorticoids

Although there are no current controlled trials assessing the efficacy of glucocorticoids in treating DM, it remains the first-line medication for DM treatment. Prednisone or prednisolone 1 mg/kg is commonly employed for remission induction in DM. In a study involving 11 adult DM patients receiving glucocorticoids at a dosage of 0.75 mg/kg/day, muscle function significantly improved in 8 patients, and muscle biopsies after treatment showed a near-complete disappearance of infiltrating inflammatory cells [8]. In severe cases of DM, intravenous pulse methylprednisolone (IVMP) is often used as an initial treatment. However, research on the efficacy of IVMP mainly focuses on juvenile DM, with limited evidence in adult patients with DM [9,10]. In a study assessing IVMP in adult DM patients with severe symptoms, such as speech/swallowing difficulties, respiratory distress, cardiac involvement, and complete loss of mobility, 7 patients received IVMP 0.5 g/day for 3 consecutive days per month over a total of 3 months. After the treatment, all patients exhibited improvements in muscle strength, levels of muscle enzymes, and C-reactive protein levels. Following the first month of pulse therapy, all patients experienced the disappearance of mechanic’s hands, vasculitis, and Gottron papules. However, heliotrope rash and skin discoloration persisted after 3 months of treatment, suggesting a poorer response of DM skin disease to glucocorticoids, and also suggesting that the presence of persistent skin damage does not necessarily indicate disease activity [11]. The main disadvantages of glucocorticoids are the severe long-term adverse effects associated with their prolonged use; glucocorticoid-related adverse effects were found to be the main cause of patient disability [12]. Therefore, in the treatment of DM, glucocorticoids are usually combined with other drugs such as immunosuppressants to enhance efficacy, reduce relapse, and effectively taper steroids.

Azathioprine

Azathioprine is a thymidine analog derived from 6-mercaptopurine, disrupting purine metabolism to obstruct DNA and RNA biosynthesis through multiple pathways. Consequently, immune cell proliferation, particularly in T lymphocytes, is suppressed, enabling its immunosuppressive effects. Based on these mechanisms, azathioprine typically takes 6 to 8 weeks of medication to gradually manifest its effects. Although the evidence supporting azathioprine as a treatment for DM primarily comes from retrospective studies and case reports, it has remained a commonly used initial combination therapy for patients with DM for decades [13]. In a 1981 long-term follow-up study of myositis patients over 3 years, no benefit was observed from adding azathioprine to prednisolone at 3 months. However, during long-term follow-up, a significant decrease in functional disability was noted in the azathioprine group, compared with the prednisolone-only group [14]. To prevent relapse, azathioprine combination therapy often needs to be maintained for more than 1 year, or even longer [15]. Multiple studies have indicated that taking azathioprine during pregnancy and lactation is safe [16,17].

Methotrexate

Methotrexate is an antimetabolite and anti-inflammatory drug. Its anti-inflammatory action is achieved by inhibiting 5-aminoimidazole-4-carboxamide ribonucleotide, consequently elevating intracellular adenosine levels [18]. While prospective randomized controlled trials on methotrexate for treating DM are currently lacking, there is still evidence supporting its effectiveness in this regard. Retrospective studies have shown satisfactory therapeutic effects when methotrexate is added to patients with inadequate response to prednisolone monotherapy [19,20]. A longitudinal cohort study on patients with PM/DM indicated that the early survival rate in the methotrexate treatment group was comparable to that in the azathioprine treatment group. However, the methotrexate group exhibited a higher 10-year survival rate [21]. The initial dosage of methotrexate for DM treatment is 15 mg/week, with a potential escalation to a maximum of 25 mg/week if the response is inadequate [22]. Administering methotrexate to DM patients with concurrent interstitial lung disease (ILD) should be done cautiously, as it is difficult to distinguish methotrexate-related lung diseases from DM-associated ILD.

Mycophenolate Mofetil

MMF is a selective immunosuppressant primarily recognized for its inhibitory effects on lymphocytes, as well as for its suppression of antibody production and leukocyte chemotaxis. Several case reports have shown that MMF has good efficacy in patients who are non-responsive to glucocorticoids monotherapy [23,24]. In a retrospective efficacy evaluation study, 12 patients with DM who were non-responsive or intolerant to conventional treatments received MMF at doses of 500 mg to 1 g per day. Skin lesions and muscle strength were assessed monthly after treatment. The study demonstrated improvements in cutaneous and muscular conditions for 10 patients undergoing MMF treatment, with most showing good tolerability within 4 to 8 weeks [25]. When patients with DM have concurrent interstitial ILD, MMF is considered a first-line therapy due to its proven efficacy in enhancing lung function and enabling successful glucocorticoid tapering [26,27]. Like other immunosuppressants, MMF carries the risk of exacerbating infections and increasing the incidence of malignancies. However, previous reports of MMF-related malignancies have mostly occurred in post-transplant populations [28,29].

Calcineurin Inhibitors

Calcineurin inhibitors mainly include cyclosporin A and tacrolimus, which primarily work by inhibiting T-cell function and were originally used to prevent organ transplant rejection. In the treatment of DM, calcineurin inhibitors are mainly used for DM patients with concurrent ILD or refractory DM unresponsive to first-line treatments [30,31]. In a prospective controlled study, rapid disease remission was achieved in 10 patients with DM treated with cyclosporin A, with only a 10% treatment failure rate [32]. Additionally, in a randomized controlled trial comparing cyclosporin A and methotrexate in 36 DM/PM patients, the patients in both groups showed significant improvements in clinical and serologic aspects after 1, 3, and 6 months of treatment. However, due to cost increases and drug risks, methotrexate should be prioritized over cyclosporin A [33]. In a systematic review evaluating the effectiveness and safety of tacrolimus in DM/PM, oral tacrolimus combined with glucocorticoids resulted in physical function and muscular strength recovery in 64.7% and 93.3% of patients, respectively, enzyme reduction in 100% of patients, lung function improvement in 89.3% of patients, and a decrease in the average glucocorticoid dose from 33.8 mg/day to 11.5 mg/day [34]. The primary adverse effect of calcineurin inhibitors is renal toxicity, with other adverse reactions generally being mild. Therefore, calcineurin inhibitors should be considered safe and efficacious for managing DM, but their specific efficacy and safety require validation through prospective, large-sample, randomized controlled trials.

Cyclophosphamide

Cyclophosphamide is currently the preferred adjunctive therapy for severe or progressive ILD in DM. In a clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness and safety of cyclophosphamide pulse therapy for DM/PM complicated by progressive interstitial pneumonia, over half of the patients experienced significant improvements in dyspnea symptoms, oxygen dependency, pulmonary function parameters, and high-resolution computed tomography scores after receiving cyclophosphamide at doses of 300 to 800 mg/m2 every 4 weeks for at least 6 months. No treatment-related deaths or severe toxic reactions were observed during the study [35]. Additionally, cyclophosphamide is suggested as the initial combined therapy for patients with MDA5+ DM complicated by rapidly progressive ILD [36]. A DM patient with rapidly progressive ILD failed to show improvement in dyspnea symptoms after 3 months of glucocorticoid and cyclosporin A treatment, with high-resolution computed tomography confirming ILD progression. However, after switching from cyclosporin A at 4.25 mg/kg/day to cyclophosphamide at 1000 mg/m2 every 4 weeks, the patient’s dyspnea symptoms improved within 2 months, ILD progression halted on imaging, and successful steroid tapering was achieved [37]. Multiple studies indicate that serious adverse reactions are generally uncommon with short-term intravenous cyclophosphamide pulse therapy [35,38,39]. Nevertheless, a randomized controlled trail comparing the efficacy of rituximab and cyclophosphamide for connective tissue disease-associated ILD showed that while rituximab was not superior to cyclophosphamide in treating patients with connective tissue disease-associated ILD, it had fewer adverse events, making it a potential alternative to cyclophosphamide [40].

Intravenous Immunoglobulin

Initially used as a replacement therapy for patients with immunodeficiency, intravenous IVIg has gained recognition for its anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects in clinical practice. Since IVIg was first reported for treating idiopathic inflammatory myopathy in 1987, several randomized controlled studies have demonstrated its efficacy in treating DM over the years [41–43]. IVIg was also the first drug proven effective in double-blind, placebo-controlled studies for treating DM. In this study, 8 patients treated by IVIg at 2g/kg every 4 weeks showed evident muscular strength and neurological symptom improvement, with post-therapeutic muscle biopsy revealing increased muscle fiber diameter, increased capillary numbers, decreased capillary diameter, and disappearance of complement deposits in vessel walls. In contrast, among the 11 control patients receiving prednisone at 25 mg/day as monotherapy, 6 showed no significant improvement, while the remaining 5 experienced disease worsening [44]. Another randomized controlled study showed that following 3 months of IVIg treatment at 0.4 g/kg/day plus prednisone at 1 mg/kg/day, patients with DM experienced earlier onset of perceived muscle strength recovery, greater improvement in muscle weakness, decreased muscle pain assessed by visual analog scale scores, greater creatine phosphokinase decline rate, and lower steroid dosage, compared with prednisone monotherapy [45]. Two other studies also demonstrated rapid symptom relief with IVIg, along with significant reductions in enzyme levels and maintenance steroid doses [46,47]. Furthermore, IVIg was proven effective in severe DM cases involving lung and esophageal complications [46,48]. Two studies evaluating the long-term efficacy of IVIg showed that IVIg at 1 g/kg/day combined with glucocorticoids effectively treated refractory DM [49,50]. Adverse effects of IVIg are typically tolerable, and most adverse reactions can subside with measures such as slowing infusion rates and providing symptomatic treatment [51]. Thus, IVIg stands out as an effective, well-tolerated, and safe therapeutic choice for DM.

Biologics

Compared with other subtypes of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, biologics are more widely used in DM, primarily for patients with DM complicated by ILD or refractory DM. In a randomized controlled study assessing the effectiveness and safety of rituximab in adult and pediatric patients with myositis, 195 patients with refractory DM who received 2 doses of 1g rituximab achieved remission criteria at around 20 weeks, approximately 83% of the patients [52]. Tocilizumab can be used as salvage therapy for patients with refractory rapidly progressive ILD [53], but a recent randomized controlled study showed that after 24 weeks of treatment with tocilizumab at 8 mg/kg every 4 weeks, 18 patients with refractory DM/PM did not meet the efficacy criteria [54]. Abatacept has also been proven effective in treating refractory DM [55].

The utilization of TNF-α inhibitors in managing DM is controversial, including agents such as adalimumab, infliximab, and etanercept. Etanercept was first reported to be successfully used in patients with glucocorticoid-resistant DM/PM in 2001 [56], and several case reports and retrospective studies have confirmed the effectiveness of etanercept in DM [57–59]. In a randomized controlled trail evaluating the safety of etanercept and the feasibility of steroid tapering in DM, more than half of the patients with DM receiving etanercept 50 mg/week successfully tapered steroids, with no notable difference in adverse events between the etanercept and control groups during the treatment period [60]. Infliximab is primarily targeted toward DM patients with specific complications such as hemophagocytic syndrome and ulcerative colitis. [61,62]. Adalimumab has been previously reported as effective in treating a case of DM-associated calcinosis [63]. However, studies have indicated that the efficacy of etanercept or infliximab in treating patients with refractory DM/PM is not ideal [58,64,65]. Therefore, the efficacy of TNF-α inhibitors in patients with DM still requires prospective, large sample size, randomized controlled studies for validation.

Janus Kinase Inhibitors

Janus kinase (JAK) is a family of intracellular non-receptor tyrosine protein kinases. Activation of pro-inflammatory cytokines mediated by the JAK-signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) signaling pathway is a contributing factor in the pathogenesis of DM [66]. JAK inhibitors work by competitively and reversibly inhibiting the adenosine triphosphate binding site of JAK, thereby suppressing JAK-STAT signal transduction in inflammatory responses and immune regulation processes [67].

To date, a substantial amount of evidence, mostly from case studies, suggests that JAK inhibitors can effectively treat patients with refractory DM who have not responded to glucocorticoids and immunosuppressive therapy, and they have also shown unique efficacy in treating concomitant ILD [68–70]. In a 12-week open-label study, all 10 patients with refractory DM showed improved disease activity according to the 2016 ACR/EULAR myositis response criteria after taking tofacitinib 11 mg daily, with minimal observable adverse effects, which demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of tofacitinib monotherapy [71]. In a single-center, open-label clinical study, 18 patients with amyopathic DM who were positive for anti-MDA5 antibodies and had concomitant ILD were prospectively enrolled. Compared with the control group, the treatment group with a combination of glucocorticoids with tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily had a significantly improved 6-month survival rate, ferritin levels, pulmonary function index, and findings on high-resolution computed tomography [72].

JAK inhibitors have shown promise in treating refractory DM, but their use comes with significant safety concerns and risks. While second-generation JAK inhibitors, like upadacitinib, are designed to be more selective in inhibiting JAK proteins, potentially reducing adverse effects, these medications still pose serious risks, such as the increased risk of infections, malignancies, thrombosis, and gastrointestinal perforations [73]. Most of all, the Food and Drug Administration has raised significant concerns regarding the use of JAK inhibitors, specifically upadacitinib, tofacitinib, and baricitinib, due to their association with major adverse cardiovascular events [74].

In summary, while JAK inhibitors have demonstrated efficacy in certain clinical scenarios, their safety concerns remain significant. Therefore, careful risk assessment and ongoing monitoring are essential when using these drugs.

Future Directions for DM Treatments

While corticosteroids and immunosuppressants remain the primary treatments for DM, their adverse effects and limited efficacy in refractory cases necessitate the development of new therapeutic options. Emerging treatments such as biologics and JAK inhibitors show promise due to their targeted action, which results in fewer adverse effects and enhanced effectiveness. However, the lack of sufficient clinical evidence limits their widespread clinical use.

Future strategies in DM management should advocate for precision medicine, developing treatments tailored to individual genetic backgrounds and pathological features to enhance treatment specificity and efficacy. Additionally, an integrated treatment approach combining pharmacological with non-pharmacological interventions, such as physical and psychological therapies, should be explored to improve patient quality of life. Lastly, a deeper understanding of the etiology and pathogenesis of DM is essential to develop more fundamental treatment methods.

Conclusions

DM is relatively rare and heterogeneous, with much of the primary evidence for clinical decisions derived from case reports and retrospective studies. DM, especially when refractory, remains one of the most challenging diseases in the field of rheumatology and immunology. With the evolving understanding of DM pathogenesis, ongoing refinement of skin damage and myositis assessment methods, and the accumulation of clinical evidence, a diversified and effective strategy combining novel therapies with traditional treatments will be explored to achieve personalized and precise treatment in the future.

Table 1 Drug treatments for dermatomyositis.

Drug	Mechanism of action	Indications	Dosage and administration	Adverse effects	
Prednisone	Suppresses the inflammatory and immune responses	Initial treatment	1–2 mg/kg/day	Gastrointestinal discomfort, increased risk of infection, osteoporosis, diabetes	
Azathioprine	Inhibits DNA and RNA synthesis, reducing T-cell activity	Combination therapy	1–3 mg/kg/day	Bone marrow suppression, hepatotoxicity, nausea, vomiting, increased risk of infection	
Methotrexate	Inhibits inflammatory response	Combination therapy	7.5–25 mg/week	Gastrointestinal discomfort, hepatotoxicity, oral ulcers, pulmonary fibrosis	
Mycophenolate mofetil	Inhibits T- and B-lymphocyte proliferation	Combination therapy, especially with ILD	2–3 g/day	Gastrointestinal discomfort, increased risk of infection, leukopenia	
Cyclosporin A	Inhibits T-cell activation	Refractory patients	2.5–5 mg/kg/day	Nephrotoxicity, hypertension, gingival hyperplasia, hirsutism	
Tacrolimus	Inhibits T-cell activation	Refractory patients	0.1–0.2 mg/kg/day	Nephrotoxicity, hypertension, diabetes, neurotoxicity	
Cyclophosphamide	Inhibits immune cell proliferation	Severe patients, especially with ILD	0.5–2 g/m2/month	Bone marrow suppression, increased risk of infection, cystitis, alopecia	
Intravenous immunoglobulin	Neutralizes autoantibodies and modulates the immune system	Severe patients	2 g/kg/4 weeks	Allergic reactions, increased risk of infection, thrombosis	
Rituximab	Depletes B cells by targeting CD20	Refractory patients	375 mg/m2/week	Infusion reactions, increased risk of infection, hypotension, respiratory difficulties	
Tofacitinib	Blocks JAK pathways	Refractory patients	5–10 mg/day	Increased risk of infection, hepatotoxicity, dyslipidemia	
Upadacitinib	Blocks JAK pathways	Refractory patients	15 mg/day	Increased risk of infection, hepatotoxicity, dyslipidemia	
ILD – interstitial lung disease; JAK – Janus kinase.

Conflict of interest: None declared

Publisher’s note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher

Department and Institution Where Work Was Done: Department of Rheumatology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Hubei, Wuhan, PR China.

Financial support: None declared
==== Refs
References

1 Lundberg IE Fujimoto M Vencovsky J Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies Nat Rev Dis Primers 2021 7 1 86 34857798
2 Essouma M Noubiap JJ Singwe-Ngandeu M Hachulla E Epidemiology of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies in Africa: A contemporary systematic review J Clin Rheumatol 2022 28 2 e552 e62 33843773
3 DeWane ME Waldman R Lu J Dermatomyositis: Clinical features and pathogenesis J Am Acad Dermatol 2020 82 2 267 81 31279808
4 Baechler EC Bauer JW Slattery CA An interferon signature in the peripheral blood of dermatomyositis patients is associated with disease activity Mol Med 2007 13 1–2 59 68 17515957
5 Cassard L Seraly N Riegert M Dermatomyositis: Practical guidance and unmet needs Immunotargets Ther 2024 13 151 72 38464459
6 Pinto B Janardana R Nadig R Comparison of the 2017 EULAR/ACR criteria with Bohan and Peter criteria for the classification of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies Clin Rheumatol 2019 38 7 1931 34 30903308
7 Lundberg IE Tjärnlund A Bottai M International Myositis Classification Criteria Project consortium, The Euromyositis register and The Juvenile Dermatomyositis Cohort Biomarker Study and Repository (JDRG) (UK and Ireland) 2017 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for adult and juvenile idiopathic inflammatory myopathies and their major subgroups Ann Rheum Dis 2017 76 12 1955 64 [Erratum in: Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(9):e64] 29079590
8 Lundberg I Kratz AK Alexanderson H Patarroyo M Decreased expression of interleukin-1alpha, interleukin-1beta, and cell adhesion molecules in muscle tissue following corticosteroid treatment in patients with polymyositis and dermatomyositis Arthritis Rheum 2000 43 2 336 48 10693873
9 Al-Mayouf S Al-Mazyed A Bahabri S Efficacy of early treatment of severe juvenile dermatomyositis with intravenous methylprednisolone and methotrexate Clin Rheumatol 2000 19 2 138 41 10791626
10 Huang JL Long-term prognosis of patients with juvenile dermatomyositis initially treated with intravenous methylprednisolone pulse therapy Clin Exp Rheumatol 1999 17 5 621 24 10544850
11 Bolosiu HD Man L Rednic S The effect of methylprednisolone pulse therapy in polymyositis/dermatomyositis Adv Exp Med Biol 1999 455 349 57 10599369
12 Ponyi A Borgulya G Constantin T Váncsa A Functional outcome and quality of life in adult patients with idiopathic inflammatory myositis Rheumatology (Oxford) 2005 44 1 83 88 15381789
13 Vermaak E Tansley SL McHugh NJ The evidence for immunotherapy in dermatomyositis and polymyositis: A systematic review Clin Rheumatol 2015 34 12 2089 95 26299472
14 Bunch TW Prednisone and azathioprine for polymyositis: Long-term followup Arthritis Rheum 1981 24 1 45 48 7008799
15 Sunderkötter C Nast A Worm M Guidelines on dermatomyositis – excerpt from the interdisciplinary S2k guidelines on myositis syndromes by the German Society of Neurology J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 2016 14 3 321 38 26972210
16 Birru Talabi M Clowse MEB Antirheumatic medications in pregnancy and breastfeeding Curr Opin Rheumatol 2020 32 3 238 46 32205567
17 Häfeli C Förger F Current aspects of antirheumatic therapy in pregnancy planning, during pregnancy and breastfeeding Z Rheumatol 2021 80 8 716 25 [in German] 34581874
18 Cronstein BN Naime D Ostad E The antiinflammatory effects of methotrexate are mediated by adenosine Adv Exp Med Biol 1994 370 411 16 7660940
19 Zieglschmid-Adams ME Pandya AG Treatment of dermatomyositis with methotrexate J Am Acad Dermatol 1995 32 5 Pt 1 754 57 7722021
20 Newman ED Scott DW The use of low-dose oral methotrexate in the treatment of polymyositis and dermatomyositis J Clin Rheumatol 1995 1 2 99 102 19077954
21 Schiopu E Phillips K MacDonald PM Predictors of survival in a cohort of patients with polymyositis and dermatomyositis: Effect of corticosteroids, methotrexate and azathioprine Arthritis Res Ther 2012 14 1 R22 22284862
22 Briemberg HR Amato AA Dermatomyositis and polymyositis Curr Treat Options Neurol 2003 5 5 349 56 12895397
23 Majithia V Harisdangkul V Mycophenolate mofetil (CellCept): An alternative therapy for autoimmune inflammatory myopathy Rheumatology (Oxford) 2005 44 3 386 89 15572389
24 Pisoni CN Cuadrado MJ Khamashta MA Mycophenolate mofetil treatment in resistant myositis Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007 46 3 516 68 17003173
25 Edge JC Outland JD Dempsey JR Callen JP Mycophenolate mofetil as an effective corticosteroid-sparing therapy for recalcitrant dermatomyositis Arch Dermatol 2006 142 1 65 69 16415388
26 van den Bosch L Luppi F Ferrara G Mura M Immunomodulatory treatment of interstitial lung disease Ther Adv Respir Dis 2022 16 17534666221117002 35938712
27 Stager K Wise L MDA-5 dermatomyositis complicated by interstitial lung disease and cutaneous ulcers: successful treatment with corticosteroids, mycophenolate mofetil and intravenous immunoglobulin BMJ Case Rep 2020 13 9 e236431
28 Orvis AK Wesson SK Breza TS Jr Mycophenolate mofetil in dermatology J Am Acad Dermatol 2009 60 2 183 99 quiz 200–2 19150270
29 Rowin J Amato AA Deisher N Mycophenolate mofetil in dermatomyositis: Is it safe? Neurology 2006 66 8 1245 47 16636243
30 Kuwana M Wakasugi N Furuya T Tacrolimus in patients with interstitial pneumonia associated with polymyositis or dermatomyositis: interim report of postmarketing surveillance in Japan J Rheumatol 2022 49 7 707 18 35428708
31 Takada K Katada Y Ito S Impact of adding tacrolimus to initial treatment of interstitial pneumonitis in polymyositis/dermatomyositis: A single-arm clinical trial Rheumatology (Oxford) 2020 59 5 1084 93 31539061
32 Grau JM Herrero C Casademont J Fernández-Solà J Urbano-Márquez A Cyclosporine A as first choice therapy for dermatomyositis J Rheumatol 1994 21 2 381 82 8182665
33 Vencovský J Jarosová K Machácek S Cyclosporine A versus methotrexate in the treatment of polymyositis and dermatomyositis Scand J Rheumatol 2000 29 2 95 102 10777122
34 Ge Y Zhou H Shi J The efficacy of tacrolimus in patients with refractory dermatomyositis/polymyositis: A systematic review Clin Rheumatol 2015 34 12 2097 103 26328518
35 Yamasaki Y Yamada H Yamasaki M Intravenous cyclophosphamide therapy for progressive interstitial pneumonia in patients with polymyositis/dermatomyositis Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007 46 1 124 30 16754626
36 Romero-Bueno F Diaz Del Campo P MEDRA5 (Spanish MDA5 Register) group (listed contributors at the end of the article) Recommendations for the treatment of anti-melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5-positive dermatomyositis-associated rapidly progressive interstitial lung disease Semin Arthritis Rheum 2020 50 4 776 90 32534273
37 Hildebrand BA Jr Arroyo R Evolution of clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis despite aggressive immunosuppression with cyclophosphamide and prednisone J Clin Rheumatol 2010 16 3 143 45 20216327
38 Deakin CT Campanilho-Marques R Simou S Juvenile Dermatomyositis Research Group Efficacy and safety of cyclophosphamide treatment in severe juvenile dermatomyositis shown by marginal structural modeling Arthritis Rheumatol 2018 70 5 785 93 29342499
39 Riley P Maillard SM Wedderburn LR Intravenous cyclophosphamide pulse therapy in juvenile dermatomyositis. A review of efficacy and safety Rheumatology (Oxford) 2004 43 4 491 96 14722349
40 Maher TM Tudor VA Saunders P RECITAL Investigators Rituximab versus intravenous cyclophosphamide in patients with connective tissue disease-associated interstitial lung disease in the UK (RECITAL): A double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, controlled, phase 2b trial Lancet Respir Med 2023 11 1 45 54 36375479
41 Aggarwal R Schessl J Charles-Schoeman C ProDERM investigators Safety and tolerability of intravenous immunoglobulin in patients with active dermatomyositis: Results from the randomised, placebo-controlled ProDERM study Arthritis Res Ther 2024 26 1 27 38233885
42 Aggarwal R Charles-Schoeman C Schessl J ProDERM Trial Group Trial of intravenous immune globulin in dermatomyositis N Engl J Med 2022 387 14 1264 78 36198179
43 Aggarwal R Charles-Schoeman C Schessl J 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 1 e23677 33429735
44 Dalakas MC Illa I Dambrosia JM A controlled trial of high-dose intravenous immune globulin infusions as treatment for dermatomyositis N Engl J Med 1993 329 27 1993 2000 8247075
45 Jing T Jiesheng GAO Jinwei C Efficacy and safety of the combined treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin and oral glucocorticoid in the elderly with dermatomyositis Chinese Journal of Geriatrics 2008 27 8 588 90
46 Marie I Menard JF Hatron PY Intravenous immunoglobulins for steroid-refractory esophageal involvement related to polymyositis and dermatomyositis: A series of 73 patients Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2010 62 12 1748 55 20722047
47 Gandiga PC Ghetie D Anderson E Aggrawal R Intravenous immunoglobulin in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: A practical guide for clinical use Curr Rheumatol Rep 2023 25 8 152 68 37261663
48 Suzuki Y Hayakawa H Miwa S Intravenous immunoglobulin therapy for refractory interstitial lung disease associated with polymyositis/dermatomyositis Lung 2009 187 3 201 6 19387736
49 Danieli MG Malcangi G Palmieri C Cyclosporin A and intravenous immunoglobulin treatment in polymyositis/dermatomyositis Ann Rheum Dis 2002 61 1 37 41 11779756
50 Cherin P Pelletier S Teixeira A Results and long-term followup of intravenous immunoglobulin infusions in chronic, refractory polymyositis: An open study with thirty-five adult patients Arthritis Rheum 2002 46 2 467 74 11840450
51 Goswami RP Haldar SN Chatterjee M Efficacy and safety of intravenous and subcutaneous immunoglobulin therapy in idiopathic inflammatory myopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis Autoimmun Rev 2022 21 2 102997 34800685
52 Oddis CV Reed AM Aggarwal R RIM Study Group Rituximab in the treatment of refractory adult and juvenile dermatomyositis and adult polymyositis: A randomized, placebo-phase trial Arthritis Rheum 2013 65 2 314 24 23124935
53 Zhang X Zhou S Wu C Tocilizumab for refractory rapidly progressive interstitial lung disease related to anti-MDA5-positive dermatomyositis Rheumatology (Oxford) 2021 60 7 e227 e28 33410494
54 Oddis CV Rockette HE Zhu L Randomized trial of tocilizumab in the treatment of refractory adult polymyositis and dermatomyositis ACR Open Rheumatol 2022 4 11 983 90 36128663
55 Tjärnlund A Tang Q Wick C Abatacept in the treatment of adult dermatomyositis and polymyositis: A randomised, phase IIb treatment delayed-start trial Ann Rheum Dis 2018 77 1 55 62 28993346
56 Fam AG Recent advances in the management of adult myositis Expert Opin Investig Drugs 2001 10 7 1265 77
57 Efthimiou P Schwartzman S Kagen LJ Possible role for tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in the treatment of resistant dermatomyositis and polymyositis: A retrospective study of eight patients Ann Rheum Dis 2006 65 9 1233 36 16476710
58 Iannone F Scioscia C Falappone PC Use of etanercept in the treatment of dermatomyositis: A case series J Rheumatol 2006 33 9 1802 4 16960940
59 Sprott H Glatzel M Michel BA Treatment of myositis with etanercept (Enbrel), a recombinant human soluble fusion protein of TNF-alpha type II receptor and IgG1 Rheumatology (Oxford) 2004 43 4 524 26
60 Muscle Study Group A randomized, pilot trial of etanercept in dermatomyositis Ann Neurol 2011 70 3 427 36 21688301
61 Komiya Y Saito T Mizoguchi F Kohsaka H Hemophagocytic syndrome complicated with dermatomyositis controlled successfully with infliximab and conventional therapies Intern Med 2017 56 23 3237 41 29199203
62 Huang BB Han LC Liu GF Infliximab is effective in the treatment of ulcerative colitis with dermatomyositis: A case report World J Gastroenterol 2020 26 46 7425 35 33362394
63 Xie F Williams P Batchelor R Successful treatment of dermatomyositis and associated calcinosis with adalimumab Clin Exp Dermatol 2020 45 7 945 49 33448458
64 Hengstman GJ De Bleecker JL Feist E Open-label trial of anti-TNF-alpha in dermato- and polymyositis treated concomitantly with methotrexate Eur Neurol 2008 59 3–4 159 63 18230873
65 Dastmalchi M Grundtman C Alexanderson H A high incidence of disease flares in an open pilot study of infliximab in patients with refractory inflammatory myopathies Ann Rheum Dis 2008 67 12 1670 77 18272672
66 Benucci M Bernardini P Coccia C JAK inhibitors and autoimmune rheumatic diseases Autoimmun Rev 2023 22 4 103276 36649877
67 Galluzzo M D’Adamio S Servoli S Tofacitinib for the treatment of psoriasis Expert Opin Pharmacother 2016 17 10 1421 33 27267933
68 Ishikawa Y Kasuya T Fujiwara M Kita Y Tofacitinib for recurrence of antimelanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 antibody-positive clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis after remission: A case report Medicine (Baltimore) 2020 99 37 e21943 32925726
69 Kurasawa K Arai S Namiki Y Tofacitinib for refractory interstitial lung diseases in anti-melanoma differentiation-associated 5 gene antibody-positive dermatomyositis Rheumatology (Oxford) 2018 57 12 2114 19 30060040
70 Ohmura SI Yamabe T Naniwa T Successful dose escalation of tofacitinib for refractory dermatomyositis and interstitial lung disease with anti-melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 antibodies Mod Rheumatol Case Rep 2021 5 1 76 81 32867615
71 Paik JJ Casciola-Rosen L Shin JY Study of tofacitinib in refractory dermatomyositis: an open-label pilot study of ten patients Arthritis Rheumatol 2021 73 5 858 65 33258553
72 Chen Z Wang X Ye S Tofacitinib in amyopathic dermatomyositis-associated interstitial lung disease N Engl J Med 2019 381 3 291 93 31314977
73 Traves PG Murray B Campigotto F JAK selectivity and the implications for clinical inhibition of pharmacodynamic cytokine signalling by filgotinib, upadacitinib, tofacitinib and baricitinib Ann Rheum Dis 2021 80 7 865 75 33741556
74 Chung MP Paik JJ Past, present, and future in dermatomyositis therapeutics Curr Treatm Opt Rheumatol 2022 8 4 71 90 38650607
