Systemic Sclerosis–Associated Interstitial Lung Disease: How to Incorporate Two Food and Drug Administration–Approved Therapies in Clinical Practice

Systemic sclerosis (SSc; scleroderma) has the highest individual mortality of all rheumatic diseases and interstitial lung disease (ILD) is among the leading causes of SSc-related death. Two drugs are now approved by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and indicated for slowing the rate of decline in pulmonary function in patients with SSc-ILD: nintedanib (a tyrosine kinase inhibitor) and tocilizumab (the first biologic agent targeting the interleukin-6 pathway in SSc). In addition, two generic drugs with cytotoxic and immunoregulatory activity, mycophenolate mofetil and cyclophosphamide, have shown comparable efficacy in a Phase II trial but are not FDA-approved for SSc-ILD. In light of the heterogeneity of the disease, the optimal therapeutic strategy in the management of patients with SSc-ILD is still to be determined. The objectives of this review are two-fold: (1) review the body of research focused on the diagnosis and treatment of SSc-ILD; and (2) propose a practical approach for diagnosis, stratification, management, and therapeutic decision-making in this clinical context. This review presents a practical classification of SSc patients in terms of disease severity (subclinical vs. clinical ILD) and associated risk of progression (low vs. high risk). The pharmacological and non-pharmacological options as first and second-line therapy, as well as potential combination approaches, are discussed in light of the recent approval of tocilizumab for SSc-ILD

Considerations for a combined index for limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis to support drug development and improve outcomes

Systemic sclerosis (systemic scleroderma) is characterized by a heterogeneous range of clinical manifestations. Systemic sclerosis is classified into limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis and diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis subgroups based on the extent of skin involvement. Randomized controlled trials in scleroderma have mainly focused on diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis partly because the measurement of skin involvement, critical for evaluating a therapeutic intervention, is more dynamic in this subset. Nonetheless, limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis, the most common cutaneous subset (about two-third), is also associated with significant morbidity and detrimental impact on health-related quality of life. The lack of interventional studies in limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis is partly due to a lack of relevant outcome measures to evaluate this subgroup. Combining several clinically meaningful outcomes selected specifically for limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis may improve representativeness in clinical trials and responsiveness of outcomes measured in randomized controlled trials. A composite index dedicated to limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis combining such relevant outcomes could advance clinical trial development for limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis by providing the opportunity to test and select among candidate drugs that could act as disease-modifying treatments for this neglected subgroup of systemic sclerosis. This proposed index would include items selected by expert physicians and patients with limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis across domains grounded in the lived experience of limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis. This article reviews the reasons behind the relative neglect of limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis, discusses the current state of outcome measures for limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis, identifies challenges, and proposes a roadmap for a combined limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis-specific treatment response index

Domains and outcome measures for the assessment of limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis: a scoping review protocol

Introduction: Limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis (lcSSc) is the most frequent subset of systemic sclerosis. Despite this, lcSSc is not the major focus of clinical studies. The lack of interventional studies in lcSSc is due, in part, to a paucity of relevant outcome measures to effectively evaluate this subset. A combined response index dedicated to lcSSc would facilitate development of well-designed trials and approval of new drugs. The objective of this scoping review is to perform a broad and comprehensive identification of the outcome measures (core set items) within relevant domains, which have been used so far to assess lcSSc. Methods and analysis: The planned scoping review will be based on the approach proposed by Arksey et al and further developed by Levac et al. Development and reporting will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses—Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist and guidelines. The development of the search strategy was guided by the concepts of domains and outcomes based on the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology approach and by the different names and definitions of SSc, with a specific emphasis on their occurrence in clinical trial studies. Two databases will be searched: MEDLINE and Embase. Studies in English, published from the year 1988 onwards, will be included, since 1988 corresponds to the publication of LeRoy’s first consensus definition of lcSSc. Data will be extracted and analysed using a standardised charting tool. Ethics and dissemination: No ethical approval is required for this study. The results will be submitted to an international peer-reviewed journal and scientific conferences, informing the discussion on which items should be included in a combined response index dedicated to lcSSc (the CRISTAL project: Combined Response Index for Scleroderma Trial Assessing lcSSc)

Stratification in systemic sclerosis according to autoantibody status versus skin involvement: a study of the prospective EUSTAR cohort

Background: The current subclassification of systemic sclerosis into cutaneous subtypes does not fully capture the heterogeneity of the disease. We aimed to compare the performances of stratification into LeRoy's cutaneous subtypes versus stratification by autoantibody status in systemic sclerosis. Methods: For this cohort study, we assessed people with systemic sclerosis in the multicentre international European Scleroderma Trials and Research (EUSTAR) database. Individuals positive for systemic-sclerosis autoantibodies of two specificities were excluded, and remaining individuals were classified by cutaneous subtype, according to their systemic sclerosis-specific autoantibodies, or both. We assessed the performance of each model to predict overall survival, progression-free survival, disease progression, and different organ involvement. The three models were compared by use of the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic and the net reclassification improvement (NRI). Missing data were imputed. Findings: We assessed the database on July 26, 2019. Of 16 939 patients assessed for eligibility, 10 711 patients were included: 1647 (15·4%) of 10 709 were male, 9062 (84·6%) were female, mean age was 54·4 (SD 13·8) years, and mean disease duration was 7·9 (SD 8·2) years. Information regarding cutaneous subtype was available for 10 176 participants and antibody data were available for 9643 participants. In the prognostic analysis, there was no difference in AUC for overall survival (0·82, 95% CI 0·81-0·84 for cutaneous only vs 0·84, 0·82-0·85 for antibody only vs 0·84, 0·83-0·86 for combined) or for progression-free survival (0·70, 0·69-0·71 vs 0·71, 0·70-0·72 vs 0·71, 0·70-0·72). However, at 4 years the NRI showed substantial improvement for the antibody-only model compared with the cutaneous-only model in prediction of overall survival (0·57, 0·46-0·71 for antibody only vs 0·29, 0·19-0·39 for cutaneous only) and disease progression (0·36, 0·29-0·46 vs 0·21, 0·14-0·28). The antibody-only model did better than the cutaneous-only model in predicting renal crisis (AUC 0·72, 0·70-0·74 for antibody only vs 0·66, 0·64-0·69 for cutaneous only) and lung fibrosis leading to restrictive lung function (AUC 0·76, 0·75-0·77 vs 0·71, 0·70-0·72). The combined model improved the prediction of digital ulcers and elevated systolic pulmonary artery pressure, but did poorly for cardiac involvement. Interpretation: The autoantibody-only model outperforms cutaneous-only subsetting for risk stratifying people with systemic sclerosis in the EUSTAR cohort. Physicians should be aware of these findings at the time of decision making for patient management. Funding: World Scleroderma Foundation

Gastroesophageal reflux disease is associated with a more severe interstitial lung disease in systemic sclerosis in the EUSTAR cohort

Objectives Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is frequent in systemic sclerosis (SSc) and could predict progression of interstitial lung disease (ILD). We aimed to analyse (1) the prevalence of GERD among SSc-ILD patients, (2) its association with disease characteristics and (3) predictive factors for ILD progression in SSc-ILD patients with GERD. Methods SSc patients from the EUSTAR database with ILD were included. GERD was labelled as present if reflux/dysphagia was reported at the baseline visit or before. Disease characteristics of patients with and without GERD were compared at baseline. ILD progression was defined as relative FVC decline ≥10% or relative FVC decline between 5–9% in association with relative DLCO decline of ≥15% over 12 ± 3 months of follow-up. Prognostic factors for ILD progression, overall survival and progression-free survival in SSc-ILD patients with GERD were tested by multivariable Cox regression. Results A total of 5462 SSc-ILD patients were included, 4400 (80.6%) had GERD. Patients with GERD presented more frequently with diffuse cutaneous SSc (OR: 1.44 [1.22–1.69], P < 0.001) and more severe lung involvement with lower FVC (85.8 ± 22.1 vs 90.2 ± 20.1, P < 0.001), lower DLCO (60.8 ± 19.7 vs 65.3 ± 20.6, P < 0.001) and worse performance at the 6-min walking test. Female sex (HR: 1.39 [1.07–1.80], P = 0.012) and older age (HR: 1.02 [1.01–1.03], P < 0.001) independently predicted ILD progression in SSc-ILD patients with GERD. Conclusion SSc-ILD patients with GERD appear to suffer from a more severe SSc disease. In this population, female sex may be considered a risk factor for ILD progression