Search

The aim was to update the 2009 European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the treatment of systemic sclerosis (SSc), with attention to new therapeutic questions. Update of the previous treatment recommendations was performed according to EULAR standard operating procedures. The task force consisted of 32 SSc clinical experts from Europe and the USA, 2 patients nominated by the pan-European patient association for SSc (Federation of European Scleroderma Associations (FESCA)), a clinical epidemiologist and 2 research fellows. All centres from the EULAR Scleroderma Trials and Research group were invited to submit and select clinical questions concerning SSc treatment using a Delphi approach. Accordingly, 46 clinical questions addressing 26 different interventions were selected for systematic literature review. The new recommendations were based on the available evidence and developed in a consensus meeting with clinical experts and patients. The procedure resulted in 16 recommendations being developed (instead of 14 in 2009) that address treatment of several SSc-related organ complications: Raynaud's phenomenon (RP), digital ulcers (DUs), pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), skin and lung disease, scleroderma renal crisis and gastrointestinal involvement. Compared with the 2009 recommendations, the 2016 recommendations include phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE-5) inhibitors for the treatment of SSc-related RP and DUs, riociguat, new aspects for endothelin receptor antagonists, prostacyclin analogues and PDE-5 inhibitors for SSc-related PAH. New recommendations regarding the use of fluoxetine for SSc-related RP and haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for selected patients with rapidly progressive SSc were also added. In addition, several comments regarding other treatments addressed in clinical questions and suggestions for the SSc research agenda were formulated. These updated data-derived and consensus-derived recommendations will help rheumatologists to manage patients with SSc in an evidence-based way. These recommendations also give directions for future clinical research in SSc., Competing Interests: Competing interests: OK-B: consultancies or speakers bureau: AbbVie, Actelion, Bayer, Inventiva, Pfizer, Roche; JA: grant/research support from BMS, Pfizer, Roche/Chugai, Sanofi-Aventis, Actelion; MB: consultant for Actelion; YA: consultant for: Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Actelion, Pfizer, Inventiva, Medac, Servier, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi-Aventis, CSL Behring, Roche; OD: consultant for: 4D Science, Actelion, Active Biotec, Bayer-Schering, Biogen, Biovitrium, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma, EpiPharm, Ergonex, GSK, Inventiva, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi/Genzyme, Serodapharm, Sinoxa and United BioSource Corporation; MC: Mundipharm, Actelion, BMS, Horizon, Pfizer, Biogen, Celltrion, Cellgene; LC: consultant for Actelion and Pfizer; CPD: consulting fees from Roche, Actelion, GSK, Bayer Pharmaceuticals; IF: constultant: Bayer, Roche/Chugai; MF: Actelion; DEF: grant/research support from AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, BMS, NIH, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech and consultancy with AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, BMS, Cytori, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech; NH: lecture fees from Actelion, Bayer, Roche; DK: consultancy with Actelion, BMS, Bayer, Covis, Cytori, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, Sanofi-Aventis and grant from NIH/NIAID, NIH/NIAMS, Bayer and BMS; ALH: consultant/speaker/research funding: Actelion, consultant: Apricus; JMvL: honoraria from MSD, BMS, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Roche; GR: lecturers fees from Bayer, Pfizer, Novartis, Actelion, GSK, BMS and research grants from Actelion; RS: consultant for: Entelligence Program, supported by Actelion; inPractice Rheumatology, grant support: BMS, Bayer; AS: research grant from Actelion; IT: Actelion; UM-L: grant/research support from: EULAR grant, consultant for: Actelion, GSK, Bayer, Medac, Roche/Chugai., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Purpose: The optimal treatment of systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a challenge because the pathogenesis of SSc is unclear and it is an uncommon and clinically heterogeneous disease affecting multiple organ systems. The aim of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Scleroderma Trials and Research group (EUSTAR) was to develop evidence-based, consensus-derived recommendations for the treatment of SSc., Methods: To obtain and maintain a high level of intrinsic quality and comparability of this approach, EULAR standard operating procedures were followed. The task force comprised 18 SSc experts from Europe, the USA and Japan, two SSc patients and three fellows for literature research. The preliminary set of research questions concerning SSc treatment was provided by 74 EUSTAR centres., Results: Based on discussion of the clinical research evidence from published literature, and combining this with current expert opinion and clinical experience, 14 recommendations for the treatment of SSc were formulated. The final set includes the following recommendations: three on SSc-related digital vasculopathy (Raynaud's phenomenon and ulcers); four on SSc-related pulmonary arterial hypertension; three on SSc-related gastrointestinal involvement; two on scleroderma renal crisis; one on SSc-related interstitial lung disease and one on skin involvement. Experts also formulated several questions for a future research agenda., Conclusions: Evidence-based, consensus-derived recommendations are useful for rheumatologists to help guide treatment for patients with SSc. These recommendations may also help to define directions for future clinical research in SSc.

Objective: To describe methods and procedures used for the development of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/EULAR Scleroderma Trial and Research group (EUSTAR) recommendations for the treatment of systemic sclerosis. In particular, the results of a web-based Delphi exercise aimed at selection of research questions and evidence from systematic literature research, as parts of the development of these recommendations, are presented in detail., Methods: In agreement with the EULAR standard operating procedures a Task Force was created that consisted of the EUSTAR board members, 10 systemic sclerosis (SSc) experts invited from outside the EUSTAR board and representing Europe, the USA and Japan, a clinical epidemiologist, 2 patients with SSc and 3 fellows for literature research. All EUSTAR centres were invited to contribute to the development of recommendations through submission and preliminary selection of the research questions. The systematic literature research was performed using the Pubmed, Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. Retrieved trials were evaluated according to the Jadad classification, and the level of evidence was graded from 1 to 4. Outcome data for efficacy and adverse events were abstracted and effect size, number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) were calculated when appropriate., Results: In all, 65 EUSTAR Centres provided 304 research questions concerning SSc treatment. These questions were aggregated, subdivided into 19 treatment categories and then subjected to preliminary selection by a web-based Delphi technique. The final set of 26 research questions was created by the Expert Committee based on the results of the Delphi exercise and the expert's experience., Conclusions: This paper is a comprehensive summary of the methods we used to build recommendations for the drug treatment of systemic sclerosis, combining an evidence based approach and expert opinion.

Objective: To estimate minimally important differences (MIDs) in scores for the modified Rodnan Skin Score (mRSS) and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) in a clinical trial on diffuse systemic sclerosis (SSc)., Participants and Methods: 134 people participated in a 2-year, double-blind, randomised clinical trial comparing efficacy of low-dose and high-dose D-penicillamine in diffuse SSc. At 6, 12, 18 and 24 months, the investigator was asked to rate the change in the patient's health since entering the study: markedly worsened, moderately worsened, slightly worsened, unchanged, slightly improved, moderately improved or markedly improved. Patients who were rated as slightly improved were defined as the minimally changed subgroup and compared with patients rated as moderately or markedly improved., Results: The MID estimates for the mRSS improvement ranged from 3.2 to 5.3 (0.40-0.66 effect size) and for the HAQ-DI from 0.10 to 0.14 (0.15-0.21 effect size). Patients who were rated to improve more than slightly were found to improve by 6.9-14.2 (0.86-1.77 effect size) on the mRSS and 0.21-0.55 (0.32-0.83 effect size) on the HAQ-DI score., Conclusion: MID estimates are provided for improvement in the mRSS and HAQ-DI scores, which can help in interpreting clinical trials on patients with SSc and be used for sample size calculation for future clinical trials on diffuse SSc.

Background: Anticentromere antibodies are characteristically observed in scleroderma but have recently been reported in other autoimmune rheumatic disorders, including Sjögren's syndrome. It is not known whether distinct centromere proteins (CENP) are targeted in primary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS) and scleroderma., Objective: To determine whether antibodies to CENP-B and CENP-C are present in these two disorders., Methods: Sera from 45 patients with pSS and 33 with limited scleroderma were studied. All patients met classification criteria for pSS and scleroderma, respectively. Sera were used to immunoprecipitate in vitro translated CENP-B and CENP-C. The proportions recognising CENP-B or CENP-C were compared., Results: 10 of 45 patients (22%) with pSS and 18 of 33 (55%) with scleroderma had antibodies recognising CENPs (p = 0.004). Seven of 10 (70%) CENP positive patients with pSS recognised CENP-C alone, compared with one of 18 (6%) CENP positive patients with scleroderma (odds ratio (OR) = 40 (95% confidence interval (CI), 3.5 to 450) (p = 0.003). In contrast, the majority (15 of 18 (83%)) of CENP positive scleroderma sera recognised both CENP-B and CENP-C, compared with none of 10 pSS sera (OR = 93 (95% CI, 4.4 to 1979) (p = 0.0001)., Conclusions: The pattern of CENP recognition differs markedly in pSS and limited scleroderma. While patients with pSS predominantly recognise CENP-C alone, dual recognition of CENP-B and CENP-C is most frequent in scleroderma. These findings suggest that obtaining antibodies to specific centromere antigens is useful diagnostically, and imply that distinct mechanisms underlie the unique patterns of centromere autoreactivity in pSS and scleroderma.