Search

Objectives While important progress was made regarding the treatment of systemic sclerosis (SSc), there is still no evidence-based disease-modifying treatment available for SSc-related gastrointestinal (GI) manifestations. We aimed to identify an association between immunosuppressive therapy and the the severity of GI symptoms, measured by the University of California at Los Angeles/Scleroderma Clinical Trial Consortium Gastro-Intestinal Tract instrument 2.0 (GIT).Methods We selected patients with SSc who had at least two visits (further referred to as ‘baseline’ and ‘follow-up’) with completed GITs, within an interval of 12±3 months. The study outcome was the GIT score at follow-up. We used multivariable linear regression with the following covariates: immunosuppressive therapy during observation, immunosuppressive therapy before baseline, baseline GIT and several baseline parameters selected by clinical judgement as potentially influencing GI symptoms.Results We included 209 SSc patients (82.3% female, median age 59.0 years, median disease duration 6.0 years, 40 (19.1%) diffuse cutaneous SSc, median baseline GIT 0.19). Of these, 71 were exposed to immunosuppressive therapy during the observation period, and, compared with unexposed patients, had overall more severe SSc and a higher prevalence of treatment with proton pump inhibitors. In multivariable linear regression, immunosuppressive therapy during the period of observation and lower baseline GIT scores were significantly associated with lower (better) GIT scores at follow-up.Conclusion Immunosuppressive treatment was associated with lower GIT scores in our cohort, which suggests the potential effects of immunosuppressants on GI manifestations in patients with SSc, requiring confirmation in prospective randomised clinical trials.

Background Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is the leading cause of death in systemic sclerosis (SSc). According to expert statements, not all SSc-ILD patients require pharmacological therapy.Objectives To describe disease characteristics and disease course in untreated SSc-ILD patients in two well characterised SSc-ILD cohorts.Methods Patients were classified as treated if they had received a potential ILD-modifying drug. ILD progression in untreated patients was defined as (1) decline in forced vital capacity (FVC) from baseline of ≥10% or (2) decline in FVC of 5%–9% associated with a decline in diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO)≥15% over 12±3 months or (3) start of any ILD-modifying treatment or (4) increase in the ILD extent during follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with non-prescription of ILD-modifying treatment at baseline. Prognostic factors for progression in untreated patients were tested by multivariate Cox regression.Results Of 386 SSc-ILD included patients, 287 (74%) were untreated at baseline. Anticentromere antibodies (OR: 6.75 (2.16–21.14), p=0.001), limited extent of ILD (OR: 2.39 (1.19–4.82), p=0.015), longer disease duration (OR: 1.04 (1.00–1.08), p=0.038) and a higher DLCO (OR: 1.02 (1.01–1.04), p=0.005) were independently associated with no ILD-modifying treatment at baseline. Among 234 untreated patients, the 3 year cumulative incidence of progression was 39.9% (32.9–46.2). Diffuse cutaneous SSc and extensive lung fibrosis independently predicted ILD progression in untreated patients.Conclusion As about 40% of untreated patients show ILD progression after 3 years and effective and safe therapies for SSc-ILD are available, our results support a change in clinical practice in selecting patients for treatment.

Abstract Background and objectives The University of California Los Angeles Scleroderma Clinical Trial Consortium Gastrointestinal Tract Instrument 2.0 (UCLA GIT 2.0) is validated to capture gastrointestinal (GI) tract morbidity in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc). The aims of this study were to determine in a large SSc cohort if the UCLA GIT 2.0 is able to discriminate patients for whom a rheumatologist with experience in SSc would recommend an esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (EGD), and if it could identify patients with endoscopically proven esophagitis or with any pathologic finding on EGD. Methods We selected patients fulfilling the ACR/EULAR 2013 criteria for SSc from our EUSTAR center having completed at least once the UCLA GIT 2.0 questionnaire, and we collected data on gastrointestinal symptoms and EGD from their medical charts. We analyzed by general linear mixed effect models several parameters, including UCLA GIT 2.0, considered as potentially associated with the indication of EGD, as well as with endoscopic esophagitis and any pathologic finding on EGD. Results We identified 346 patients (82.7% female, median age 63 years, median disease duration 10 years, 23% diffuse cutaneous SSc) satisfying the inclusion criteria, who completed UCLA GIT 2.0 questionnaires at 940 visits. EGD was recommended at 169 visits. In multivariable analysis, UCLA GIT 2.0 and some of its subscales (reflux, distention/bloating, social functioning) were associated with the indication of EGD. In 177 EGD performed in 145 patients, neither the total ULCA GIT 2.0 score nor any of its subscales were associated with endoscopic esophagitis, nor with any pathologic EGD findings. Conclusions In a real-life setting, the UCLA GIT 2.0 and its reflux subscale were able to discriminate patients with SSc who had an indication for EGD, but did not correlate with findings in EGD. We conclude that, while using the UCLA GIT 2.0 in the routine care of patients with SSc may help the rheumatologist to better understand the burden of GI symptoms in the individual patient, it should not be used as a stand-alone instrument to identify an indication of EGD.

Background The reporting quality in medical research has recently been critically discussed. While reporting guidelines intend to maximize the value from funded research, and initiatives such as the EQUATOR network have been introduced to advance high quality reporting, the uptake of the guidelines by researchers could be improved. The aim of this study was to assess the contribution of a biostatistician to the reporting and methodological quality of health research, and to identify methodological knowledge gaps. Methods In a retrospective, single center, observational cohort study, two groups of publications were compared. The group of exposed publications had an academic biostatistician on the author list, whereas the group of non-exposed publications did not include a biostatistician of the evaluated group. Rating of reporting quality was done in blinded fashion and in duplicate. The primary outcome was a sum score based on six dimensions, ranging between 0 (worst) and 11 (best). The study protocol was reviewed and approved as a registered report. Results There were 131 publications in the exposed group published between 2017 and 2018. Of these, 95 were either RCTs, observational, or prediction / prognostic studies. Corresponding matches in the group of non-exposed publications were identified in a reproducible manner. Comparison of reporting quality overall revealed a 1.60 (95%CI from 0.92 to 2.28, p Conclusion Our study is the first to report an association of a higher reporting quality and methodological strength in health research publications with a biostatistician on the author list. The higher reporting quality persisted through subgroups of study types and dimensions. Methodological knowledge gaps were identified for prediction / prognostic studies, and for reporting on statistical methods in general and missing values, specifically.

BackgroundThe reporting quality in medical research has recently been critically discussed. While reporting guidelines intend to maximize the value from funded research, and initiatives such as the EQUATOR network have been introduced to advance high quality reporting, the uptake of the guidelines by researchers could be improved. The aim of this study was to assess the contribution of a biostatistician to the reporting and methodological quality of health research, and to identify methodological knowledge gaps.MethodsIn a retrospective, single center, observational cohort study, two groups of publications were compared. The group of exposed publications had an academic biostatistician on the author list, whereas the group of non-exposed publications did not include a biostatistician of the evaluated group. Rating of reporting quality was done in blinded fashion and in duplicate. The primary outcome was a sum score based on six dimensions, ranging between 0 (worst) and 11 (best). The study protocol was reviewed and approved as a registered report.ResultsThere were 131 publications in the exposed group published between 2017 and 2018. Of these, 95 were either RCTs, observational, or prediction / prognostic studies. Corresponding matches in the group of non-exposed publications were identified in a reproducible manner. Comparison of reporting quality overall revealed a 1.60 (95%CI from 0.92 to 2.28, p ConclusionOur study is the first to report an association of a higher reporting quality and methodological strength in health research publications with a biostatistician on the author list. The higher reporting quality persisted through subgroups of study types and dimensions. Methodological knowledge gaps were identified for prediction / prognostic studies, and for reporting on statistical methods in general and missing values, specifically.

OBJECTIVES: Systemic sclerosis is a chronic autoimmune connective tissue disease leading to microvascular and fibrotic manifestations in multiple organs. Several treatment options and recommendations from different European countries are available. In this study, for which the ambit is Switzerland specifically, we aim to describe the treatment patterns of systemic sclerosis patients with fibrotic manifestations. METHODS: Systemic sclerosis patients were selected from six Swiss tertiary centres recorded in the multicentre, prospective European Scleroderma Trials and Research (EUSTAR) registry. Patients fulfilling the 2013 ACR/EULAR systemic sclerosis classification criteria at baseline were included. To determine the differences in treatment of varying degrees of fibrosis, four groups were identified: (1) patients with a modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) >0; (2) those with mRSS ≥7; (3) those with interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD), diagnosed by either chest X-Ray or high-resolution computed tomography; and (4) patients fulfilling one of the additional criteria for extensive interstitial lung disease, defined as interstitial lung disease involvement of >20% in high-resolution computed tomography, dyspnea NYHA-stage 3/4, or a predicted forced vital capacity (FVC) of 0, of whom 195 (33.1%) had mRSS ≥7; interstitial lung disease was diagnosed in 198 of 456 (43.4%), of whom 106 (18.0 %) showed extensive interstitial lung disease. Regarding non-biologic disease-modifying medications (DMARDs), the most frequently prescribed was methotrexate, followed by hydroxychloroquine and mycophenolate mofetil. Rituximab and tocilizumab were most frequently used among the biologic DMARDs. Specifically, 148/372 (39.8%) of treated patients with skin fibrosis received methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil or rituximab, and 80/177 (45.2%) with interstitial lung disease received cyclophosphamide, mycophenolate mofetil, tocilizumab or rituximab. Most patients received a proton-pump inhibitor, and few patients underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. CONCLUSION: Overall, in Switzerland, a wide range of medications is prescribed for systemic sclerosis patients. This includes modern, targeted treatments for which randomised controlled clinical trial have been recently reported.