Treatment Algorithms for Systemic Sclerosis According to Experts.

Objective: There is a lack of agreement regarding treatment for many aspects of systemic sclerosis (SSc). We undertook this study to generate SSc treatment algorithms endorsed by a high percentage of SSc experts. Methods: Experts from the Scleroderma Clinical Trials Consortium and the Canadian Scleroderma Research group (n = 170) were asked whether they agreed with SSc algorithms from 2012. Two consensus rounds refined agreement; 62, 54, and 48 experts (36%, 32%, and 28%, respectively) completed the first, second, and third surveys, respectively. Results: For treatment of scleroderma renal crisis, 81% of experts agreed (first‐, second‐, and third‐line treatments were angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors, then adding calcium‐channel blockers [CCBs], then adding angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs], respectively). For pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), 81% of experts agreed (for mild PAH, treatments were phosphodiesterase 5 [PDE5] inhibitors, then endothelin receptor antagonists plus PDE5 inhibitors, then prostanoids, respectively; for severe PAH, prostanoids were first‐line treatment). For mild Raynaud's phenomenon (RP), 79% of experts agreed (treatments were CCBs, then adding PDE5 inhibitors, then ARBs or switching to another CCB, respectively; after the third line of treatment, mild RP was deemed severe). For severe RP, the first‐ through fourth‐line treatments were CCBs, then adding PDE5 inhibitors or prostanoids, then adding PDE5 inhibitors (if not added as second‐line treatment) or prostanoids (if not added as second‐line treatment), then switching to another CCB, respectively. For active treatment of digital ulcers, 66% of experts agreed (first‐ and second‐line treatments were CCBs and PDE5 inhibitors, respectively). For interstitial lung disease, 69% of experts agreed (for induction therapy, treatments were mycophenolate mofetil [MMF], intravenous cyclophosphamide [IV CYC], and rituximab, respectively; for maintenance, first‐line treatment was MMF). For skin involvement, 71% of experts agreed (for a modified Rodnan skin thickness score [MRSS] of 24, first‐ and second‐line treatments were methotrexate [MTX] and MMF, respectively; for an MRSS of 32, first‐ through fourth‐line treatments were MMF, MTX, IV CYC, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, respectively). For inflammatory arthritis, 79% of experts agreed (first‐ through fourth‐line treatments were MTX, low‐dose glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine, and rituximab or tocilizumab, respectively). Algorithms for cardiac and gastrointestinal involvement had ≥75% agreement. Conclusion: Total agreement for SSc algorithms was considerable. These algorithms may guide treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]