Domsic, Robyn T

Objective Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) can stabilize or improve lung function in systemic sclerosis–related interstitial lung disease (SSc‐ILD). We hypothesized that combining MMF with pirfenidone (PFD) would produce a significantly more rapid and/or greater improvement in lung function. Methods A randomized (1:1), double‐blind, placebo (PLA)‐controlled phase 2 trial was conducted in SSc‐ILD in which patients received PFD or PLA (801 mg three times daily) along with MMF (1,500 mg twice daily) for 18 months. The primary outcome was change in percent predicted forced vital capacity (FVC‐%). Linear mixed‐effects models assessed treatment differences in a modified intention‐to‐treat population. Results Only fifty‐one of 150 intended subjects (34%) were randomized (MMF+PLA, n = 24; MMF+PFD, n = 27). The FVC‐% improved from baseline to 18 months by 2.24 ± 1.35 (least‐squares mean [LSM] ± SEM) in the MMF+PLA group and 2.09 ± 1.28 in the MMF+PFD group (LSM treatment difference −0.14; P = 0.93). Median time to achieve a ≥3% improvement in FVC‐% was numerically faster in the MMF+PFD versus MMF+PLA group (12.3 vs 17.8 months, respectively), but the difference was not significant ( P = 0.33). For secondary outcomes, only the change over 18 months in the Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 29‐item physical function score, favoring MMF+PFD, reached statistical significance ( P = 0.04). Although other related patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) numerically favored the MMF+PFD group, as did quantitative high‐resolution computed tomography measures of ILD, the differences between groups did not reach statistical significance. Early withdrawals from study medication and adverse events of special interest were numerically greater with MMF+PFD (n = 8 vs 2 and n = 20 vs 7, respectively). Conclusion In this underpowered study, there was no statistically significant treatment difference in overall change in FVC‐% between groups. MMF+PFD was not as well tolerated as MMF+PLA.

Abstract Objectives To determine the efficacy, safety and pharmacodynamics of belumosudil in patients with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc) treated with background immunosuppressive therapies. Methods Eligible patients were randomised 1:1:1 to receive belumosudil 200 mg once daily (QD) or twice daily (BID), or placebo for 28 weeks (double-blind period). After unblinding, the patients who received belumosudil continued the same dose, whereas the patients who received placebo were re-randomised for one of the belumosudil doses for 24 weeks (open-label extension). Results Thirty-five and 31 patients were treated in the double-blind and open-label periods, respectively. The study was terminated prematurely, and target enrolment was not met. The primary end point, of CRISS score ≥0.60 at week 24, did not exhibit an efficacy signal in the belumosudil vs placebo groups [odds ratio: 1.06 (0.19–5.82; P = 0.9472) for the QD, and 0.39 (0.07–2.35; P = 0.3078) for the BID group]. Belumosudil was well tolerated and exhibited similar safety profiles in both double-blind and open-label periods. Tissue-based RNA sequencing analysis revealed FOXP3 upregulation and STAT3, IL23A and TGF-β downregulation in patients with CRISS score ≥0.60, which supported the mechanism of action of belumosudil. In blood and tissue samples, trends of decreased fibrosis biomarker levels were seen in the belumosudil-treated group vs placebo. Conclusion Efficacy signal for belumosudil could not be detected. Signalling pathway modulation analysis supported the mechanism of action of belumosudil. A trend for decreased fibrosis-related biomarkers was observed in the belumosudil-treated group. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03919799.

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding the treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in adults with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions. A systematic literature review was then performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A panel of clinicians and patients reached consensus on the direction and strength of the recommendations. Results Thirty‐five recommendations were generated (including two strong recommendations) for first‐line SARD‐ILD treatment, treatment of SARD‐ILD progression despite first‐line ILD therapy, and treatment of rapidly progressive ILD. The strong recommendations were against using glucocorticoids in systemic sclerosis–ILD as a first‐line ILD therapy and after ILD progression. Otherwise, glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended for first‐line ILD treatment in all other SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the treatment of ILD in people with SARDs.

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding the treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in adults with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions. A systematic literature review was then performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A panel of clinicians and patients reached consensus on the direction and strength of the recommendations. Results Thirty‐five recommendations were generated (including two strong recommendations) for first‐line SARD‐ILD treatment, treatment of SARD‐ILD progression despite first‐line ILD therapy, and treatment of rapidly progressive ILD. The strong recommendations were against using glucocorticoids in systemic sclerosis–ILD as a first‐line ILD therapy and after ILD progression. Otherwise, glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended for first‐line ILD treatment in all other SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the treatment of ILD in people with SARDs.

ObjectiveWe provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding screening for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the monitoring for ILD progression in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), specifically rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue disease, and Sjögren disease.MethodsWe developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions related to screening and monitoring for ILD in patients with SARDs. A systematic literature review was performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A Voting Panel of interdisciplinary clinician experts and patients achieved consensus on the direction and strength of each recommendation.ResultsFifteen recommendations were developed. For screening people with these SARDs at risk for ILD, we conditionally recommend pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high‐resolution computed tomography of the chest (HRCT chest); conditionally recommend against screening with 6‐minute walk test distance (6MWD), chest radiography, ambulatory desaturation testing, or bronchoscopy; and strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy. We conditionally recommend monitoring ILD with PFTs, HRCT chest, and ambulatory desaturation testing and conditionally recommend against monitoring with 6MWD, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy. We provide guidance on ILD risk factors and suggestions on frequency of testing to evaluate for the development of ILD in people with SARDs.ConclusionThis clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the screening and monitoring of ILD in people with SARDs.

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding screening for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the monitoring for ILD progression in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), specifically rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue disease, and Sjögren disease. Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions related to screening and monitoring for ILD in patients with SARDs. A systematic literature review was performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A Voting Panel of interdisciplinary clinician experts and patients achieved consensus on the direction and strength of each recommendation. Results Fifteen recommendations were developed. For screening people with these SARDs at risk for ILD, we conditionally recommend pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high‐resolution computed tomography of the chest (HRCT chest); conditionally recommend against screening with 6‐minute walk test distance (6MWD), chest radiography, ambulatory desaturation testing, or bronchoscopy; and strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy. We conditionally recommend monitoring ILD with PFTs, HRCT chest, and ambulatory desaturation testing and conditionally recommend against monitoring with 6MWD, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy. We provide guidance on ILD risk factors and suggestions on frequency of testing to evaluate for the development of ILD in people with SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the screening and monitoring of ILD in people with SARDs.

Abstract Objectives To establish a framework by which experts define disease subsets in systemic sclerosis associated interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD). Methods A conceptual framework for subclinical, clinical and progressive ILD was provided to 83 experts, asking them to use the framework and classify actual SSc-ILD patients. Each patient profile was designed to be classified by at least four experts in terms of severity and risk of progression at baseline; progression was based on 1-year follow-up data. A consensus was reached if ≥75% of experts agreed. Experts provided information on which items were important in determining classification. Results Forty-four experts (53%) completed the survey. Consensus was achieved on the dimensions of severity (75%, 60 of 80 profiles), risk of progression (71%, 57 of 80 profiles) and progressive ILD (60%, 24 of 40 profiles). For profiles achieving consensus, most were classified as clinical ILD (92%), low risk (54%) and stable (71%). Severity and disease progression overlapped in terms of framework items that were most influential in classifying patients (forced vital capacity, extent of lung involvement on high resolution chest CT [HRCT]); risk of progression was influenced primarily by disease duration. Conclusions Using our proposed conceptual framework, international experts were able to achieve a consensus on classifying SSc-ILD patients along the dimensions of disease severity, risk of progression and progression over time. Experts rely on similar items when classifying disease severity and progression: a combination of spirometry and gas exchange and quantitative HRCT.