Bernstein, Elana J.

Objective This study aims to identify factors associated with patient global assessment (PtGA) and physician global assessment (PhGA) and discordance between them in systemic sclerosis (SSc). Methods Data from adults with early SSc (<5 years) from the Collaborative National Quality and Efficacy Registry were included. PtGA and PhGA (0–10 scale), clinical evaluations, and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) were collected every six months. Multivariable mixed‐effects linear regression identified factors associated with PtGA and PhGA using (1) clinical variables and (2) clinical variables plus PROs. Relative weight analysis (RWA) determined the relative importance of each variable. Discordance (≥2 points between PtGA and PhGA) was assessed using multinomial mixed‐effects logistic regression. Results Among 956 patients (83% women, 33% limited disease), mean PtGA and PhGA at enrollment were 4.2 (SD 2.6) and 3.4 (SD 2.0), respectively ( P < 0.001). RWA of clinical variables identified modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class as most influential for both global assessments. After including PROs, PtGA was most influenced by measures of pain, skin symptoms, and physical function. Discordance occurred in 53% of patients (35% PtGA worse, 18% PhGA worse). Worse PtGA was associated with higher overall pain and discomfort. Worse PhGA was associated with higher mRSS, worse NYHA class, higher pain interference, and lower diffusing capacity of the lung. Conclusion Discordance between PtGA and PhGA occurs commonly, highlighting the need for comprehensive symptom management and measurement of disease burden in this complex disease. In SSc, differences in PtGA and PhGA reflect dissimilar weighting of data elements.

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.

Objective Raynaud phenomenon (RP) is often the initial clinical manifestation of systemic sclerosis (SSc), but some patients develop other manifestations first. To help elucidate the diversity of SSc presentation in its early stages, we describe the initial clinical manifestations and antinuclear antibody (ANA) profiles of patients in two early SSc cohorts. Methods All patient data in the Genetics vs Environment in Scleroderma Outcomes Study (GENISOS) and Collaborative National Quality and Efficacy Registry (CONQUER) cohorts were reviewed. Both studies enrolled patients within five years of the first non‐RP symptom. Results In GENISOS and CONQUER, respectively, 194 (44.2%) of 439 and 292 (31.1%) of 938 patients had a non‐RP initial symptom, most commonly puffy fingers/hands. Black patients had a non‐RP symptom before RP more commonly than patients in other race and ethnicity categories. Non‐RP first patients were more likely than RP first patients to have diffuse cutaneous involvement and joint contractures at enrollment and had a higher prevalence of RNA polymerase III antibody positivity. Conclusion In two large US cohorts, >30% of patients began to manifest SSc with puffy fingers/hands or other symptoms, without the “warning sign” of RP as their initial symptom. These patients presented with more severe skin and musculoskeletal disease on average, highlighting the importance of early recognition. The most common autoantibody associated with this presentation was RNA polymerase III. These results should be considered in efforts to recognize SSc in its earliest stages. Puffy fingers/hands, even in the absence of RP, should prompt consideration of early SSc and testing for ANA and SSc‐associated autoantibodies, including RNA polymerase III.

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.