ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
Review

Recent advances in managing systemic sclerosis

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved]
PUBLISHED 30 Jan 2017
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

How the main components in systemic sclerosis—namely autoimmunity, vasculopathy, and fibrosis—fit together is still not sufficiently clear. However, vascular treatment options are well established, the body of evidence for the efficacy of immunomodulatory approaches is increasing, and now at least one hopeful substance that may directly interfere with fibrosis is being tested. Although we still wait for important breakthroughs, there is grounds for hope that better therapeutic options will be available in the near future.

Keywords

systemic sclerosis, scleroderma, SSc, ACE inhibitors, phosphodiesterase 5 blockers

Most rheumatologists would agree that systemic sclerosis (SSc) still can be a dreadful disease and that the advances we see in other areas have not yet arrived. Therapies for SSc found effective in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are still sparse, and the effect size of these drugs was often quite limited. Nevertheless, significantly advanced by Marco Matucci-Cerinic’s founding of EUSTAR, the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Scleroderma Trials And Research group1, a huge effort has been under way for more than ten years now. Indeed, the last few years have started to change at least the outlook. We still have to wait for the real breakthroughs, but there is hope.

In part, limited progress is caused by not comprehensively understanding the disease2,3. SSc always has a vascular aspect, resulting in a vasculopathy that is clearly distinguishable from vasculitis and that, at least in the beginning, is immunologically mediated. One of the consequences is (late-onset) Raynaud’s syndrome4, which commonly is an early sign of SSc. Vasculopathy underlies pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and scleroderma renal crisis. Via hypoxia and cytokines such as transforming growth factor beta5, vasculopathy also is one reason for the fibrotic changes in the disease. In diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc), fibrosis is also induced by direct immune system effects on fibroblasts6, and clear inflammatory changes are found in SSc skin and lungs. How these three fit together is not yet sufficiently clear.

However, it has become much more obvious that the growing group of SSc-specific autoantibodies tested in clinical routine are associated with distinct clinical manifestations. In the 2013 American College of Rheumatology/EULAR classification criteria7, it is the autoantibodies against centromeres, topoisomerase I, and RNA polymerase III that the system relies on in addition to vascular changes and puffy fingers or sclerodactyly. These leading autoantibodies also predict SSc classification8 and differentiate typical clinical pictures that include organ manifestation and prognosis9,10. Unfortunately, they do not usually disappear under current therapeutic approaches, including autologous stem cell transplantation11, suggesting that SSc treatment is suboptimal even in the most drastic regimens used today. Another aspect, which has been brought forward, is that at least anti-RNA polymerase III antibodies may also herald paraneoplastic SSc, and older age at onset, mostly more than 50 years, and less pronounced Raynaud’s also weigh in 12. There is accumulating, albeit still circumstantial, evidence that these autoantibodies cannot be reduced to a bystander phenomenon, even if a direct pathogenetic role has yet to be defined.

In addition, autoantibodies against endothelial receptors have been found in the sera of many patients with SSc and are associated with worse outcome13,14. This is well in line with the major vascular symptoms of patients with SSc, ranging from severe Raynaud’s to PAH and renal crisis. These antibodies are not part of the routine work-up today, and the extent of their influence and the influence of potential other autoantibodies that target endothelial cells will have to be determined. Nevertheless, the story is intriguing.

On the probable effector side of these antibodies, nailfold capillary microscopy is now a well-established tool to evaluate capillary damage15. Indeed, changes over time have been demonstrated. The presence of later stages of capillary damage is a predictor of severe vascular complications, such as SSc digital ulcers. However, there is still need for reliable microvascular outcome parameters, which would allow early therapeutic effects to be differentiated. Capillary microscopy is helpful in recognizing early disease4. However, in a small cohort study, megacapillaries in the absence of SSc-specific autoantibodies were not associated with fulfilling SSc classification criteria in the near future8.

Today’s established therapeutic approaches that are based on clinical facts work either on the vascular side or on the inflammatory side. Anti-fibrotic drugs have not yet been shown to work for SSc if one does not see methotrexate as a partially anti-fibrotic agent. However, at least one putatively anti-fibrotic substance, nintedanib, is being tested for SSc interstitial lung disease (see below).

On the vascular side, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors have greatly improved the outcome of SSc renal crisis. However, this still constitutes a dramatic situation with a high rate of death and renal failure16,17. Two RCTs showed bosentan to be effective for preventing SSc digital ulcers but failed to show effects in healing18. This endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA) treats PAH also in patients with SSc, prolonging survival, as do other ERAs not tested for digital ulcers19. However, macitentan, which is approved for PAH, failed to show efficacy for SSc digital ulcers20.

Limited evidence suggests that iloprost may improve ulcer healing18. In addition, there is increasing evidence of a positive effect of phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE5) blockers, such as sildenafil and tadalafil18. Tadalafil had been found to be effective for both ulcer healing and prophylaxis in a small controlled cross-over trial21. Sildenafil failed to meet its primary endpoint in the French SEDUCE trial; time to healing showed only a trend (P = 0.18) toward sildenafil benefit. Significant results in secondary analyses of these data, such as the number of ulcers at 8 (P = 0.01) and 12 (P = 0.03) weeks, still suggest a real influence22, which may take slightly more time than expected.

These drugs also work in PAH, including SSc PAH, alone and in combinations19. Their efficacy in PAH has been known for several years, and only the oral selective prostacyclin receptor agonist selexipag constitutes a novel approach23. However, three of the novel large PAH trials—namely GRIPHON23, SERAPHIN24, and AMBITION25—have clearly shown the value of oral PAH combination therapy, with selexipag plus PDE5 blockers or ERAs or both, the ERA macitentan plus PDE5 inhibitors, and the ERA ambrisentan plus the PDE5 inhibitor tadalafil, respectively. The last of these were also used in early combination in a successful open-label trial in SSc-associated PAH26.

On the inflammatory side, ten years ago, the Scleroderma Lung Study had shown that cyclophosphamide had a limited but significant effect on the deterioration of SSc interstitial lung disease27. As with other diseases, such as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)28 or anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitides29, stopping immunosuppression after cyclophosphamide apparently is not a successful concept. In fact, after cyclophosphamide in the treatment arm was stopped, the differences between the two arms were lost rapidly30. At least, cohort data now suggest that the effect of a cyclophosphamide regimen on SSc interstitial lung disease can be stabilized by azathioprine31. With a somewhat unusual intravenous cyclophosphamide protocol, in which a total dose of 10 g was administered in weekly 500 mg infusions, 23% had improved and an additional 38% had stable forced vital capacity (FVC) with stable diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO). Of these 24 patients, all but three (13%) remained at least stable under azathioprine (2 mg/kg every day). In a comparable approach, 20 French patients received 12 g cyclophosphamide (in monthly bolus infusions) followed by mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). After cyclophosphamide, 35% had improved and an additional 50% stabilized under cyclophosphamide, but lung function declined in a few additional patients under MMF, resulting in 70% improved or stable after cyclophosphamide and 6 months of MMF32. These data are also supported by Australian cohort data on 29 patients under azathioprine and 22 under MMF, three quarters of whom had received cyclophosphamide before, suggesting stabilization (or improvement) for the majority of patients33.

In the hope of further improving outcome in early dcSSc by a more aggressive approach, the ASTIS (Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation International Scleroderma) trial has compared autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) with cyclophosphamide34. ASTIS indeed found improved longer-term outcomes for ASCT but at the price of considerable (10%) procedure-related early mortality. In contrast to SLE, in which ASCT commonly leads to the disappearance of autoantibodies35, SSc autoantibodies typically persist, as already mentioned above, and Raynaud’s also typically remains a problem.

On the other side, with the idea to reduce the risk for adverse events, the Scleroderma Lung Study 2 compared one year of oral cyclophosphamide with two years of MMF in doses of up to 3 g every day in patients with SSc interstitial lung disease36. As compared with deteriorating lung function in the placebo arm in the Scleroderma Lung Study 127, lung function improved both in the cyclophosphamide and the MMF arm in the Scleroderma Lung Study 2. There was no significant difference between the treatment arms, but more patients died and more patients left the study in the cyclophosphamide group. Accordingly, MMF may be an appropriate option for induction therapy.

In case of cyclophosphamide failure, MMF may not be sufficient for stabilizing interstitial lung disease: in the above-mentioned Italian cohort study31, only four of 12 patients refractory to cyclophosphamide at least stabilized and none improved. However, a small Turkish cohort had somewhat more favorable results; the majority of patients with cyclophosphamide-refractory interstitial lung disease at least stabilized under MMF37. For the B cell-depleting anti-CD20 antibody rituximab, there is at least some evidence that it may work for SSc interstitial lung disease if cyclophosphamide has failed38, and an antibody against the CD19 B cell receptor showed indications of efficacy in a phase I trial39.

Excitingly, two entirely novel approaches are currently being tested in large RCTs. One is interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor blockade with tocilizumab, for which an n = 87 phase II RCT has been published, and another, larger one is ongoing. IL-6 has been shown to be highly expressed in SSc skin, and tocilizumab showed a trend toward improving both skin and lung involvement. The phase II faSScinate trial has not met its primary endpoint, a difference in improvement in skin thickening as per modified Rodnan’s skin score (mRSS), despite a trend (P = 0.09) in this direction40. From 26 ± 5.9 and 26 ± 7.2 at randomization, mRSS improved to 21.8 ± 9.9 and 23.2 ± 9.3 by week 24 for tocilizumab and placebo, respectively, and to 19.6 ± 10.1 and 22.3 ± 8.1 by week 48. Higher percentages of patients under tocilizumab had stabilization of their interstitial lung disease at 24 weeks (P = 0.009) and 48 weeks (P = 0.037). Provided that the ongoing RCT confirms this improvement, tocilizumab may well become the first SSc biological.

On the other hand, there is an ongoing RCT with a mostly anti-fibrotic approach: Nintedanib, which has shown stabilization and survival benefits for patients with idiopathic lung fibrosis4143, is hoped to show similar benefit for SSc interstitial lung disease. Although nintedanib acts downstream of receptors for pro-fibrotic cytokines, including the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), fibroblast growth factor (FGF), and platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) receptors, this drug could also influence inflammatory cytokine signaling44. If it works, it will be interesting to focus on the molecular pathways leading there.

There is clear progress in the management of SSc. The diagnostic and classification tools are improved. In addition to the evidence on bosentan and iloprost, there is now some evidence that PDE5 inhibitors have beneficial effects on SSc digital ulcers. Cyclophosphamide followed by either azathioprine or MMF is apparently able to stabilize interstitial lung disease. MMF has emerged as an alternative option for induction therapy. Though associated with significant procedure-related mortality, ASCT further improves survival in severe early dcSSc. Two novel approaches—the IL-6 receptor blocker tocilizumab and nintedanib—are in phase III clinical trials, both of which are based on a rather robust rationale, and if all goes well, we may have new drugs for SSc soon.

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 30 Jan 2017
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
- -
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Aringer M and Erler A. Recent advances in managing systemic sclerosis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2017, 6(F1000 Faculty Rev):88 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.10022.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 30 Jan 2017
Views
0
Cite
Reviewer Report 30 Jan 2017
Gabriele Valentini, Department of Rheumatology, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy 
Approved
VIEWS 0
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Valentini G. Reviewer Report For: Recent advances in managing systemic sclerosis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2017, 6(F1000 Faculty Rev):88 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.10798.r19345)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Views
0
Cite
Reviewer Report 30 Jan 2017
Christopher Denton, Centre for Rheumatology, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK 
Approved
VIEWS 0
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Denton C. Reviewer Report For: Recent advances in managing systemic sclerosis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2017, 6(F1000 Faculty Rev):88 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.10798.r19346)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 30 Jan 2017
Comment
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Sign In
If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

Email address not valid, please try again

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

Code not correct, please try again
Email us for further assistance.
Server error, please try again.