Prevalence of the limited vs. extensive scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease at the time of diagnosis of SSc-ILD based on Goh et al. criteria. Systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Goh et al. proposed in 2008 a classificatory algorithm of limited or extensive SSc-ILD. The prevalence of both at the time of diagnosis of SSc-ILD is not known with exactitude. METHODS: The review was undertaken by means of MEDLINE and SCOPUS from 2008 to 2023 and using the terms: "systemic", "scleroderma" or "interstitial lung disease" [MesH]. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for the qualifying assessment for observational studies and the Jadad scale for clinical trials. The inverse variance-weighted method was performed. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were initially included in the systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA). Of these, 17 studies had no overlapping data. They reported data from 2,149 patients, 1,369 (81.2%) were female. The mean age was 52.4 (SD 6.6) years. 45.2% of the patients had the diffuse subtype and 54.8% had the limited or sine scleroderma subtype. A total of 38.7% of the patients showed positive antitopoisomerase antibodies (ATA) and 14.2% positive anticentromere antibodies (ACA). The mean percentage of forced vital capacity (FVC) at baseline was 80.5% (SD 6.9) and of diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLco) was 59.1% (SD 9.6). Twelve studies presented SSc-ILD extension data adjusted for PFTs and were included in the meta-analysis. The 10 observational cohort studies were analyzed separately. The overall percentage of limited extension was estimated at 63.5% (95%CI 55.3-73; p < 0.001) using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity between studies (I2) was 9.8% (95%CI 0-68.2%) with the random-effects model. Extensive pulmonary involvement was estimated at 34.3% (95%CI 26-45.4; p < 0.001). Heterogeneity between studies (I2) was 0% (95%CI 0-61.6%) with the random-effects model. CONCLUSION: The overall percentage of limited SSc-ILD at the time of diagnosis of SSc-ILD was estimated at 63.5% and extensive at 34.3%.

Methylprednisolone Pulses in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients Without Respiratory Failure: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Corticosteroids are the cornerstone of the treatment of patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital. However, whether corticosteroids can prevent respiratory worsening in hospitalized COVID-19 patients without oxygen requirements is currently unknown. Aims: To assess the efficacy of methylprednisolone pulses (MPP) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with increased levels of inflammatory markers not requiring oxygen at baseline. Methods: Multicenter, parallel, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in Spain. Patients admitted for confirmed SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia with raised inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein >60 mg/L, interleukin-6 >40 pg/ml, or ferritin >1,000 µg/L) but without respiratory failure after the first week of symptom onset were randomized to receive a 3-day course of intravenous MPP (120 mg/day) or placebo. The primary outcome was treatment failure at 14 days, a composite variable including mortality, the need for ICU admission or mechanical ventilation, and clinical worsening, this last parameter defined as a PaO2/FiO2 ratio below 300; or a 15% decrease in the PaO2 from baseline, together with an increase in inflammatory markers or radiological progression. If clinical worsening occurred, patients received tocilizumab and unmasked corticosteroids. The secondary outcomes were 28-day mortality, adverse events, need for ICU admission or high-flow oxygen, length of hospital stay, SARS-CoV-2 clearance, and changes in laboratory parameters. Results: A total of 72 patients were randomized and 71 patients were analyzed (34 in the MPP group and 37 in the placebo group). Twenty patients presented with treatment failure (29.4 in the MPP group vs. 27.0% in the placebo group, p = 0.82), with no differences regarding the time to treatment failure between groups. There were no cases of death or mechanical ventilation requirements at 14 days post-randomization. The secondary outcomes were similar in MPP and placebo groups. Conclusions: A 3-day course of MPP after the first week of disease onset did not prevent respiratory deterioration in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with an inflammatory phenotype who did not require oxygen.

Gender-Based Differences by Age Range in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19: A Spanish Observational Cohort Study.

There is some evidence that male gender could have a negative impact on the prognosis and severity of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The aim of the present study was to compare the characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) between hospitalized men and women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. This multicenter, retrospective, observational study is based on the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. We analyzed the differences between men and women for a wide variety of demographic, clinical, and treatment variables, and the sex distribution of the reported COVID-19 deaths, as well as intensive care unit (ICU) admission by age subgroups. This work analyzed 12,063 patients (56.8% men). The women in our study were older than the men, on average (67.9 vs. 65.7 years; p < 001). Bilateral condensation was more frequent among men than women (31.8% vs. 29.9%; p = 0.007). The men needed non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation more frequently (5.6% vs. 3.6%, p < 0.001, and 7.9% vs. 4.8%, p < 0.001, respectively). The most prevalent complication was acute respiratory distress syndrome, with severe cases in 19.9% of men (p < 0.001). In men, intensive care unit admission was more frequent (10% vs. 6.1%; p < 0.001) and the mortality rate was higher (23.1% vs. 18.9%; p < 0.001). Regarding mortality, the differences by gender were statistically significant in the age groups from 55 years to 89 years of age. A multivariate analysis showed that female sex was significantly and independently associated with a lower risk of mortality in our study. Male sex appears to be related to worse progress in COVID-19 patients and is an independent prognostic factor for mortality. In order to fully understand its prognostic impact, other factors associated with sex must be considered.

The incidence rate of pulmonary arterial hypertension and scleroderma renal crisis in systemic sclerosis patients with digital ulcers on endothelin antagonist receptors (ERAs) and phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i).

INTRODUCTION: Endothelin antagonist receptors (ERAs) and phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i) are beneficial in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and digital ulcers (DU) and prevent from DU recurrences. Our study aimed to determine the difference in the incidence rate of PAH and scleroderma renal crisis (SRC) in patients with SSc and DU (SSc-DU) under ERAs/PDE5i or without treatment. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study including SSc-DU patients from the Spanish Scleroderma Registry (RESCLE). The primary outcome was the incidence rate of PAH and SRC in patients under ERAs/PDE5i or not. RESULTS: Some 544 patients out of 1817 (29.9%) in the RESCLE database had DU, 221 (40.6%) under ERAs/PDE5i and 323 (59.4%) not. The incidence rate (95% CI) difference between patients under treatment or not under did not reach statistical significance in PAH [-0.1 (-4.8, 4.69), P = 0.988] or in SRC [0.7 (-2.2, 3.7), P = 0.620]. However, the time from the first DU to the diagnosis of SRC was delayed in treated patients [mean (s.d.) 7.6 (5.8) years vs 2.9 (5.3); P = 0.021]. The dcSSc subset was more prevalent in the treatment group (36 vs 26%; P = 0.018), along with anti-topoisomerase I antibodies (34 vs 18%; P < 0.001) and tendon friction rubs (12 vs 6%; P = 0.038), whereas the lcSSc subset was more prevalent in the no-treatment group (57 vs 66%; P = 0.031) along with ACA (37 vs 46%; P = 0.031). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in the incidence rate of PAH and SRC between groups. However, treatment with ERAs and/or PDE5i appeared to delay the occurrence of SRC.

Longterm Efficacy and Safety of Monotherapy versus Combination Therapy in Systemic Sclerosis-associated Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: A Retrospective RESCLE Registry Study.

OBJECTIVE: Monotherapy is an option as first-line therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). However, combination therapy is a beneficial alternative. Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy of monotherapy versus combination therapy in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc)-associated PAH. METHODS: All patients with SSc-associated PAH from the Spanish Scleroderma Registry (RESCLE) were reviewed. Patients were split into 3 groups: monotherapy versus sequential combination versus upfront combination therapy. The primary endpoint was death from any cause at 1, 3, and 5 years from PAH diagnosis. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients (4.2%) out of 1817 had SSc-related PAH. Thirty-four patients (45%) were receiving monotherapy [endothelin receptor antagonist (n = 22; 29%) or phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (n = 12; 16%)], 25 (33%) sequential combination, and 17 (22%) upfront combination therapy. A lower forced vital capacity/DLCO in the sequential combination group was reported (2.9 ± 1.1 vs 1.8 ± 0.4 vs 2.3 ± 0.8; p = 0.085) and also a higher mean pulmonary arterial pressure in combination groups (37.2 ± 8.7 mmHg vs 40.8 ± 8.8 vs 46 ± 15.9; p = 0.026) at baseline. Treatment regimen (p = 0.017) and functional class (p = 0.007) were found to be independent predictors of mortality. Sequential combination therapy was found to be an independent protective factor (HR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03-0.51; p = 0.004), while upfront combination therapy showed a trend (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.23-1.97; p = 0.476). Survival from PAH diagnosis among monotherapy, sequential, and upfront combination groups was 78% versus 95.8% versus 94.1% at 1 year, 40.7% versus 81.5% versus 51.8% at 3 years, and 31.6% versus 56.5% versus 34.5% at 5 years (p = 0.007), respectively. Side effects were not significantly different among groups. CONCLUSION: Combination sequential therapy improved survival in our cohort.