Presentation on theme: "Interstitial lung disease in systemic sclerosis Athol Wells Royal Brompton Hospital London, UK."— Presentation transcript:
Interstitial lung disease in systemic sclerosis Athol Wells Royal Brompton Hospital London, UK
Cardiopulmonary manifestations are serious complications of SSc Cardiopulmonary manifestations are the commonest causes of death in SSc 2 27% of SSc-related deaths result from PAH 2 25% of SSc-related deaths result from ILD 2 Heart Lung Heart & lung 1.Ferri C, et al. Medicine (Baltimore) 2002; 81: Steen V. Scleroderma Care Res 2006; 3: *Kidney, cancer, miscellaneous Other* Causes of death in 1012 SSc patients 1
Underlying mechanism of pulmonary fibrosis Primary sites of injury and repair are regions of fibroblastic proliferation 1 Epithelial cells produce pro-fibrotic factors, which may initiate fibrosis 2 Endothelial damage has also been implicated as a possible co-factor 1.Kuhn C 3rd, et al. Am Rev Respir Dis 1989; 140: Selman M, et al. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134:
Symptoms of SSc-ILD Include dyspnoea on exertion, non- productive cough and inspiratory crackles Prognosis linked to disease extent Early detection important for best management
Ground-glass opacification (%) IPFSScNSIP CT findings in SSc closely idiopathic NSIP but not IPF Desai SR, et al. Radiology 2004; 232:560-7.
NSIP or SSc lung UIP
Diagnosis of SSc-ILD CT shows reticular opacities, ground- glass opacity with little honeycombing Pulmonary function tests: restrictive impairment, reduced diffusing capacity for CO, arterial hypoxaemia on exercise Lung biopsy not warranted Selman M, et al. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134: Bouros D, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 165:
Biopsy findings in SSc (n=80) NSIP n=62 (78%) - cellular NSIP, n=15 - fibrotic NSIP, n=47 UIP n = 6 “End-stage lung” n = 6 RBILD n = 4 Others n = 2 Bouros D et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;165:1581-6
The key clinical dilemma We need to treat major pulmonary inflammation and progressive fibrosis. But we need to avoid unnecessary treatment in inherently stable disease. How do we decide? A trend towards routine screening for pulmonary fibrosis in CTD has made this a frequent issue.
Sometimes the answer is obvious Intensive treatment vs MICO therapy
“Indolent/stable disease” MICO: Masterful Inactivity with Cat-like Observation The role of the doctor is to amuse the patient while nature takes its course Voltaire
Sometimes the answer is anything but obvious
Clinical needs Decisions are dichotomous: treat or not, enrol in treatment trial or not We need definition of high and low risk disease We need “Group A and Group B”. We need to STAGE lung disease in the CTD
Who should be treated? Shorter duration of systemic disease: studies of Steen Observed progression: not quantified More severe disease ………
The definition of “alveolitis” Traditional view that treatment applies to patients with “alveolitis” HRCT “alveolitis” has been defined BAL “alveolitis” has been defined
“An alveolitis on BAL” A neutrophilia or granulocytosis on BAL had predicted decline in four studies
The BAL dilemma: severity or intrinsic progressiveness? Severe disease is more likely to progress Does BAL simply reflect severity? If so, HRCT and PFT are more user-friendly! Does BAL disclose progressiveness, independently of disease severity?
Neutrophilia in 70/148 cases (47%) HR = 2.41 [1.24, 4.56] Effect confined to two year mortality on adjustment for severity Goh NS. Arthritis Rheum 2007; 56:
Other outcome analyses BAL neutrophil levels were not predictive of the rapidity of decline in FVC or DLco BAL lymphocyte and eosinophil content were not linked to any measure of outcome Goh NS. Arthritis Rheum 2007; 56:
Strange C. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2008; 177:91-98 A complementary statement The study of Goh: long term follow-up but uncontrolled, variable treatment The placebo-controlled SLS oral cyclophosphamide study: one year of follow-up BAL neutrophil content did not predict progression in the placebo arm
In both the Goh and the Strange studies, BAL neutrophil content correlated with disease extent on HRCT This fits nicely with old data
Wells A. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1994; 150:
BAL neutrophil content largely reflects severity It does not reliably separate SSc patients into high and low risk groups Other CTDs less studied
Alveolitis on HRCT The problem of ground-glass ….
This is the archetypal SSc HRCT Lots of ground-glass … but only 15% of SSc patients have reversible histology
When is ground-glass less likely to be inflammatory?
Admixed reticular abnormalities matter
NSIP Gr 1 (cellular) Traction bronchiectasis matters
NSIP Gr 3 (fibrotic)
Sometimes you are fairly sure that disease is irreversible…..
Often, some ground-glass is clearly fibrotic but some may be inflammatory HRCT is only a rough guide
Ground-glass on HRCT is NOT synonymous with inflammation The phrase “alveolitis on CT” should be banned
Staging by severity: SSc – what is needed Simple, user-friendly system Accurate depiction of high and low risk in moderately experienced hands Conceptually easy
Limited Duration of follow-up (months) Extensive Survival (%) Disease extent determines mortality Goh NS. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008; 177: UKRSA staging
Duration of follow-up (months) Progression-free survival (%) Limited Extensive Disease extent determines rapidity of progression Goh NS. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008; 177: UK/RSA staging
HRCT extent <20%>20%Indeterminate Mild Disease FVC >70% FVC <70% Extensive Disease Goh NS, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med Mar 27; [Epub]
The scleroderma lung study (SLS) Multi-centred, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial Investigated the effects of oral cyclophosphamide on lung function and health-related symptoms in patients with active alveolitis and SSc-ILD 145 patients completed at least 6 months of treatment Tashkin DP, et al. N Engl J Med 2006; 354:
The Scleroderma Lung Study Cyclophosphamide vs placebo Forced vital capacity (FVC) % of predicted* Cyclophosphamide n = 73 Placebo n = 72 Baseline value (mean ± SE) 67.6± ±1.5 Value at 12 months (mean ± SE) 66.6± ±1.6 Difference (mean ± SE) −1.0±0.92−2.6±0.9 p-value p <0.05 after adjustment for baseline values in favour of cyclophosphamide *Primary endpoint Tashkin DP, et al. N Engl J Med 2006; 354:
Limited support for a cyclophosphamide treatment effect in a subsequent placebo-controlled study of IV cyclophosphamide with low dose prednisolone and subsequent azathioprine Hoyles RK, et al. Arthritis Rheum 2006; 54:
Cyclophosphamide in SSc-ILD In view of the results from two high quality RCTs and despite its known toxicity, cyclophosphamide should be considered for treatment of SSc-related interstitial lung disease Treatment effect may be understated because of selction bias in placebo-controlled studies, leading to preferential enrolment of patients with indolent disease Kowal-Bielecka O, et al. EULAR Wells AU, Latsi P, McCune WJ (Editorial). Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2007; 176:952-3
For the future Accurate identification of patients at high risk of progressive lung disease Safe and effective therapy for ILD