4.7 Article

Scleroderma lung study (SLS): differences in the presentation and course of patients with limited versus diffuse systemic sclerosis

期刊

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 66, 期 12, 页码 1641-1647

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/ard.2007.069518

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [UO1 HL 60682, UO1 HL 60606, UO1 HL 60823, UO1 HL 60748, UO1 HL 60597, UO1 HL 60895, UO1 HL 60550, UO1 HL 60839, UO1 HL 60794, UO1 HL60587, UO1 HL 60750, U01 HL060587, UO1 HL 60587] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Pulmonary fibrosis is a leading cause of death in systemic sclerosis ( SSc). This report examines the differences at baseline and over 12 months between patients with limited versus diffuse cutaneous SSc who participated in the Scleroderma Lung Study. Methods: SSc patients ( 64 limited; 94 diffuse) exhibiting dyspnoea on exertion, restrictive pulmonary function and evidence of alveolitis on bronchoalveolar lavage and/ or high-resolution computed tomography ( HRCT) were randomised to receive cyclophosphamide ( CYC) or placebo and serially evaluated over 12 months. Results: Baseline measures of alveolitis, dyspnoea and pulmonary function were similar in limited and diffuse SSc. However, differences were noted with respect to HRCT-scored fibrosis ( worse in limited SSc), and to functional activity, quality of life, skin and musculoskeletal manifestations ( worse in diffuse SSc) ( p < 0.05). When adjusted for the baseline level of fibrosis, both groups responded similarly to CYC with regard to lung function and dyspnoea ( p < 0.05). Cyclophosphamide was also associated with more improvement in skin score in the diffuse disease group more than in the limited disease group ( p < 0.05). Conclusions: After adjusting for the severity of fibrosis at baseline, CYC slowed the decline of lung volumes and improved dyspnoea equally in the limited and the diffuse SSc groups. On the other hand, diffuse SSc patients responded better than limited patients with respect to improvements in skin thickening.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据