Mycophenolate in Patients with Systemic Sclerosis-associated Interstitial Lung Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Derrick Herman,Marya Ghazipura,Hayley Barnes,Madalina Macrea,Shandra L Knight,Richard M Silver,Sydney B Montesi,Ganesh Raghu,Tanzib Hossain
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202301-054OC
Abstract:Rationale: The American Thoracic Society convened an international, multidisciplinary panel to develop clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of systemic sclerosis-associated interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD). Objective: To conduct a systematic review and evaluate the literature to determine whether patients with SSc-ILD should be treated with mycophenolate. Methods: A literature search was conducted across the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases through June 2022 for studies using mycophenolate to treat patients with SSc-ILD. Mortality, disease progression, quality of life, and adverse event data were extracted, and meta-analyses were performed when possible. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group method was used to assess the quality of evidence. Results: The literature review resulted in seven studies fitting the inclusion criteria. The systematic review and meta-analyses revealed changes in forced vital capacity % predicted (mean difference [MD], 5.4%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 3.3%, 7.5%), diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide % predicted (MD, 4.64%; 95% CI: 0.54%, 8.74%), and breathlessness score (MD, 1.99; 95% CI: 0.36, 3.62) favored mycophenolate over placebo. The risk of anemia (relative risk [RR], 2.3; 95% CI: 1.2, 71.4) was higher with mycophenolate. There were no significant differences between mycophenolate and cyclophosphamide, except risk of premature discontinuation (RR, 0.6; 95% CI: 0.4, 0.9), and leukopenia (RR, 0.1; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.4) favored mycophenolate. The quality of evidence was moderate to very low per GRADE. Conclusions: Mycophenolate use in patients with SSc-ILD is associated with statistically significant improvements in disease progression and quality-of-life measures compared with placebo. There were no differences in mortality, disease progression, or quality of life compared with cyclophosphamide, but there were fewer adverse events. The quality of evidence is very low.