Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31111363›Full record

Observational studyClinical rheumatology2020

Use of vasoactive/vasodilating drugs for systemic sclerosis (SSc)-related digital ulcers (DUs) in expert tertiary centres: results from the analysis of the observational real-life DeSScipher study.

Jelena Blagojevic, G Abignano, J Avouac, L Cometi, M Frerix, S Bellando-Randone, S Guiducci, C Bruni, D Huscher, V K Jaeger and 17 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Clinical rheumatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. PDGF/PDGFR: A Possible Molecular Target in Scleroderma Fibrosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

27 authors at 11 institutions in 6 countries.

Jelena BlagojevicDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Department of Geriatric Medicine, Division of Rheumatology and Scleroderma Unit AOUC, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. jelena308@hotmail.com.
G AbignanoRheumatology Institute of Lucania (IReL), Rheumatology Department of Lucania, San Carlo Hospital of Potenza and Madonna delle Grazie Hospital of Matera, Potenza, Italy.
J AvouacDepartment of Rheumatology, University of Paris Descartes, Paris, France.
L CometiDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Department of Geriatric Medicine, Division of Rheumatology and Scleroderma Unit AOUC, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
M FrerixDepartment of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Kerckhoff Klinik GmbH, Campus of the Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Bad Nauheim, Germany.
S Bellando-RandoneDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Department of Geriatric Medicine, Division of Rheumatology and Scleroderma Unit AOUC, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
S GuiducciDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Department of Geriatric Medicine, Division of Rheumatology and Scleroderma Unit AOUC, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
C BruniDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Department of Geriatric Medicine, Division of Rheumatology and Scleroderma Unit AOUC, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
D HuscherInstitute of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universitaet Berlin, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
V K JaegerDepartment of Rheumatology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
V LórándDepartment of Rheumatology and Immunology, University of Pécs, Pecs, Hungary.
B MaurerDepartment of Rheumatology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
S NihtyanovaDepartment of Rheumatology, University College London, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.
G RiemekastenClinic of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, University of Lübeck, Lubeck, Germany.
E SiegertDepartment of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité - Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universitaet Berlin, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
I H TarnerDepartment of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Kerckhoff Klinik GmbH, Campus of the Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Bad Nauheim, Germany.
S VettoriRheumatology Section, Department of Precision Medicine, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
U A WalkerDepartment of Rheumatology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
L CzirjákDepartment of Rheumatology and Immunology, University of Pécs, Pecs, Hungary.
C P DentonDepartment of Rheumatology, University College London, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.
O DistlerDepartment of Rheumatology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Y AllanoreDepartment of Rheumatology, University of Paris Descartes, Paris, France.
U Müller-LadnerDepartment of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Kerckhoff Klinik GmbH, Campus of the Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Bad Nauheim, Germany.
A Moggi-PignoneDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Department of Emergency, Division of Medicine IV AOUC, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
M Matucci-CerinicDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Department of Geriatric Medicine, Division of Rheumatology and Scleroderma Unit AOUC, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
F Del GaldoNIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
EUSTAR co-workers
Délégation Paris 5 · FRJustus-Liebig-Universität Gießen · DEThe Royal Free Hospital · GBUniversity of Basel · CHUniversity of Florence · ITUniversity of Leeds · GBCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEHumboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DEOspedale Madonna Delle Grazie · ITUniversity Hospital of Zurich · CHUniversity of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" · IT

Funding

Department of Health CDF-2014-07-051European Community's Framework Programme 7 305495
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDeSScipher is the first European multicentre study on management of systemic sclerosis (SSc), and its observational trial 1 (OT1) evaluated the efficacy of different drugs for digital ulcer (DU) prevention and healing. The aim of this study was to assess current use of vasoactive/vasodilating agents for SSc-related DU in the expert centres by analysing the baseline data of the DeSScipher OT1.

methodBaseline characteristics of patients enrolled in the OT1 and data regarding DU were analysed.

resultsThe most commonly used drugs, in both patients with and without DU, were calcium channel blockers (CCBs) (71.6%), followed by intravenous iloprost (20.8%), endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs) (20.4%) and phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE-5) inhibitors (16.5%). Of patients, 32.6% with DU and 12.8% without DU received two drugs (p < 0.001), while 11.5% with DU and 1.9% without DU were treated with a combination of three or more agents (p < 0.001). Sixty-five percent of the patients with recurrent DU were treated with bosentan and/or sildenafil. However, 64 out of 277 patients with current DU (23.1%) and 101 (23.6%) patients with recurrent DU were on CCBs alone.

conclusionsOur study shows that CCBs are still the most commonly used agents for DU management in SSc. The proportion of patients on combination therapy was low, even in patients with recurrent DU: almost one out of four patients with current and recurrent DU was on CCBs alone. Prospective analysis is planned to investigate the efficacy of different drugs/drug combinations on DU healing and prevention. Key Points • The analysis of DeSScipher, the first European multicentre study on management of SSc, has shown that the most commonly used vasoactive/vasodilating drugs for DU were CCBs, followed by intravenous Iloprost, ERAs and PDE-5 inhibitors. • More than half of the patients with recurrent DU received bosentan and/or sildenafil. • However, the proportion of patients on combination therapy of more than one vasoactive/vasodilating drug was low and almost one out of four patients with current and recurrent DU was on CCBs alone.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBosentanDrug Therapy, CombinationEuropeFemaleFingersHumansIloprostMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesScleroderma, SystemicSildenafil CitrateSkin UlcerTreatment OutcomeBosentanIloprostSildenafil CitrateVasodilator AgentsDigital ulcerManagementSystemic sclerosis

Identifiers

PMID31111363
OpenAlexW2946509311

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.