Disease progression in systemic sclerosis-overlap syndrome is significantly different from limited and diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Systemic sclerosis (SSc)-overlap syndromes are a very heterogeneous and remarkable subgroup of SSc-patients, who present at least two connective tissue diseases (CTD) at the same time, usually with a specific autoantibody status. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether patients, classified as overlap syndromes, show a disease course different from patients with limited SSc (lcSSc) or diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc). METHODS: The data of 3240 prospectively included patients, registered in the database of the German Network for Systemic Scleroderma and followed between 2003 and 2013, were analysed. RESULTS: Among 3240 registered patients, 10% were diagnosed as SSc-overlap syndrome. Of these, 82.5% were female. SSc-overlap patients had a mean age of 48±1.2 years and carried significantly more often 'other antibodies' (68.0%; p<0.0001), including anti-U1RNP, -PmScl, -Ro, -La, as well as anti-Jo-1 and -Ku antibodies. These patients developed musculoskeletal involvement earlier and more frequently (62.5%) than patients diagnosed as lcSSc (32.2%) or dcSSc (43.3%) (p<0.0001). The onset of lung fibrosis and heart involvement in SSc-overlap patients was significantly earlier than in patients with lcSSc and occurred later than in patients with dcSSc. Oesophagus, kidney and PH progression was similar to lcSSc patients, whereas dcSSc patients had a significantly earlier onset. CONCLUSIONS: These data support the concept that SSc-overlap syndromes should be regarded as a separate SSc subset, distinct from lcSSc and dcSSc, due to a different progression of the disease, different proportional distribution of specific autoantibodies, and of different organ involvement.

Vasoactive Therapy in Systemic Sclerosis: Real-life Therapeutic Practice in More Than 3000 Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Vasculopathy is a key factor in the pathophysiology of systemic sclerosis (SSc) and the main cause for Raynaud phenomenon (RP), digital ulcers (DU), and/or pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). It is so far unknown how patients with SSc are treated with vasoactive agents in daily practice. To determine to which extent patients with SSc were treated with different vasoactive agents, we used data from the German Network for Systemic Scleroderma registry. METHODS: The data of 3248 patients with SSc were analyzed. RESULTS: Patients were treated with vasoactive drugs in 61.1% of cases (1984/3248). Of these, 47.6% received calcium channel inhibitors, followed by 34.2% treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, 21.1% treated with intravenous (IV) prostanoids, 10.1% with pentoxifylline, 8.8% with angiotensin 1 receptor antagonists (AT1RA), 8.7% with endothelin 1 receptor antagonists (ET1RA), 4.1% with phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors, and 5.3% with others. Patients with RP received vasoactive therapy in 63.3% of cases, with DU in 70.1%, and with PAH in 78.2% of cases. Logistic regression analysis revealed that patients with PAH were significantly more often treated with PDE5 inhibitors and ET1RA, and those with DU with ET1RA and IV prostanoids. In addition, 41.8% of patients were treated with ACE inhibitors and/or AT1RA. Patients registered after 2009 received significantly more often ET1RA, AT1RA, and IV prostanoids compared with patients registered prior to 2005. CONCLUSION: These data clearly indicate that many patients with SSc do not yet receive sufficient vasoactive therapy. Further, in recent years, a marked change of treatment regimens can be observed.

Macular exanthema due to fumaric acid esters.

OBJECTIVE: To report a case of an unusual skin reaction to fumaric acid esters (FAE). CASE SUMMARY: A 68-year-old white woman who was treated with FAE for 4 days for lichen planus developed generalized pruritic exanthema. This was suspected to be an allergic drug reaction to FAE, and the treatment was discontinued. After 48-72 hours, the exanthema resolved completely. An objective causality assessment revealed that the adverse drug event was probable. As skin testing for diagnostic purposes is not feasible with FAE, the drug-related origin of the exanthema was confirmed by oral rechallenge with FAE. DISCUSSION: The effectiveness of FAE in the systemic treatment of psoriasis vulgaris has been proven by controlled clinical trials. The compound has been shown to be tolerable and safe even during prolonged treatment. The most frequent adverse effects are gastrointestinal symptoms and flushing, which typically occur 4-6 hours after administration of the drug. Allergic reactions to FAE have not yet been reported. Since the patient was rechallenged with the suspected drug, we could confirm the allergic origin of the exanthema. CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence of allergic skin reaction should be considered in patients receiving treatment with FAE.