Treating skin involvement in diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis: results from an international scleroderma specialist survey

Clicks: 17
ID: 321794
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #2 of 46 articles by views in Rheumatology Advances in Practice

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Objectives To evaluate contemporary global treatment of diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc) skin by SSc specialists. Methods An anonymous survey was distributed via the Scleroderma Clinical Trials Consortium, European Scleroderma Trials and Research Group (EUSTAR), and Collaborative National Quality and Efficacy Registry (CONQUER) distribution lists between June–September 2025. The survey comprised four sections: Demographics, Treatment of dcSSc Skin, Impact of Recent Guidelines, and Clinical Trials. Results Responses included 103 physicians (93 completed): 43% North America, 31% Europe, 15% South America, and 12% elsewhere. The majority practice within an SSc centre (80%) and participate in clinical trials (84%). Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) was preferred first-line treatment (71%) for dcSSc without ILD, rising to 92% for dcSSc with mild/non-progressive ILD. For active skin involvement despite MMF, trial referral was preferred as next step irrespective of ILD (59% without ILD and 58% with ILD). Treatment preferences have evolved, with 40% increasing MMF use and 47% decreasing methotrexate use, over previous 2–3 years. Biologic use has increased, with 56% and 37% reporting increasing rituximab and tocilizumab use, respectively. For dcSSc without ILD, 85% have prescribed rituximab, and 65% have prescribed tocilizumab. Biologic availability has impacted trial enrolment (73% agreement). Treatment decision-making for dcSSc skin involvement has been materially influenced by recent BSR and/or EULAR guidelines (43% agreement). Conclusion MMF is preferred first-line for dcSSc. In absence of compelling scientific justification for combination or step-up immunomodulatory approaches, trial referral is currently the preferred next treatment option. Biologic use is increasing which impacts trial enrolment.
Reference Key
openalex_W7169854914 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Kimberly S. Lakin, Antonia Valenzuela, John D Pauling, Deanna Jannat‐Khah, Kelsey Gripp, Oshmita Golam, Robyn T. Domsic, Robert Spiera, Jessica Gordon
Journal Rheumatology Advances in Practice
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/rap/rkag086
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/rap/rkag086
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.