↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Cyclophosphamide for connective tissue disease-associated interstitial lung disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
35 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
279 Mendeley
Title
Cyclophosphamide for connective tissue disease-associated interstitial lung disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010908.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hayley Barnes, Anne E Holland, Glen P Westall, Nicole SL Goh, Ian N Glaspole

Abstract

Approximately one-third of individuals with interstitial lung disease (ILD) have associated connective tissue disease (CTD). The connective tissue disorders most commonly associated with ILD include scleroderma/systemic sclerosis (SSc), rheumatoid arthritis, polymyositis/dermatomyositis, and Sjögren's syndrome. Although many people with CTD-ILD do not develop progressive lung disease, a significant proportion do progress, leading to reduced physical function, decreased quality of life, and death. ILD is now the major cause of death amongst individuals with systemic sclerosis.Cyclophosphamide is a highly potent immunosuppressant that has demonstrated efficacy in inducing and maintaining remission in autoimmune and inflammatory illnesses. However this comes with potential toxicities, including nausea, haemorrhagic cystitis, bladder cancer, bone marrow suppression, increased risk of opportunistic infections, and haematological and solid organ malignancies.Decision-making in the treatment of individuals with CTD-ILD is difficult; the clinician needs to identify those who will develop progressive disease, and to weigh up the balance between a high level of need for therapy in a severely unwell patient population against the potential for adverse effects from highly toxic therapy, for which only relatively limited data on efficacy can be found. Similarly, it is not clear whether histological subtype, disease duration, or disease extent can be used to predict treatment responsiveness. To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of cyclophosphamide in the treatment of individuals with CTD-ILD. We performed searches on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science up to May 2017. We handsearched review articles, clinical trial registries, and reference lists of retrieved articles. We included randomised controlled parallel-group trials that compared cyclophosphamide in any form, used individually or concomitantly with other immunomodulating therapies, versus non-cyclophosphamide-containing therapies for at least six months, with follow-up of at least 12 months from the start of treatment. We imported studies identified by the search into a reference manager database. We retrieved the full-text versions of relevant studies, and two review authors independently extracted data. Primary outcomes were change in lung function (change in forced vital capacity (FVC) % predicted and diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) % predicted), adverse events, and health-related quality of life measures. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, dyspnoea, cough, and functional exercise testing. When appropriate, we performed meta-analyses and subgroup analyses by severity of lung function, connective tissue disease diagnosis, and radiological pattern of fibrosis. We assessed the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and created 'Summary of findings' tables. We included in the analysis four trials with 495 participants (most with systemic sclerosis). We formed two separate comparisons: cyclophosphamide versus placebo (two trials, 195 participants) and cyclophosphamide versus mycophenolate (two trials, 300 participants). We found evidence to be of low quality, as dropout rates were high in the intervention groups, and as we noted a wide confidence interval around the effect with small differences, which affected the precision of results.The data demonstrates significant improvement in lung function with cyclophosphamide compared with placebo (post-treatment FVC % mean difference (MD) 2.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 4.87; P = 0.006) but no significant difference in post-treatment DLCO (% MD -1.68, 95% CI -4.37 to 1.02; P = 0.22; two trials, 182 participants).Risk of adverse effects was increased in the cyclophosphamide treatment groups compared with the placebo groups, in particular, haematuria, leukopenia, and nausea, leading to a higher rate of withdrawal from cyclophosphamide treatment. The data demonstrates statistically significant improvement in one-measure of quality of life in one trial favouring cyclophosphamide over placebo and clinically and statistically significant improvement in breathlessness in one trial favouring cyclophosphamide compared with placebo, with no significant impact on mortality.Trialists reported no significant impact on lung function when cyclophosphamide was used compared with mycophenolate at 12 months (FVC % MD -0.82, 95% CI -3.95 to 2.31; P = 0.61; two trials, 149 participants; DLCO % MD -1.41, 95% CI -10.40 to 7.58; P = 0.76; two trials, 149 participants).Risk of side effects was increased with cyclophosphamide versus mycophenolate, in particular, leukopenia and thrombocytopenia.The data demonstrates no significant impact on health-related quality of life, all-cause mortality, dyspnoea, or cough severity in the cyclophosphamide group compared with the mycophenolate group. No trials reported outcomes associated with functional exercise tests.We performed subgroup analysis to determine whether severity of lung function, connective tissue disease diagnosis, or radiological pattern had any impact on outcomes. One trial reported that cyclophosphamide protected against decreased FVC in individuals with worse fibrosis scores, and also showed that cyclophosphamide may be more effective in those with worse lung function. No association could be made between connective tissue disease diagnosis and outcomes. This review, which is based on studies of varying methodological quality, demonstrates that overall, in this population, small benefit may be derived from the use of cyclophosphamide in terms of mean difference in % FVC when compared with placebo, but not of the difference in % DLCO, or when compared with mycophenolate. Modest clinical improvement in dyspnoea may be noted with the use of cyclophosphamide. Clinical practice guidelines should advise clinicians to consider individual patient characteristics and to expect only modest benefit at best in preserving FVC. Clinicians should carefully monitor for adverse effects during treatment and in the years thereafter.Further studies are required to examine the use of cyclophosphamide; they should be adequately powered to compare outcomes within different subgroups, specifically, stratified for extent of pulmonary infiltrates on high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) and skin involvement in SSc. Studies on other forms of connective tissue disease are needed. Researchers may consider comparing cyclophosphamide (a potent immunosuppressant) versus antifibrotic agents, or comparing both versus placebo, in particular, for those with evidence of rapidly progressive fibrotic disease, who may benefit the most.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 279 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 278 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 39 14%
Student > Master 39 14%
Student > Bachelor 29 10%
Other 25 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 8%
Other 53 19%
Unknown 71 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 117 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 3%
Social Sciences 6 2%
Engineering 5 2%
Other 28 10%
Unknown 86 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 November 2018.
All research outputs
#1,076,891
of 17,366,233 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,815
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,582
of 415,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#69
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,366,233 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 415,892 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 208 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.