Dashboard

Disease indication · a manifestation of systemic sclerosis

Systemic Sclerosis–Associated Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension

Fourteen approved drugs and one dedicated trial, run in 2000. These patients were a subgroup in everyone else's pivotal, they respond less well than the population those trials were designed around, and what actually improved their survival was a screening algorithm.

Therapeutic goal

Disease-modifying: Delay hospitalisation, clinical deterioration, transplantation and death, judged on an adjudicated composite that accumulates over years rather than a walk test at sixteen weeks. This became the standard in 2013, and it is the reason modern pulmonary hypertension therapy is defensible as more than symptom relief. Patients with this disease were in every one of those trials as a minority subgroup, and did less well in all of them.

Dedicated randomised trials in this population
1

Epoprostenol in the scleroderma spectrum, published in 2000 — a drug requiring a permanent indwelling central line and continuous infusion. Every approval since has come from trials in which these patients were a minority subgroup of a broader pulmonary arterial hypertension population.

high confidence
Three-year survival versus idiopathic disease
≈50% vs ≈70%

Consistently worse across registries on the same treatment. The right ventricle in this disease adapts poorly to a given afterload, and myocardial fibrosis is present in many patients before pulmonary pressures ever rise — so the limiting organ may be the heart rather than the lung vasculature.

moderate confidence
Patients with systemic sclerosis affected
≈8–12%

Strongly associated with anticentromere antibodies and limited cutaneous disease — the serological group least likely to develop lung fibrosis. The two lethal organ manifestations of this disease tend to occur in different patients.

moderate confidence
Response to immunosuppression
None

In lupus and mixed connective tissue disease, pulmonary hypertension frequently responds to immunosuppression. In this disease it does not — a hard negative result that separates a superficially similar group of diseases and constrains what the mechanism here can be.

moderate confidence

One diagnosis, four therapeutic problems

Systemic sclerosis is four therapeutic problems that happen to occur in the same patient, and holding them side by side explains more about this disease than any single page can. Same autoimmunity, same fibroblasts, same person — and one manifestation was solved with a borrowed blood pressure pill, one has fourteen drugs it can borrow, one has two of its own, and one has nothing at all.

Skin and connective tissue

No approved therapy

Progressive thickening and tethering of the skin, and the feature the disease is named and classified by. Rarely the direct cause of death, and the best single predictor of who dies of everything else.

Drugs approved for it
None anywhere, in four decades of randomised trials
Endpoint, and its standing
mRSS — a clinician's fingers at 17 sites. Contested, and it improves without treatment
Share of scleroderma deaths
Not directly fatal, but extent and rate of skin change predict everything that is
Preclinical models
Dermal fibrosis models that resolve on their own, much as early skin disease often does
Open this page

Lungs (interstitium)

Slowed, not stopped

Progressive interstitial fibrosis, present on imaging in most patients and clinically significant in roughly a third. The only manifestation to have produced a drug approval naming this disease.

Drugs approved for it
Two — nintedanib in 2019 and tocilizumab in 2021, both naming this disease
Endpoint, and its standing
FVC decline — a spirometer. Accepted, objective, and insensitive
Share of scleroderma deaths
Roughly a third — the leading single cause since the 1980s
Preclinical models
The same fibrosis models with the injection redirected into the airway, and the same false-positive record
Open this page

Pulmonary arteries

Borrowed, and less effective

Obliterative narrowing of the small pulmonary arteries, raising pressures until the right ventricle fails. Fourteen drugs are available to these patients and were licensed for a category rather than for them.

Drugs approved for it
Fourteen in the parent indication, none naming this disease, one dedicated trial ever run
Endpoint, and its standing
Time to clinical worsening — adjudicated events. Accepted, and the strongest endpoint on any of these pages
Share of scleroderma deaths
Roughly a quarter — second only to lung fibrosis
Preclinical models
Rodent pulmonary hypertension models, sharing nothing with the fibrosis ones but a single transgenic

You are here

Kidneys (renal crisis)

Solved in 1979

Abrupt malignant hypertension with acute kidney failure, once the most feared complication of this disease and almost uniformly fatal within months. It is now largely survivable, and it was solved by accident.

Drugs approved for it
One class — ACE inhibitors, developed for hypertension and never licensed for this
Endpoint, and its standing
Survival and dialysis-free survival. Never tested against placebo, because by then nobody would randomise
Share of scleroderma deaths
Under 5% today, against roughly 40% before 1980
Preclinical models
None were used. The treatment arrived before the mechanism did, and the mechanism is still argued over

No page yet

These may be nearer to separate diseases than the shared name implies, and the autoantibody is the clearest evidence for that. Anti-topoisomerase I predicts lung fibrosis, anti-RNA polymerase III predicts renal crisis and rapid skin thickening, and anticentromere predicts pulmonary hypertension with limited skin involvement. The two manifestations that decide survival largely occur in different patients, and a trial enrolling on the diagnosis mixes them all.

What a trial has to prove

The only page here where the endpoint problem is solved and the disease is still not. There is an accepted functional endpoint, an accepted event-driven endpoint, and an accepted haemodynamic surrogate. What is missing is a trial that enrolled these patients on their own.

Endpoints used in Systemic Sclerosis–Associated Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension trials for the Disease-modifying goal, how each is measured, how long it takes to read, and whether it is accepted as evidence for the claim. Select one for detail.
EndpointTypeRead atStanding
Time to clinical worseningComposite2–3 yearsAccepted
Pulmonary vascular resistanceLaboratory16–24 weeksSurrogate
NT-proBNPLaboratory12–24 weeksSurrogate
DETECT screening algorithmTrial designAnnual, indefinitelyAccepted
Accepted
Regulators accept this as evidence for the claim.
Surrogate
A stand-in for clinical benefit, accepted or under negotiation for accelerated approval — the benefit itself must still be confirmed.
Contested
Used in trials, but not accepted as establishing the claim on its own.
Exploratory
Informative for development — target engagement, enrichment — but never the basis of an approval.
None accepted
No endpoint has ever been accepted as establishing this claim in this disease.

Preclinical model validity

An unusual matrix for this site: the models are poor descriptions of the human lesion and have nonetheless supported fourteen approvals. What they capture well is vasoconstriction, which is what the approved drugs relieve. What they miss is the obliterative remodelling that kills people — and no drug addressed that until 2024.

Validity of Systemic Sclerosis–Associated Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension preclinical models across face, construct, and predictive validity. Predictive validity is shown for the Prevent worsening and death goal.
ModelFaceDoes it look like the disease?ConstructDoes it arise the same way?PredictivePrevent worsening and death
ValidityNoneLowModerateHighNo evidencenever tested — not a low score

Translation ledger

The moment the field grew up is visible in the year column. From 2013 trials stopped reading walk distance and started counting hospitalisations and deaths — and the drugs kept working, which is the strongest validation of a mechanism anywhere on this site.

Interventions that showed benefit in a Systemic Sclerosis–Associated Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension preclinical model, and what happened when they reached the clinic.
InterventionRested onPrimary endpointReachedOutcome
Sotatercept
Acceleron / Merck · Activin signalling inhibitor, rebalancing the BMPR2 and activin pathways to reverse vascular remodelling rather than dilate vessels
SuHxMonocrotalinePatient PASMC/PAEC
Change in pulmonary vascular resistance at 24 weeks
Approved
STELLAR · 2024
Approved
Selexipag
Actelion · Oral selective prostacyclin receptor agonist, chemically distinct from prostacyclin itself
MonocrotalineSuHx
Time to first morbidity or mortality event
Approved
GRIPHON · 2015
Approved
Ambrisentan plus tadalafil, as initial combination
Gilead / GSK · Simultaneous endothelin receptor blockade and PDE5 inhibition from the start of treatment, rather than adding a second drug on failure of the first
MonocrotalineSuHx
Time to first clinical failure event
Approved
AMBITION · 2015
Approved
DETECT screening algorithm
Actelion / academic consortium · Not a therapy. A two-step decision rule identifying which patients to catheterise before symptoms develop
Sensitivity for detecting pulmonary arterial hypertension against right heart catheterisation in every participant
Prospective cohort (n=466)
DETECT · 2014
Benefit, no approval
Macitentan
Actelion · Dual endothelin receptor antagonist with improved tissue penetration over bosentan
MonocrotalineSuHx
Time to first morbidity or mortality event, over a median of two years
Approved
SERAPHIN · 2013
Approved
Cyclophosphamide with glucocorticoids
Academic (French PH network) · Broad immunosuppression, on the hypothesis that the vasculopathy is autoimmune in origin and therefore reversible
Fra-2
Change in haemodynamics and functional class after induction immunosuppression
Observational cohort
French PH network series · 2008
Failed
Endpoint · Composite

Time to clinical worsening

How long a patient goes before dying, being hospitalised for their pulmonary hypertension, or deteriorating in a pre-specified way

AcceptedRead at 2–3 years
Scale
Time-to-event, analysed as a survival curve. Each patient contributes time until their first qualifying event; the comparison is between curves rather than between scores.
How it is administered
No new measurement is performed. A committee blinded to treatment allocation adjudicates every candidate event against pre-specified criteria, drawing on hospital records, functional class assessments, walk tests and treatment changes recorded during routine trial visits.
What it contains
  • Death from any cause
  • Hospitalisation for worsening pulmonary arterial hypertension
  • Initiation of parenteral prostacyclin therapy or lung transplantation
  • Disease progression defined by a fall in walk distance together with worsening functional class
How a score is produced
Time from randomisation to the first adjudicated event is compared between arms. Because events are adjudicated blind and mostly objective, the endpoint is robust to unblinding — and because it accumulates over years, it requires a large trial run long enough for events to occur.
What counts as success
Adopted as the primary endpoint from 2013 and now the expected standard for any new agent. Its arrival separated this field's two eras: everything approved before it rested on a walk test, and everything since has had to show that patients stayed out of hospital and alive.
Why it matters here

The endpoint the Parkinson's page wishes existed and the Crohn's stricture page cannot construct. It is worth noting what made it possible — events here are unambiguous, and a hospitalisation needs no instrument to detect.

Pulido et al., NEJM 2013 (SERAPHIN); Sitbon et al., NEJM 2015 (GRIPHON)high confidence

What the clinic costs

The cheapest per success of the three scleroderma pages, because a programme in pulmonary arterial hypertension is among the likelier ones in medicine to reach approval. That figure describes the parent indication. It has never been earned in this subgroup specifically.

Two years, counting hospitalisations and deaths. The standard since 2013, and the reason a modern programme here costs several times what the walk-distance era cost — the trial has to run long enough for events to happen.

the exposure
the cost

918 patient-years against 231 for a symptomatic programme. Cost grows more slowly than exposure because the fixed enrolment cost of each participant — screening, baseline imaging — is paid once however long they are then followed. The goal, not the molecule, still sets the budget.

Citedenrolment, duration and study counts, from named trials.Assumptionthe two cost parameters below.Computedeverything else.

Clinical programme by phase: enrolment, duration, exposure in patient-years, and modelled cost.
PhaseDesignN × studiesDurationPatient-yearsModelled cost
Phase 1
SAD / MAD, healthy volunteers
Reads: Safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics
Longer than the symptomatic path, because antiremodelling agents are typically biologics with immunogenicity and long-half-life questions rather than small-molecule vasodilators.
Conventional first-in-human design for a biologicmoderate confidence
50
9 mo
38
$1.4M–$2.2M
Phase 2
Dose-ranging with invasive haemodynamics on background therapy
Reads: Change in pulmonary vascular resistance at 24 weeks, on top of established therapy
Placebo-controlled add-on rather than monotherapy, because withholding effective treatment is no longer acceptable. That raises the bar: a new agent must beat a regimen rather than nothing.
PULSAR (Humbert et al., NEJM 2021); STELLAR programme designhigh confidence
180
1 yr
180
$5.8M–$9.5M
Phase 3
One event-driven pivotal, median two years on study, blinded adjudication
Reads: Time to first morbidity or mortality event
Modelled smaller than SERAPHIN and GRIPHON, both of which enrolled 700 to 1,150 across the whole pulmonary arterial hypertension population. A trial restricted to this subgroup would be a fraction of that size — and no sponsor has ever run one, which is the point the page makes.
Pulido et al., NEJM 2013 (SERAPHIN); Sitbon et al., NEJM 2015 (GRIPHON)moderate confidence
350
2 yr
700
$18M–$31M
Total3.8 yr of clinical development, treating phases as sequential918$25M–$43M
AssumptionThe two cost parameters
Fixed, per participant
$12,000–$18,000
Running, per year on study
$20,000–$35,000

Model assumptions, not citations — the only free parameters here. The fixed component covers screening, baseline imaging and randomisation, incurred once per participant; the running component covers visits, monitoring and site fees for each year on study. Splitting them matters: a single rate per patient-year would price short symptomatic trials far below what pivotal trials actually cost.

Calibration: priced this way a single pivotal trial in this programme comes to $4.8M–$7.6M, against published pivotal trial costs of $1233M (median $19M) across all indications. The event-driven pivotal is the expensive part: two years on study rather than four months, which is what separates the post-2013 programmes from the walk-distance approvals that preceded them. Even so a single pivotal lands below the published all-indication median, because enrolment is modest and much of the cost is per-patient rather than per-patient-year. Moore et al., JAMA Internal Medicine 2018.

ComputedRisk-adjusted cost
$169M$284M

Programme cost divided by a 15% likelihood of approval from Phase 1 in pulmonary arterial hypertension — what one success costs once the failures are paid for. BIO / Informa / QLS, Clinical Development Success Rates — cardiovascular sits mid-table, and pulmonary arterial hypertension sits well above it on a record of fourteen approvals across four mechanistic classes.

Read this one carefully: The most heavily caveated number on this site, because it belongs to the parent indication rather than to this page. Programmes in pulmonary arterial hypertension succeed unusually often: the endpoints are accepted, the haemodynamics are measurable, and events accumulate fast enough to power a trial. None of that has ever been demonstrated in this population on its own, where treatment effects are consistently smaller. Read 15% as the odds of approval for a drug these patients will end up taking, not the odds of a drug proven in them.

low confidence
For scale — industry-wide, per approved drug
$985M
Median R&D cost per approval
Wouters et al., JAMA 2020 (capitalised; estimates range $314M–$2.8B)
$2.6B
Capitalised cost per approval
DiMasi et al., J Health Econ 2016

These are portfolio figures spanning all of R&D and already carry the cost of failure, so they are not comparable with the per-programme clinical costs above — they are the order of magnitude those costs roll up into.

What is changing

A first drug aimed at the remodelling rather than the tone, a screening algorithm that did more than any drug, and a trial nobody has run.

A mechanism aimed at the lesion, not the tone

Every drug approved here before 2024 relieves vasoconstriction; the vessels keep closing regardless, which is why patients decline on full triple therapy. The activin inhibitor approved in 2024 is the first agent selected against obliterative remodelling in a model that produces obliterative lesions, and the first to show reversal of that remodelling in patients. Whether it does the same in this disease is unknown for the usual reason: this population was 15% of the trial. The relevant question for the next decade is whether a remodelling agent can help a right ventricle that was already fibrotic before the pressures rose.

Hoeper et al., NEJM 2023 (STELLAR); Humbert et al., NEJM 2021 (PULSAR)

The screening algorithm did more than the drugs

Survival in this manifestation improved substantially over two decades, and the timing tracks the adoption of systematic annual screening at least as well as it tracks any individual approval. Patients found before symptoms start in a better functional class, and functional class at diagnosis is among the strongest predictors of how long they live. That result is uncomfortable for the way this site's other pages are usually read: the highest-return intervention in this disease required no new molecule and no new endpoint, only the decision to look.

Coghlan et al., Ann Rheum Dis 2014 (DETECT); registry survival trend analyses

The trial nobody has run, and why

There has been one dedicated randomised trial in this population, in 2000. The obstacles are real: eight to twelve percent of a rare disease is a very small population, and placebo control is now unethical because effective background therapy exists — any new trial must be an add-on. But subgroup analyses have shown a consistent shortfall for twenty years without anyone establishing whether the cause is the pulmonary vessels, coexisting lung fibrosis, or a heart that fails early because it is already fibrotic. Those three answers imply entirely different drugs, and the evidence to choose between them has never been generated.

Badesch et al., Ann Intern Med 2000; subgroup analyses across PAH pivotal trials

Educational. Validity ratings are a coded reading of the published literature, not a consensus standard. This page covers the pulmonary vascular manifestation of systemic sclerosis; skin fibrosis and interstitial lung disease are treated separately. Approved therapies here are licensed for pulmonary arterial hypertension as a group rather than for this disease specifically, and the distinction is the subject of the page. Not medical, regulatory, or investment advice.