Pharmacological treatment for connective tissue disease-associated interstitial lung involvement: Protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is the most important pulmonary manifestation of connective tissue diseases (CTDs) since it is associated with high morbidity and mortality. However, there is uncertainty on what constitutes the optimal treatment options from a variety of competing interventions. The aim of the overview is to summarize existing evidence of the effectiveness and harm of pharmacological therapies for adults with CTD-ILD.
METHODS: A literature search will be conducted in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Health Technology Assessment database, Epistemonikos.org, KSR Evidence, and PROSPERO. We will search for systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis that examine pharmacological treatment for CTD-ILD. Updated supplemental search will also be undertaken to identify additional randomized controlled trials. The primary outcomes will be changes in lung function measures and adverse events. The methodological quality of the included reviews will be assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool. The overall quality of the evidence will be evaluated using the GRADE rating. Summarized outcome data extracted from systematic reviews will be described in narrative form or in tables. For each meta-analysis we will estimate the summary effect size by use of random-effects and fixed-effects models with 95% confidence intervals, the between-study heterogeneity expressed by I², and the 95% prediction interval. If feasible, given sufficient data, network meta-analysis will be conducted to combine direct and indirect evidence of class and agent comparisons. DISCUSSION: While many factors are crucial in selecting an appropriate treatment for patients with CTD-ILD, evidence for the efficacy and safety of a drug is essential in guiding this decision. Thus, this overview will aid clinicians in balancing the risks versus benefits of the available therapies by providing high-quality evidence to support informed decision-making and may contribute to future guideline development. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: MedRxiv: DOI 10.1101/2022.01.25.22269807 PROSPERO: CRD42022303180.

Introduction

Rationale

Connective tissue diseases (CTDs) encompass several autoimmune disorders including systemic sclerosis (SSc), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the inflammatory myopathies, primary Sjogren’s syndrome (SS), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD) which can affect any component of the respiratory tract, causing a diverse range of manifestations [1]. Interstitial lung disease (ILD) characterized by inflammation or fibrosis of the pulmonary parenchyma appears to be the most important presentation as it is often progressive and associated with high morbidity and mortality [1, 2]. Consequently, early diagnosis and therapeutic intervention are essential to help prevent worsening of symptoms and decline in pulmonary function. Still, treatment of CTD-associated ILD is a subject of intense debate [3-5] and management of such patients remains difficult despite the rapidly evolving treatment landscape [2, 4, 5]. For many years, immunosuppressive agents were considered the most appropriate drug class for treatment initiation [2, 4, 5]. Yet recently the tyrosine kinase inhibitor nintedanib became the first drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the treatment of SSc-ILD [6, 7]. In March 2021, the FDA also approved tocilizumab, an anti-IL-6 receptor humanized monoclonal antibody that blocks IL-6 signaling, for the same indication [8]. Nevertheless, evidence-based guidance on what drug class or individual agent would be optimal as a first-line preference, how to deal with situations in which only weak evidence supports one drug versus another and how to switch to alternate treatment options especially in patients with progressive fibrosing ILDs remains inconclusive [9-13]. The conflicting treatment algorithms [9-13] reflect the variability in management approaches for patients with CTD-ILDs across rheumatologists [14, 15]. In routine clinical practice, physicians must balance a high level of need for treatment in a complex patient group with a potentially progressive disease phenotype against the possibility for adverse events from toxic therapies.

Numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment modalities of CTD-related ILD have been published [16-27]. However, there has been no effort to summarize or synthesize the findings of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Further, safety outcomes have not been adequately studied, the comparative effectiveness of treatments remains uncertain, and there is no clear evidence of relative superiority across the different drug classes or the specific agents [16-27]. Overviews integrating information from systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow a higher-level synthesis of the evidence and better appreciation of the uncertainties and biases [28, 29]. We therefore plan to conduct the first overview to provide a wider picture on the pharmacological management options for CTD-ILDs that need to be considered and weighed.

Objective

The objective of this overview is to summarize systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis that assess the effectiveness and harms of pharmacological interventions in patients with CTD-associated ILD. If feasible given sufficient data, network meta-analysis will be conducted to combine direct and indirect evidence of class and agent comparisons with the aim of providing a comprehensive evidence base to inform treatment decisions.

Methods

Study design

This protocol conforms to PRISMA-P recommendations [30] (S1 Checklist) and was developed in accordance with current guidelines [31-33]. The reporting of this overview of systematic reviews will be guided by the standards of the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Systematic Reviews including harms checklist (PRIO-harms) [34]. PRISMA extension statement (for the reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses [NMA]) will also be followed, if appropriate [35]. The eligibility criteria for this overview are presented in the PICOS format (Table 1).

Table 1

Summary of eligibility criteria for this overview.

	Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria
Participants	Adults ≥ 18 years of age with CTD-associated ILD
Interventions	Any pharmacological treatment	Non-pharmacological treatments or invasive procedures; nonhuman studies
Comparators	Another active comparator or placebo
Outcomes
Primary	Changes in FVC% and DLCO % predicted
	Number of patients with adverse events (any adverse events, with severe adverse events, with serious adverse events, and with fatal adverse events)
	Number of patients discontinuing treatment due to adverse events
Secondary	Survival and mortality (all-cause)
	Dyspnea Index
	Exercise tolerance (6-min walk distance)
	Health-related quality of life
	Change in quantitative HRCT scores
Study design	Systematic reviews (without quantitative synthesis) and meta-analyses including RCTs or observational studies; network meta-analyses	Narrative reviews; expert opinions; clinical practice guidelines
	RCTs not included in the eligible systematic reviews or meta-analyses

Abbreviations: CTD: connective tissue disease; DLCO: diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide; FVC: forced vital capacity; HRCT: high-resolution computed tomography; ILD: interstitial lung disease; RCTs: randomized controlled trials

Eligibility criteria

Population

Inclusion criteria. We will include systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and/or observational studies of any duration that assess the efficacy or harm of any pharmacological treatment (Tables 1 and 2) in adults (≥ 18 years) with CTD-ILDs. We will consider systematic reviews that recruited patients diagnosed with CTDs mostly associated with ILD. Specifically, systematic reviews on SSc, RA, SS, SLE, MCTD, and the inflammatory myopathies (polymyositis or dermatomyositis) will be eligible for inclusion and only if they used standardized criteria for the definition of the specific CTD as also for the diagnosis of ILDs. A detailed description of the design of eligible publications is provided below in the “Study designs” section.

Table 2

Intervention classes and individual treatments.

Class	Individual treatments
DMARDs*/immunosuppressive therapies	Mycophenolate, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, tacrolimus, methotrexate, leflunomide, corticosteroids, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine, gold/auranofin, ciclosporin, D-penicillamine, tacrolimus, tofacitinib, pomalidomide, iv immunoglobulin
Biologic DMARDs**	Tocilizumab, rituximab, abatacept, belimumab, anti-TNF agents [adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, golimumab, certolizumab pegol], CAT-192, inebilizumab
Tyrosine kinase inhibitors/antifibrotic agents	Nintedanib, imatinib mesylate, dasatinib, pirfenidone, SAR100842
Other pharmacological treatments	Bosentan, riocigulat, dabigatran

Abbreviations: DMARDs: disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs; iv: intravenous

*either conventional or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

**including biosimilars

Exclusion criteria. Systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis of patients with ILDs in the context of ≥ 1 clinical or serological CTD features without meeting diagnostic criteria or those that included subjects with ILD related to other immune-mediated disorders will not be considered as eligible. Systematic reviews assessing non-pharmacological treatments or invasive procedures, and nonhuman studies will also be excluded.

Interventions

A list describing the active agents that have been evaluated for CTD-ILDs is presented in Table 2. We will include publications regardless of whether pharmacological treatment was administered as monotherapy or in combination. Medications may be fixed or flexibly dosed. We will consider any mode of administration.

Classification of interventions. Tested pharmacological treatments have been grouped into four intervention classes (Table 2) based primarily on their mechanisms of action [2, 4, 36, 37]. These classes include disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs)/immunosuppressive therapies, biologic DMARDs, tyrosine kinase inhibitors/antifibrotic agents, and other pharmacological treatments. The last category consists of agents that cannot be incorporated elsewhere based on their molecular targets. This classification is in accordance with previously proposed categories of individual treatments investigated across clinical distinct CTDs [4, 23, 38, 39]. Nevertheless, the impact of individual therapies in CTD-ILD seems to be more complex and not solely limited to targeted immunomodulatory or profibrotic pathways [36, 37, 40]. This is especially true for certain tyrosine kinase inhibitors which have shown inconsistent results in the treatment of ILDs despite having partially overlapping inhibition profiles [41]. Hence, the treatment categories may not necessarily reflect the clinically relevant effects of the individual drugs. If NMA will be considered feasible given sufficient data, then grouping individual therapies into meaningful classes is expected to maximize statistical power. In this case, we plan to use the appropriate random-effects NMA model [31, 42] as described in the “Data synthesis and analysis” section.

Some investigational drugs which are being evaluated in ongoing trials [36, 37, 40] may have not been integrated in the four categories since the eligible studies for this overview is expected to focus largely on published articles. Therefore, we plan to update the included reviews by searches for additional primary studies, as described in the “Study designs” section.

Comparator

A different active comparator or placebo.

Outcomes

Studies that include the following outcomes will be considered:

Primary outcomes.

Efficacy (continuous outcome expressed as mean ± standard deviation [SD])

Changes from baseline in forced vital capacity (FVC) and diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) as percentages of the predicted value.

Safety

The proportion of participants with at least one adverse event (any adverse events, with severe adverse events, with serious adverse events, and with fatal adverse events).

Safety

The proportion of participants discontinuing treatment due to adverse events.

We intend to categorize adverse events according to the classification outlined in the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) coding (https://www.meddra.org/) and previous studies [43]. If data will be inadequately reported according to this categorization, then the primary investigators will be conducted to obtain the missing results. In case of no response, we will rely on the summarized information provided in the eligible systematic reviews.

Secondary outcomes.

Efficacy (dichotomous outcome)

Survival and mortality (all-cause).

Efficacy (continuous outcome expressed as mean ± SD)

Change in dyspnea index scores as measured by validated questionnaires and assessed with an established rating scale.

Efficacy (continuous outcome expressed as mean ± SD)

Changes in exercise tolerance using the reproducible 6-min walk distance test.

Efficacy (continuous outcome expressed as mean ± SD)

Change in health-related quality of life scores as measured by validated questionnaires and assessed with an established rating scale.

Efficacy (continuous outcome expressed as mean ± SD)

Change in quantitative scores using serial volumetric high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) scans.

Study designs

Articles will be eligible for this overview if the authors had used an explicit, systematic, and reproducible methodology to assemble and synthesize findings of studies that addressed a clearly formulated question [44, 45]. Systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis that included RCTs and/or observational studies (prospective/cohort or retrospective/case-control) will be considered eligible. NMA will also be considered eligible. Narrative reviews, expert opinions, and clinical practice guidelines will be excluded (Table 1).

Considering the rapidly evolving treatment spectrum of CTD-hassociated ILD [2, 4, 5, 36, 37] and the evidence showing that a substantial proportion of published reviews are out of date even one year after their publication [46], we plan to update the included meta-analyses by searches for additional eligible primary studies. The eligibility criteria of this overview regarding the patient population, interventions, comparators, and outcomes (Tables 1 and 2) will be used to identify only additional RCTs since observational studies are prone to selection bias and confounding [31].

Language

No language restrictions will be applied in the selection of eligible studies.

Data sources

Pertinent published systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis will be identified through various sources:

Bibliographic databases and registries of systematic reviews

We will search the following databases from inception to January 31, 2022:

◦ MEDLINE

◦ The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR)

◦ The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE)

◦ The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database

◦ Epistemonikos.org

◦ KSR Evidence

◦ PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews)

The reference lists of the selected articles will be manually searched.

Primary investigators will be conducted to obtain additional data that may be missing from the published articles.

After selecting eligible systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis for this overview based on the predefined criteria (Table 1), an updated supplemental search for recently published RCTs will be done in the following sources:

Bibliographic databases

We will search the following databases starting from the last search date of the latest included meta-analysis:

◦ MEDLINE

◦ The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)

Searches for unpublished and ongoing RCTs will also be undertaken in the following trial registers:

◦ The WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The ICTRP platform receives RCTs from all major trial registries, including ClinicalTrials.gov and the European Clinical Trials Register (EU-CTR).

◦ The ClinicalTrials.gov platform will also be searched to retrieve trials that may have not yet been added to the ICTRP.

The search will be complemented with the perusal of abstracts from the two major rheumatology scientific meetings carried out in the last two years (2020–2021):

◦ The Annual European Congress of Rheumatology (https://www.congress.eular.org/abstract_archive.cfm).

◦ The Annual Meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (https://www.rheumatology.org/Learning-Center/Publications-Communications/Abstract-Archives).

Search strategy

Two researchers will independently search the databases for relevant systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis. The search strategy was informed by PICOS criteria (Table 1) and will be comprised of three groups of terms relating to systematic reviews [47, 48], CTD-ILDs [1, 4, 5, 10], and interventions [4, 9, 10, 23, 36–40].

Medical subject heading (MeSH) terms and free-text keywords in titles and abstracts that will be used in the initial search will include: “Lung Diseases, Interstitial” OR “Diffuse Parenchymal Lung Disease”, “Interstitial Lung Diseases”, OR “Diffuse Parenchymal Lung Diseases”, OR “Interstitial Lung Disease”, OR “Lung Disease, Interstitial” OR “Pneumonia, Interstitial” OR “Interstitial Pneumonia” OR “Interstitial Pneumonias” OR “Pneumonias, Interstitial” OR “Pneumonitis, Interstitial” OR” Interstitial Pneumonitides”, OR “Interstitial Pneumonitis” OR “Pneumonitides, Interstitial”. These terms will be combined with highly sensitive search filters for systematic reviews (#3 “systematic review”[tiab], #4 meta-analysis[pt], #5 intervention*[ti], #3 OR #4 OR #5) validated for several databases [47, 48]. Next, the search will combine terms related to specific CTDs (“connective tissue diseases”, OR “systemic sclerosis”, OR scleroderma, OR “rheumatoid arthritis”, OR “inflammatory myopathies”, OR polymyositis, OR dermatomyositis, OR “Sjogren’s syndrome”, OR Sjogren, OR “systemic lupus erythematosus”, OR lupus, OR “mixed connective tissue disease”) with search filters for systematic reviews (#1”systematic review”[tiab], #2 meta-analysis[pt], #3 intervention*[ti], #1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4) [47, 48].

We will retrieve additional pertinent published RCTs using combinations of terms related to ILDs (as described above) with highly sensitive search filters for RCTs ((randomized controlled trial[pt]) OR (controlled clinical trial[pt]) OR (randomized[tiab] OR randomised[tiab]) OR (placebo[tiab]) OR (drug therapy[sh]) OR (randomly[tiab]) OR (trial[tiab]) OR (groups[tiab])) NOT ("animals"[mh] NOT ("animals"[mh] AND "humans"[mh])) [31]. Finally, the terms for specific autoimmune diseases (as described above) will be appended to the list of specific interventions used in CTD-associated ILD (Table 2).

Study selection

Two reviewers will screen the retrieved records independently, examine full-text articles, and check inclusion criteria. Firstly, the title and abstract of each of the retrieved citations will be assessed and then potentially eligible articles will be selected for perusal in full text. The online software Rayyan [49] will be used to facilitate first stage screening. Disagreements in the process of selection will be resolved by discussion with a third investigator.

Management of potentially overlapping systematic reviews

Overlapping of systematic reviews included in overviews stemming from the inclusion of identical primary studies is often underreported and may introduce bias [31]. When faced with overlapping reviews of the same drug in the same patient population, and for the same outcome, we will initially include all relevant publications. Next, we will assess the primary study overlap among all eligible systematic reviews/meta-analyses by producing a citation matrix and calculating the corrected covered area as described in the “Mapping the extent of primary study overlap” section. Should high or very high overlap be detected, we will apply predefined decision rules to include only some of these systematic reviews and meta-analyses as described below.

Mapping the extent of primary study overlap

After the selection process, the list of pertinent publications will be carefully reviewed for primary study overlap to avoid double-counting outcome data. To manage overlapping systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis, we will create a citation matrix presenting all the included reviews and their primary studies [50]. Then, the corrected covered area (CCA) will be calculated which provides a numerical measure of the extent of primary study overlap across eligible systematic reviews and meta-analyses [50]. Pairwise CCA as well as CCA for each primary outcome will also be determined [50] and the proposed graphical techniques will be used [51]. Since CCA is not influenced by large reviews, it is expected to reflect the degree of actual overlap. In case we detect high or very high overlap which is interpreted as CCA equal to or more than 10% [50], we plan to retain the review if it is (a) the most comprehensive, (b) the most recent, and (c) the most methodologically rigorous [31, 52–54] using the AMSTAR 2 tool as described in the “Robustness of findings and risk of bias” section.

Data extraction

Data will be extracted using standardized data extraction templates to ensure consistency of information and appraisal for each eligible study. Pertinent information will be obtained by one member of the review team and checked for accuracy by a senior member of the review team. If there is missing information on methods, lacking outcome data, or discrepant data (i.e., data from the same primary study that is reported differently across systematic reviews), the corresponding authors will be contacted.

Data that will be recorded for the purposes of this overview from the eligible articles [55] include the following: type of the review (systematic review without quantitative synthesis, meta-analysis, or NMA); first author, journal, year of publication, country, and funding sources; whether there was a protocol and if it was accessible; objective of the review, databases searched, date ranges of databases searched, and eligibility criteria; number and type of primary studies (RCTs, observational or both); total number of participants and characteristics of the patient population (specific CTD diagnosis, age range, proportion of females, disease duration); intervention (dose, mode of administration, concomitant medications) and comparison (drug/dose/route of administration or placebo); duration of follow-up; outcomes that are relevant to this overview (statistical model used for the meta-analysis, summary measures with 95% confidence interval [CI] for each outcome, p-value, statistics for heterogeneity assessment, sample size and summary estimate from the largest primary study included in each eligible meta-analysis, additional analyses [e.g., subgroup or sensitivity analysis, meta-regression]); instrument used for quality assessment of the primary studies and rating; whether the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach [31, 56, 57] was used per outcome and the rating and methods for detecting publication bias. For systematic reviews with no quantitative synthesis, we will also record the authors’ concluding remarks on their main findings and the reason why a meta-analysis was not attempted.

If an article presents separate meta-analyses on more than one outcome of interest (such as changes in lung function tests, health-related quality of life ratings, or changes in quantitative HRCT scores), those will be recorded separately. In case we encounter studies that have recruited both eligible and ineligible patients, we will try to obtain data on the eligible subpopulation separately. If the data for the eligible subset are not available from the publication (e.g., data on CTD-ILD participants as part of the larger ILD patient population), then the primary investigators will be conducted to obtain the missing results.

If NMA will be considered feasible, then we will also extract information from the individual RCTs evaluated in the included meta-analyses as well as from the retrieved trials after the supplemental updated search. Information extracted will include study identifiers and characteristics; participant characteristics; intervention details; and outcome data.

Robustness of findings and risk of bias

Two reviewers will independently assess the methodological quality and quality of evidence, and disagreements will be resolved by discussion with a third investigator.

We will assess the quality of all eligible articles using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) tool [58] since we expect that some systematic reviews included not only RCTs but also non-randomized studies of pharmacological intervention effects. The AMSTAR 2 ranks the quality of a systematic review according to 16 predefined items without generating an overall score [58].

The GRADE framework will be used to rate the overall quality of the evidence. This approach characterizes the quality of a body of evidence based on study limitations, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and publication bias [31, 56, 57]. Since it may not be directly transferable to overviews of systematic reviews to make consistent assessments, we will additionally use the proposed algorithm which assigns GRADE levels of evidence using a set of concrete rules [59].

Finally, if NMA is thought to be an achievable option, the risk of bias at the level of RCTs for the outcomes of interest will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB 2.0) tool [60].

Data synthesis and analysis

We will provide a descriptive table to summarize findings extracted from the eligible systematic reviews. Specifically, key characteristics of each eligible study including interventions, summarized outcomes, quality assessment, and major conclusions will be presented in tables.

We will re-analyze each eligible meta-analysis using the extracted individual study estimates. To yield unified effect size measures, we will re-calculate the non-standardized continuous outcome as well as weighted mean difference into standardized mean difference with 95% CIs and dichotomous outcomes will be expressed using odds ratios with 95% CIs. We will estimate the summary effect size and its 95% CIs with both fixed-effects and random-effects models [61, 62]. We will also calculate the 95% prediction interval (95% PI) for the summary random-effects estimates which further accounts for between-study heterogeneity. The 95% PI is the range in which we expect the effect of a new observation will be for 95% of similar studies in the future [63, 64]. Between-study heterogeneity will be assessed by the I² metric which is the ratio of between-study variance to the sum of within-study and between-study variances [65, 66]. I² varies from 0% to 100% [58] with values > 50% indicating large heterogeneity. When there are few studies, the 95% CI of I² estimates can be wide [67]. The regression asymmetry test [68] will be used to assess if there is evidence for small-study effects (i.e., whether small studies inflated effect sizes) [69]. Evidence for small-study effects will be considered a p-value < 0.10 [70]. Additionally, we will explore whether the summary effect size of the random-effects meta-analysis and the effect of its largest component study (the study with the lowest standard error) are concordant in terms of statistical significance [70]. The excess statistical significance test will also be used which determines whether the observed number of studies with nominally significant results (p < 0.05) is larger than their expected number [70, 71].

Subgroup analyses according to primary study design (RCTs and observational studies) will be performed. Sensitivity analyses excluding studies of lower methodological quality will also be conducted. We plan to analyze treatment effects according to specific CTD diagnoses (SSc, RA, SS, SLE, MCTD, and the inflammatory myopathies), given sufficient data. In addition, we will examine whether the summary results of overlapping studies are concordant in terms of direction, magnitude, and significance [72, 73]. We will also explore if many relevant publications would be excluded because of the use of decision rules during the study selection [54].

If NMA will be considered feasible assuming that additional RCTs have been published since the most recent meta-analysis, the appropriate random-effects NMA model will be performed to estimate relative treatment effects based on a synthesis of direct (head-to-head trials) and indirect evidence (where two treatments are compared indirectly via a common comparator) for CTD-ILDs [31, 42]. Data from RCTs included in previously published meta-analyses will be combined with those from trials that will be retrieved from the updated search after removing duplicates. We will use the appropriate model to estimate the relative effects of different treatment classes (e.g., biologic DMARDs, tyrosine kinase inhibitors/antifibrotic agents) and of individual treatments within a class (e.g., tocilizumab, rituximab, abatacept). Sources of possible heterogeneity will be explored if excessive heterogeneity across treatment classes is observed.

The statistical analysis and graphics will be done with R software (Version 4.1.1 or later).

Discussion

The results from this overview will provide an important evidence base for rheumatologists to inform treatment decisions by a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness and harm of pharmacological interventions in patients with CTD-ILDs. This will help efforts to develop a precision medicine approach to the treatment of a potentially progressive disease manifestation, which can be used in everyday clinical settings. The lack of updated treatment guidelines and of universally agreed-upon treatment algorithms [9-13] for such patients poses substantial obstacles in terms of improving outcomes and in reducing burden to the health care system. It must be recognized, however, that treatment decisions are multifactorial and individualized. Other factors, such as cost-effectiveness should also be considered in the overall therapeutic approach. Yet, reliable information on the effects and safety of available treatments is fundamental in guiding treatment decisions to improve lung function, with consequent potential to reduce organ-specific morbidity and mortality.

PRISMA-P 2015 checklist.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

5 Apr 2022

Pharmacological treatment for connective tissue disease-associated interstitial lung involvement:  Protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Haidich,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The reviewers raised a number of concerns which must be addressed. They felt that the objectives of the study should be better delineated, and that there were issues with the methodological approach, including the calculation of CCA and the use of NMA. The reviewers comments can be viewed in full, below.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 15 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Natasha McDonald, PhD

Associate Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: - you should differentiate between systematic reviews and meta-analyses. There are simply systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis. This should be corrected in the objective.

- Although using MedDRA is a good idea, I wonder whether this can work. In an overview you have to rely on the summarized information in SRs gathered from primary studies

- Similar to that is the specification of using validated instruments. Although highly appreciated you will be hardly able to judge this at the SR level

- 'we plan to update the included meta-analyses by searches for additional eligible primary studies.' Does that mean you will definitely search for additional studies or is this just an option?

- I doubt that you will be able to calculate the CCA at outcome level for the full set of SRs. As far as I am aware this has been described in the literature but never tried in practice. It will be important to report whether this was feasible when publishing the results.

- overall, it would be good to explain under what circumstances you will perform an NMA.

Reviewer #2: The Authors have prepared a methodologically sound protocol which will guide the conducting of an important study.

Some minor comment and suggestions are provided below.

Comments on abstract:

Line 36: In the methods section please rephrase so as you do not imply that “systematic review and meta-analyses” are two different entities. It may be sufficient to mention systematic reviews.

Comments on main text:

Line 87: please replace studies with primary studies to help the reader distinguish your unit of analysis (i.e. syst reviews) from primary studies in these systematic reviews. Please amend throughout the text

Line 88: Please provide the measures of the outcomes that you plan to include and clarify/discriminate the listing of outcomes and the corresponding measures.

Line 210: What is the purpose of using the word “formal”?

Line 315: please place CCA after the explanation of the abbreviation

Line 329-332: This reads as if you retain both overlapping reviews but I understand that you will assess the dates of publication, quality etc and keep the one the satisfies your criteria best. Please rephrase.

Line 746: I assume this is criteria for the primary studies included in the eligible studies which you will include. You may want to clarify this on the title of this section.

Line 296: In your RCT filter you plan to exclude humans as MeSH heading (mh), could you please elaborate on this?

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dawid Pieper

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.