SLS II Trial — SCE Rheumatology MCQ
Instant feedback + full explanation. One question, done properly.
Educational content. Not a substitute for clinical judgement or local policy.
Reveal the answer and explanation
Correct answer: B — The 24-month FVC course did not differ significantly between groups; lung function improved in both, while MMF was better tolerated and less toxic.
SLS II found no significant difference in the prespecified course of percentage-predicted FVC between MMF and cyclophosphamide over 24 months (p=0.24); thus, it was a negative superiority trial and did not formally establish equivalence or non-inferiority. Lung function improved in both treatment groups. MMF was favoured because it caused substantially less leucopenia and thrombocytopenia and fewer patients discontinued treatment prematurely. Therefore D is the most precise interpretation. A and B incorrectly claim superiority, C incorrectly states that lung function did not improve, and E mischaracterizes the trial as a successful non-inferiority study. These findings support, but did not alone establish, the current UK preference for MMF as first-line treatment for SSc-ILD.
Reference: Tashkin DP et al. Mycophenolate mofetil versus oral cyclophosphamide in scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease (SLS II): a randomised controlled, double-blind, parallel group trial. Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 2016;4:708–719. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27469583/