Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of modified-release (MR) versus immediate-release (IR) prednisone in newly diagnosed glucocorticoid (GC)-naïve patients with polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR). Methods: Patients were randomised to double-blind MR prednisone (taken at approximately 22:00) or IR prednisone (taken in the morning), 15 mg/day for 4 weeks. The primary end point was complete response rate (≥70% reduction in PMR visual analogue scale, duration of morning stiffness and C reactive protein (CRP) (or CRP < 2× upper limit of normal (ULN))) at week 4. Non-inferiority was decided if the lower 95% confidence limit (MR vs IR prednisone) was above -15%. 400 patients were planned but only 62 were enrolled due to difficulties in recruiting GC-naïve patients with PMR with CRP ≥2×ULN. Results: The percentage of complete responders at week 4 was numerically greater for MR prednisone (53.8%) than for IR prednisone (40.9%). Non-inferiority of MR versus IR prednisone was not proven in the primary analysis on the per protocol population (N=48; treatment difference: 12.22%; 95% CI -15.82% to 40.25%). However, sensitivity analysis on the full analysis population showed an evident trend favouring MR prednisone (N=62; treatment difference: 15.56%; 95% CI -9.16% to 40.28%). Adverse events were generally mild and transient with no unexpected safety observations. Conclusions: The study showed a clear trend for favourable short-term efficacy of MR prednisone versus IR prednisone in early treatment of PMR. Further studies are warranted.

Modified-release prednisone for polymyalgia rheumatica: a multicentre, randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group study.

CUTOLO, MAURIZIO;
2017-01-01

Abstract

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of modified-release (MR) versus immediate-release (IR) prednisone in newly diagnosed glucocorticoid (GC)-naïve patients with polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR). Methods: Patients were randomised to double-blind MR prednisone (taken at approximately 22:00) or IR prednisone (taken in the morning), 15 mg/day for 4 weeks. The primary end point was complete response rate (≥70% reduction in PMR visual analogue scale, duration of morning stiffness and C reactive protein (CRP) (or CRP < 2× upper limit of normal (ULN))) at week 4. Non-inferiority was decided if the lower 95% confidence limit (MR vs IR prednisone) was above -15%. 400 patients were planned but only 62 were enrolled due to difficulties in recruiting GC-naïve patients with PMR with CRP ≥2×ULN. Results: The percentage of complete responders at week 4 was numerically greater for MR prednisone (53.8%) than for IR prednisone (40.9%). Non-inferiority of MR versus IR prednisone was not proven in the primary analysis on the per protocol population (N=48; treatment difference: 12.22%; 95% CI -15.82% to 40.25%). However, sensitivity analysis on the full analysis population showed an evident trend favouring MR prednisone (N=62; treatment difference: 15.56%; 95% CI -9.16% to 40.28%). Adverse events were generally mild and transient with no unexpected safety observations. Conclusions: The study showed a clear trend for favourable short-term efficacy of MR prednisone versus IR prednisone in early treatment of PMR. Further studies are warranted.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Modified-release prednisone.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Documento in versione editoriale
Dimensione 653.87 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
653.87 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11567/863387
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 3
  • Scopus 18
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 16
social impact