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

21Citations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Cutolo, M., Hopp, M., Liebscher, S., Dasgupta, B., & Buttgereit, F. (2017). Modified-release prednisone for polymyalgia rheumatica: A multicentre, randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group study. RMD Open, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2016-000426

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free