The effect of moderate-dose corticosteroids in preventing severe flares in patients with serologically active, but clinically stable, systemic lupus erythematosus: findings of a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: Serial measurements of anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) and complement are routine in the management of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), but their utility as biomarkers in preemptive treatment to prevent flares remains a subject of controversy. We hypothesized that concomitant elevation of anti-dsDNA and C3a can predict SLE activity in patients with stable or inactive disease and that short-term treatment with corticosteroids can avert flares. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 154 patients were evaluated monthly for up to 18 months, with measurements of C3a, C3, C4, CH50, and anti-dsDNA levels. Patients who remained clinically stable but showed serologic evidence of an SLE flare (elevation of both the anti-dsDNA level by 25% and the C3a level by 50% over the previous 1-2 monthly visits) were randomized to receive either prednisone or placebo therapy at a dosage of 30 mg/day for 2 weeks, 20 mg/day for 1 week, and 10 mg/day for 1 week. RESULTS: Forty-one patients (21 randomized to prednisone and 20 randomized to placebo) experienced a serologic flare. Analysis of severe flares occurring 40 mg/day and/or the addition of an immunosuppressive agent. Furthermore, improvement in scores on the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index, decreased levels of anti-dsDNA antibodies, and increased levels of C4 occurred 1 month after initiation of prednisone treatment. CONCLUSION: These preliminary data support our hypothesis that in a subset of clinically stable SLE patients with a combination of elevated C3a and anti-dsDNA levels, short-term corticosteroid therapy may avert a severe flare.     

Steroid‐sparing effects of methotrexate in systemic lupus erythematosus: A double‐blind,randomized, placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

To assess the potential benefits of methotrexate in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Methods

A 12‐month, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial of methotrexate with folic acid was conducted. Intent‐to‐treat analyses were performed with mixed linear models and α = 0.04 (96% confidence interval [96% CI]) to account for interim analysis of longitudinal data to assess the treatment effects on lupus disease activity and daily steroid dose across monthly measurements, and to test if the treatment effects depended on selected participant characteristics.

Results

Of 215 participants screened, 94 were excluded, 35 declined, and 86 were randomized (methotrexate = 41, placebo = 45). The groups were balanced for demographic and disease characteristics. Antimalarial use was more frequent in the placebo group, which was adjusted for in multivariable analyses. Sixty participants (27 methotrexate, 33 placebo) completed the study and 26 terminated early. Among participants who had the same baseline prednisone dose, those taking methotrexate received, on average, 1.33 mg/day less prednisone during the trial period (96% CI 0.06, 2.72 mg/day; a 22% reduction of their average‐during‐trial daily dose) compared with those in the placebo group. For the primary measure of disease activity (revised Systemic Lupus Activity Measure), methotrexate use was also associated with a marginally significant reduction in the mean during‐trial score of 0.86 units (96% CI 0.01, 1.71; P = 0.039). A significant interaction between treatment and baseline damage was found (P = 0.001).

Conclusion

Methotrexate conferred a significant advantage in participants with moderately active lupus by lowering daily prednisone dose and slightly decreasing lupus disease activity. As a therapeutic option in moderate SLE, methotrexate can be considered to be steroid sparing.     

Effects of prasterone on corticosteroid requirements of women with systemic lupus erythematosus: A double‐blind,randomized, placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

To evaluate whether treatment with prasterone (dehydroepiandrosterone [DHEA]) would allow the dosage of prednisone (or an equivalent corticosteroid) to be reduced to ≤7.5 mg/day for 2 months or longer while maintaining stable or reduced disease activity in steroid‐dependent women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Methods

In a double‐blind, randomized trial, 191 female SLE patients receiving prednisone (10–30 mg/day) were treated daily with either placebo, 100 mg of oral prasterone (an adrenal androgen), or 200 mg of oral prasterone for 7–9‐months. At monthly intervals, corticosteroid dosages were reduced by algorithm in patients whose SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) score was stable or improved. Patients for whom a sustained reduction in the dosage of prednisone (≤7.5 mg/day) was achieved for at least the last 2 months of the 7–9‐month treatment period were classified as responders.

Results

Response rates were 41% in the placebo group, 44% in the 100‐mg prasterone group, and 55% in the 200‐mg group (P = 0.110, 200 mg versus placebo). Among the 137 subjects (45 in the placebo group, 47 in the 100‐mg group, and 45 in the 200‐mg group) who had active disease at baseline (defined as SLEDAI score >2), 29%, 38%, and 51%, respectively, were responders (P = 0.031 for 200 mg prasterone versus placebo). Acne was the most common adverse event but was generally mild. Clinical and laboratory changes primarily reflected androgenic effects of prasterone.

Conclusion

Among women with lupus disease activity, reducing the dosage of prednisone to ≤7.5 mg/day for a sustained period of time while maintaining stabilization or a reduction of disease activity was possible in a significantly greater proportion of patients treated with oral prasterone, 200 mg once daily, compared with patients treated with placebo.

     

Dehydroepiandrosterone treatment of women with mild‐to‐moderate systemic lupus erythematosus: A multicenter randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) at a dosage of 200 mg/day in adult women with active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Methods

In a multicenter randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial, 120 adult women with active SLE received oral DHEA (200 mg/day; n = 61) or placebo (n = 59) for 24 weeks. The primary end point was the mean change from baseline in the Systemic Lupus Activity Measure (SLAM) score at 24 weeks of therapy. Secondary end points included time to first flare, change in SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) score, and physician's and patient's global assessment scores at week 24.

Results

The two groups were well balanced for baseline characteristics. Mean reductions in SLAM scores from baseline were similar and were not statistically significantly different between treatment groups (DHEA −2.6 ± 3.4 versus placebo −2.0 ± 3.8, mean ± SD). The number of patients with flares was decreased by 16% in the DHEA group (18.3% of DHEA‐treated patients versus 33.9% of placebo‐treated patients; P = 0.044, based on time to first flare). The mean change in the patient's global assessment was statistically significant between the two groups (DHEA −5.5 versus placebo 5.4; P = 0.005). The number of patients with serious adverse events, most of which were related to SLE flare, was significantly lower in DHEA‐treated patients compared with placebo‐treated patients (P = 0.010). Expected hormonal effects, including increased testosterone levels and increased incidence of acne, were observed. No life‐threatening reactions or serious safety issues were identified during this study.

Conclusion

The overall results confirm that DHEA treatment was well‐tolerated, significantly reduced the number of SLE flares, and improved patient's global assessment of disease activity.

     

A phase II,randomized, double‐blind,placebo‐controlled,dose‐ranging study of belimumab in patients with active systemic lupus erythematosus

Objective

To assess the safety, tolerability, biologic activity, and efficacy of belimumab in combination with standard of care therapy (SOC) in patients with active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Methods

Patients with a Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus: National Assessment (SELENA) version of the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) score ≥4 (n = 449) were randomly assigned to belimumab (1, 4, or 10 mg/kg) or placebo in a 52‐week study. Coprimary end points were the percent change in the SELENA–SLEDAI score at week 24 and the time to first SLE flare.

Results

Significant differences between the treatment and placebo groups were not attained for either primary end point, and no dose response was observed. Reductions in SELENA–SLEDAI scores from baseline were 19.5% in the combined belimumab group versus 17.2% in the placebo group. The median time to first SLE flare was 67 days in the combined belimumab group versus 83 days in the placebo group. However, the median time to first SLE flare during weeks 24–52 was significantly longer with belimumab treatment (154 versus 108 days; P = 0.0361). In the subgroup (71.5%) of serologically active patients (antinuclear antibody titer ≥1:80 and/or anti–double‐stranded DNA [anti‐dsDNA] ≥30 IU/ml), belimumab treatment resulted in significantly better responses at week 52 than placebo for SELENA–SLEDAI score (?28.8% versus ?14.2%; P = 0.0435), physician's global assessment (?32.7% versus ?10.7%; P = 0.0011), and Short Form 36 physical component score (+3.0 versus +1.2 points; P = 0.0410). Treatment with belimumab resulted in a 63–71% reduction of naive, activated, and plasmacytoid CD20+ B cells, and a 29.4% reduction in anti‐dsDNA titers (P = 0.0017) by week 52. The rates of adverse events and serious adverse events were similar in the belimumab and placebo groups.

Conclusion

Belimumab was biologically active and well tolerated. The effect of belimumab on the reduction of SLE disease activity or flares was not significant. However, serologically active SLE patients responded significantly better to belimumab therapy plus SOC than to SOC alone.

     

Adalimumab in severe and acute sciatica: A multicenter,randomized, double‐blind,placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

Based on several experimental results and on a preliminary study, a trial was undertaken to assess the efficacy of adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor, in patients with radicular pain due to lumbar disc herniation.

Methods

A multicenter, double‐blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted between May 2005 and December 2007 in Switzerland. Patients with acute (duration of <12 weeks) and severe (Oswestry Disability Index score of >50) radicular leg pain and imaging‐confirmed lumbar disc herniation were randomized to receive as adjuvant therapy either 2 subcutaneous injections of adalimumab (40 mg) at 7‐day intervals or matching placebo. The primary outcome was the score for leg pain, based on a visual analog scale (0–100 mm), which was recorded every day for 10 days and at 6 weeks and 6 months.

Results

Of the 265 patients screened, 61 were enrolled; 31 patients were assigned to receive adalimumab, and 4 patients in the placebo group were lost to followup. Over time, the course of leg pain was more favorable in the adalimumab group than in the placebo group (P = 0.002). However, the effect size was relatively small, and at the last followup visit the difference was 13.8 (95% confidence interval −11.5, 39.0). Compared with patients in the placebo group, approximately twice as many patients in the adalimumab group fulfilled the criteria for “responders” and for “low residual disease impact” (P < 0.05), and fewer surgical discectomies were performed (6 versus 13 in the placebo group; P = 0.04).

Conclusion

The addition of a short course of adalimumab to the treatment regimen of patients experiencing acute and severe sciatica resulted in a small decrease in leg pain and in significantly fewer surgical procedures.

     

N‐acetylcysteine reduces disease activity by blocking mammalian target of rapamycin in T cells from systemic lupus erythematosus patients: A randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients exhibit T cell dysfunction, which can be regulated through mitochondrial transmembrane potential (Δψm) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) by glutathione (GSH). This randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study was undertaken to examine the safety, tolerance, and efficacy of the GSH precursor N‐acetylcysteine (NAC).

Methods

A total of 36 SLE patients received either daily placebo or 1.2 gm, 2.4 gm, or 4.8 gm of NAC. Disease activity was evaluated monthly by the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) index, the SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI), and the Fatigue Assessment Scale (FAS) before, during, and after a 3‐month treatment period. Mitochondrial transmembrane potential and mTOR were assessed by flow cytometry. Forty‐two healthy subjects matched to patients for age, sex, and ethnicity were studied as controls.

Results

NAC up to 2.4 gm/day was tolerated by all patients, while 33% of those receiving 4.8 gm/day had reversible nausea. Placebo or NAC 1.2 gm/day did not influence disease activity. Considered together, 2.4 gm and 4.8 gm NAC reduced the SLEDAI score after 1 month (P = 0.0007), 2 months (P = 0.0009), 3 months (P = 0.0030), and 4 months (P = 0.0046); the BILAG score after 1 month (P = 0.029) and 3 months (P = 0.009); and the FAS score after 2 months (P = 0.0006) and 3 months (P = 0.005). NAC increased Δψm (P = 0.0001) in all T cells, profoundly reduced mTOR activity (P = 0.0009), enhanced apoptosis (P = 0.0004), reversed expansion of CD4−CD8− T cells (mean ± SEM 1.35 ± 0.12‐fold change; P = 0.008), stimulated FoxP3 expression in CD4+CD25+ T cells (P = 0.045), and reduced anti‐DNA production (P = 0.049).

Conclusion

This pilot study suggests that NAC safely improves lupus disease activity by blocking mTOR in T lymphocytes.

     

Treatment of giant cell arteritis using induction therapy with high‐dose glucocorticoids: A double‐blind,placebo‐controlled,randomized prospective clinical trial

Objective

Glucocorticoid (GC) therapy for giant cell arteritis (GCA) is effective but requires prolonged administration, resulting in adverse side effects. The goal of the current study was to test the hypothesis that induction treatment with high‐dose pulse intravenous (IV) methylprednisolone permits a shorter course of therapy.

Methods

Twenty‐seven patients with biopsy‐proven GCA were enrolled in a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study to receive IV methylprednisolone (15 mg/kg of ideal body weight/day) or IV saline for 3 consecutive days. All patients were started on 40 mg/day prednisone and followed the same tapering schedule as long as disease activity was controlled. The numbers of patients with disease in remission after 36, 52, and 78 weeks of treatment and taking ≤5 mg/day prednisone were compared. Cumulative prednisone dose, number of relapses, and development of adverse GC effects were assessed.

Results

Ten of the 14 IV GC–treated patients, but only 2 of 13 control patients, were taking ≤5 mg/day prednisone at 36 weeks (P = 0.003). This difference was maintained; there was a higher number of sustained remissions after discontinuation of treatment in the IV GC–treated group and a lower median daily dose of prednisone at 78 weeks (P = 0.0004). The median cumulative dose of oral prednisone, excluding the IV GC dose, was 5,636 mg in the IV GC–treated group compared with 7,860 mg in the IV saline–treated group (P = 0.001).

Conclusion

Initial treatment of GCA with IV GC pulses allowed for more rapid tapering of oral GCs and had long‐term benefits, with a higher frequency of patients experiencing sustained remission of their disease after discontinuation of treatment.

     

Efficacy and safety of rituximab in moderately‐to‐severely active systemic lupus erythematosus: The randomized,double‐blind,phase ii/iii systemic lupus erythematosus evaluation of rituximab trial

Objective

B cells are likely to contribute to the pathogenesis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and rituximab induces depletion of B cells. The Exploratory Phase II/III SLE Evaluation of Rituximab (EXPLORER) trial tested the efficacy and safety of rituximab versus placebo in patients with moderately‐to‐severely active extrarenal SLE.

Methods

Patients entered with ≥1 British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) A score or ≥2 BILAG B scores despite background immunosuppressant therapy, which was continued during the trial. Prednisone was added and subsequently tapered. Patients were randomized at a ratio of 2:1 to receive rituximab (1,000 mg) or placebo on days 1, 15, 168, and 182.

Results

In the intent‐to‐treat analysis of 257 patients, background treatment was evenly distributed among azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, and methotrexate. Fifty‐three percent of the patients had ≥1 BILAG A score at entry, and 57% of the patients were categorized as being steroid dependent. No differences were observed between placebo and rituximab in the primary and secondary efficacy end points, including the BILAG‐defined response, in terms of both area under the curve and landmark analyses. A beneficial effect of rituximab on the primary end point was observed in the African American and Hispanic subgroups. Safety and tolerability were similar in patients receiving placebo and those receiving rituximab.

Conclusion

The EXPLORER trial enrolled patients with moderately‐to‐severely active SLE and used aggressive background treatment and sensitive cutoffs for nonresponse. No differences were noted between placebo and rituximab in the primary and secondary end points. Further evaluation of patient subsets, biomarkers, and exploratory outcome models may improve the design of future SLE clinical trials.

     

Methotrexate treatment in juvenile localized scleroderma: A randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

Juvenile localized scleroderma is a chronic progressive fibrotic disorder of the skin that causes permanent disability and aesthetic damage. This study was undertaken to assess the safety and efficacy of methotrexate (MTX) in the treatment of juvenile localized scleroderma.

Methods

In this double‐blind study, patients with active juvenile localized scleroderma were randomized (2:1) to receive oral MTX (15 mg/m², maximum 20 mg) or placebo once weekly, for 12 months or until treatment failure. Both groups received oral prednisone (1 mg/kg/day, maximum 50 mg) for the first 3 months. A target lesion was evaluated clinically, with infrared thermography and using a computerized scoring system with skin score rate (SSR) evaluation. Response to treatment was defined as the absence of new lesions, SSR ≤1, and a decrease in lesion temperature of at least 10% compared to baseline. Treatment failure was defined as the occurrence of new lesions, SSR >1, or increased lesion temperature. All analyses were done on the intent‐to‐treat population.

Results

Of the 85 patients screened, 70 (ages 6–17 years) were randomized (46 to the MTX group, 24 to the placebo group). The mean disease duration was 2.3 years. After an initial response in all patients, disease relapsed in 15 MTX‐treated patients (32.6%) and 17 placebo‐treated patients (70.8%) (P < 0.005). New lesions appeared in 3 MTX‐treated patients (6.5%) versus 4 placebo‐treated patients (16.7%). The mean SSR decreased from 1 to 0.79 in the MTX group and increased from 1 to 1.1 in the placebo group, and the mean target lesion temperature decreased by 44.4% in the MTX group versus 12.1% in the placebo group. Twenty‐six patients in the MTX group (56.5%) and 11 patients in the placebo group (45.8%) developed mild side effects related to treatment. None of the side effects were severe enough to necessitate treatment discontinuation.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that MTX is efficacious in the treatment of juvenile localized scleroderma and is well tolerated.

     

Steroid injection for osteoarthritis of the hip: A randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

To determine the efficacy of fluoroscopically guided corticosteroid injection for hip osteoarthritis (OA) in a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial.

Methods

Fifty‐two patients with symptomatic hip OA were randomly allocated to receive placebo (10 mg bipuvicaine, 2 ml saline) (n = 21) or corticosteroid treatment (10 mg bipuvicaine, 40 mg triamcinolone hexacetonide) (n = 31). Patients were followed up for 1, 2, 3, and 6 months. The primary outcome measure was the pain improvement response, defined as a 20% decrease in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC) pain score (on 5 100‐mm visual analog scales [VAS]) (WOMAC20) from baseline to 2 months postinjection. Secondary outcomes were a 50% decrease in the WOMAC pain score (WOMAC50), changes in other WOMAC subscale scores, patient's global assessment of health (on a 100‐mm VAS), and Short Form 36 (SF‐36) quality of life indices. Analyses were based on the intent‐to‐treat principle.

Results

The mean WOMAC pain score fell 49.2% (decreasing from 310.1 mm to 157.4 mm) at 2 months postinjection in patients receiving corticosteroid, compared with a decrease of 2.5% (from 314.3 mm to 306.5 mm) in the placebo group (P < 0.0001). The proportion of WOMAC20 responders at 2 months' followup was significantly higher in the corticosteroid group (67.7%) compared with the placebo group (23.8%) (P = 0.004); similar proportions of WOMAC50 responders were observed between groups (61.3% in the corticosteroid group versus 14.3% in the placebo group; P = 0.001). Response differences were maintained at 3 months' followup (58.1% responders in the corticosteroid group versus 9.5% responders in the placebo group; P = 0.004). Significant differences in the WOMAC stiffness and physical function scores (P < 0.0001), patient's global health scores (P = 0.005), and SF‐36 physical component scores (P = 0.04) were observed, with patients in the corticosteroid group showing greater improvements. There were no differences in the frequency of adverse events between groups.

Conclusion

This placebo‐controlled trial confirms that corticosteroid injection can be an effective treatment of pain in hip OA, with benefits lasting up to 3 months in many cases. Future studies should address questions related to the benefits of repeated steroid injection and the effects of this treatment on disease modification.

     

Randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled glucosamine discontinuation trial in knee osteoarthritis

Objective

To assess the efficacy of glucosamine sulfate in knee osteoarthritis (OA).

Methods

A 4‐center, 6‐month, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled glucosamine discontinuation trial was conducted in 137 current users of glucosamine with knee OA who had experienced at least moderate improvement in knee pain after starting glucosamine. Study medication dosage was equivalent to the dosage of glucosamine taken prior to the study (maximum 1,500 mg/day). Followup continued for 6 months or until disease flare, whichever occurred first. The primary outcome was the proportion of disease flares in the glucosamine and placebo groups using an intent‐to‐treat analysis. Secondary outcomes included time to disease flare; analgesic medication use; severity of disease flare; and change in pain, stiffness, function and quality of life in the glucosamine and placebo groups.

Results

Disease flare was seen in 28 (42%) of 66 placebo patients and 32 (45%) of 71 glucosamine patients (difference ?3%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] ?19, 14; P = 0.76). In the Cox regression analysis, after adjustment for sex, study site, and OA radiographic severity, time to disease flare was not significantly different in the glucosamine compared with placebo group (hazard ratio of flare = 0.8; 95% CI 0.5, 1.4; P = 0.45). At final study visit, acetaminophen was used in 27% and 21% of placebo and glucosamine patients, respectively (P = 0.40), nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs were used in 29% and 30% (P = 0.92), and both were used in 20% and 21% (P = 0.84). No differences were found in severity of disease flare or other secondary outcomes between placebo and glucosamine patients.

Conclusion

In patients with knee OA with at least moderate subjective improvement with prior glucosamine use, this study provides no evidence of symptomatic benefit from continued use of glucosamine sulfate.

     

Gabapentin in the treatment of fibromyalgia: A randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled,multicenter trial

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of gabapentin in patients with fibromyalgia.

Methods

A 12‐week, randomized, double‐blind study was designed to compare gabapentin (1,200–2,400 mg/day) (n = 75 patients) with placebo (n = 75 patients) for efficacy and safety in treating pain associated with fibromyalgia. The primary outcome measure was the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain severity score (range 0–10, where 0 = no pain and 10 = pain as bad as you can imagine). Response to treatment was defined as a reduction of ≥30% in this score. The primary analysis of efficacy for continuous variables was a longitudinal analysis of the intent‐to‐treat sample, with treatment‐by‐time interaction as the measure of effect.

Results

Gabapentin‐treated patients displayed a significantly greater improvement in the BPI average pain severity score (P = 0.015; estimated difference between groups at week 12 = −0.92 [95% confidence interval −1.75, −0.71]). A significantly greater proportion of gabapentin‐treated patients compared with placebo‐treated patients achieved response at end point (51% versus 31%; P = 0.014). Gabapentin compared with placebo also significantly improved the BPI average pain interference score, the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire total score, the Clinical Global Impression of Severity, the Patient Global Impression of Improvement, the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Problems Index, and the MOS Short Form 36 vitality score, but not the mean tender point pain threshold or the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale. Gabapentin was generally well tolerated.

Conclusion

Gabapentin (1,200–2,400 mg/day) is safe and efficacious for the treatment of pain and other symptoms associated with fibromyalgia.

     

Recombinant human relaxin in the treatment of systemic sclerosis with diffuse cutaneous involvement: A randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

A phase II randomized controlled trial of recombinant human relaxin suggested that a dosage of 25 μg/kg/day was safe and clinically effective in improving skin disease and reducing functional disability in scleroderma (systemic sclerosis; SSc). We undertook a large randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled clinical trial to compare placebo with 10 μg/kg/day and 25 μg/kg/day recombinant human relaxin, given for 24 weeks in patients with stable, diffuse, moderate‐to‐severe SSc.

Methods

Men and women ages 18–70 years with diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc) were administered recombinant human relaxin (10 μg/kg/day or 25 μg/kg/day) or placebo for 24 weeks as a continuous subcutaneous infusion. There was a followup safety visit at week 28.

Results

The primary outcome measure, the modified Rodnan skin thickness score, was similar among the 3 groups at baseline and at weeks 4, 12, and 24. Secondary outcomes such as functional disability were similar in all 3 groups, while the forced vital capacity decreased significantly in the relaxin groups. The discontinuation of both doses of relaxin at week 24 led to statistically significant declines in creatinine clearance and serious renal adverse events (defined as doubling of serum creatinine, renal crisis, or grade 3 or 4 essential hypertension) in 7 patients who had received relaxin therapy but in none who had received placebo.

Conclusion

Recombinant relaxin was not significantly better than placebo in improving the total skin score or pulmonary function or in reducing functional disability in patients with dcSSc. In addition, relaxin was associated with serious renal adverse events, the majority of which occurred after stopping the infusion. If relaxin is used therapeutically for any conditions other than scleroderma, close monitoring of blood pressure and renal function must be performed.

     

Double‐blind,randomized, controlled clinical trial of clofazimine compared with chloroquine in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy of clofazimine (CFZ) compared with chloroquine diphosphate (CDP) for the treatment of cutaneous involvement in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Methods

A prospective, randomized, controlled, double‐blind clinical trial was carried out in SLE patients with active cutaneous lesions, of whom 16 were randomized to receive CFZ at 100 mg/day and 17 received CDP at 250 mg/day for 6 months. All drugs had a similar appearance to avoid identification. Both groups received broad‐spectrum sunscreens twice a day and the prednisone dose was kept stable during the study. Cutaneous lesions were evaluated by 2 blinded observers at baseline and at months 1, 2, 4, and 6.

Results

Thirty‐three patients were randomized to a treatment group, of whom 27 completed 6 months of treatment. The groups were homogeneous and comparable in terms of demographic and clinical characteristics. Five CFZ‐treated patients and 1 CDP‐treated patient (P = 0.15) dropped out due to development of severe lupus flare. At the end of the study, 12 CFZ‐treated patients (75%) and 14 CDP‐treated patients (82.4%) had complete or near‐complete remission of skin lesions; intention‐to‐treat analysis showed no significant difference in the response rates between groups. Side effects, mainly skin and gastrointestinal events, were frequent in both groups, but no patients had to discontinue their treatment.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that CFZ is equally as effective as CDP in controlling cutaneous lesions in SLE patients. However, we cannot exclude the possibility that the CFZ itself could be the cause of systemic lupus flare.

     

Low‐dose naltrexone for the treatment of fibromyalgia: Findings of a small,randomized, double‐blind,placebo‐controlled,counterbalanced, crossover trial assessing daily pain levels

Objective

To determine whether low dosages (4.5 mg/day) of naltrexone reduce fibromyalgia severity as compared with the nonspecific effects of placebo. In this replication and extension study of a previous clinical trial, we tested the impact of low‐dose naltrexone on daily self‐reported pain. Secondary outcomes included general satisfaction with life, positive mood, sleep quality, and fatigue.

Methods

Thirty‐one women with fibromyalgia participated in the randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, counterbalanced, crossover study. During the active drug phase, participants received 4.5 mg of oral naltrexone daily. An intensive longitudinal design was used to measure daily levels of pain.

Results

When contrasting the condition end points, we observed a significantly greater reduction of baseline pain in those taking low‐dose naltrexone than in those taking placebo (28.8% reduction versus 18.0% reduction; P = 0.016). Low‐dose naltrexone was also associated with improved general satisfaction with life (P = 0.045) and with improved mood (P = 0.039), but not improved fatigue or sleep. Thirty‐two percent of participants met the criteria for response (defined as a significant reduction in pain plus a significant reduction in either fatigue or sleep problems) during low‐dose naltrexone therapy, as contrasted with an 11% response rate during placebo therapy (P = 0.05). Low‐dose naltrexone was rated equally tolerable as placebo, and no serious side effects were reported.

Conclusion

The preliminary evidence continues to show that low‐dose naltrexone has a specific and clinically beneficial impact on fibromyalgia pain. The medication is widely available, inexpensive, safe, and well‐tolerated. Parallel‐group randomized controlled trials are needed to fully determine the efficacy of the medication.