John Walton Muscular Dystrophy Research Centre, Newcastle University and Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
Department of Neurology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York.
JAMA. 2022 Apr 19;327(15):1456-1468. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.4315.
Corticosteroids improve strength and function in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. However, there is uncertainty regarding the optimum regimen and dosage.
To compare efficacy and adverse effects of the 3 most frequently prescribed corticosteroid regimens in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Double-blind, parallel-group randomized clinical trial including 196 boys aged 4 to 7 years with Duchenne muscular dystrophy who had not previously been treated with corticosteroids; enrollment occurred between January 30, 2013, and September 17, 2016, at 32 clinic sites in 5 countries. The boys were assessed for 3 years (last participant visit on October 16, 2019).
Participants were randomized to daily prednisone (0.75 mg/kg) (n = 65), daily deflazacort (0.90 mg/kg) (n = 65), or intermittent prednisone (0.75 mg/kg for 10 days on and then 10 days off) (n = 66).
The global primary outcome comprised 3 end points: rise from the floor velocity (in rise/seconds), forced vital capacity (in liters), and participant or parent global satisfaction with treatment measured by the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM; score range, 0 to 100), each averaged across all study visits after baseline. Pairwise group comparisons used a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .017.
Among the 196 boys randomized (mean age, 5.8 years [SD, 1.0 years]), 164 (84%) completed the trial. Both daily prednisone and daily deflazacort were more effective than intermittent prednisone for the primary outcome (P < .001 for daily prednisone vs intermittent prednisone using a global test; P = .017 for daily deflazacort vs intermittent prednisone using a global test) and the daily regimens did not differ significantly (P = .38 for daily prednisone vs daily deflazacort using a global test). The between-group differences were principally attributable to rise from the floor velocity (0.06 rise/s [98.3% CI, 0.03 to 0.08 rise/s] for daily prednisone vs intermittent prednisone [P = .003]; 0.06 rise/s [98.3% CI, 0.03 to 0.09 rise/s] for daily deflazacort vs intermittent prednisone [P = .017]; and -0.004 rise/s [98.3% CI, -0.03 to 0.02 rise/s] for daily prednisone vs daily deflazacort [P = .75]). The pairwise comparisons for forced vital capacity and TSQM global satisfaction subscale score were not statistically significant. The most common adverse events were abnormal behavior (22 [34%] in the daily prednisone group, 25 [38%] in the daily deflazacort group, and 24 [36%] in the intermittent prednisone group), upper respiratory tract infection (24 [37%], 19 [29%], and 24 [36%], respectively), and vomiting (19 [29%], 17 [26%], and 15 [23%]).
Among patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, treatment with daily prednisone or daily deflazacort, compared with intermittent prednisone alternating 10 days on and 10 days off, resulted in significant improvement over 3 years in a composite outcome comprising measures of motor function, pulmonary function, and satisfaction with treatment; there was no significant difference between the 2 daily corticosteroid regimens. The findings support the use of a daily corticosteroid regimen over the intermittent prednisone regimen tested in this study as initial treatment for boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01603407.
重要性:皮质类固醇可改善杜兴氏肌肉营养不良症男孩的肌力和功能。然而,对于最佳方案和剂量,尚存在不确定性。
目的:比较 3 种最常使用的皮质类固醇方案在杜兴氏肌肉营养不良症男孩中的疗效和不良反应。
设计、场所和参与者:这是一项双盲、平行分组随机临床试验,纳入了 196 名年龄在 4 至 7 岁之间、此前未接受皮质类固醇治疗的杜兴氏肌肉营养不良症男孩;招募于 2013 年 1 月 30 日至 2016 年 9 月 17 日在 5 个国家的 32 个临床地点进行;参与者接受了 3 年的评估(最后一次随访时间为 2019 年 10 月 16 日)。
干预措施:参与者被随机分为每日泼尼松组(0.75mg/kg)(n=65)、每日地夫可特组(0.90mg/kg)(n=65)或泼尼松间歇组(10 天用,10 天停,0.75mg/kg)(n=66)。
主要结局和测量:总的主要结局包括 3 个终点:从地板上站起来的速度(rise/seconds)、用力肺活量(liters)和治疗满意度问卷(Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication,TSQM)的总体满意度评分(得分范围 0 至 100),每个终点均在基线后所有研究访问的平均值。采用 Bonferroni 调整的显著性水平 0.017 进行组间比较。
结果:在 196 名随机分组的男孩中(平均年龄 5.8 岁[标准差 1.0 岁]),164 名(84%)完成了试验。与泼尼松间歇组相比,每日泼尼松组和每日地夫可特组在主要结局方面均更有效(每日泼尼松组与泼尼松间歇组相比,全局检验 P<0.001;每日地夫可特组与泼尼松间歇组相比,全局检验 P=0.017),且每日方案之间无显著差异(每日泼尼松组与每日地夫可特组相比,全局检验 P=0.38)。组间差异主要归因于从地板上站起来的速度(每日泼尼松组比泼尼松间歇组快 0.06 rise/s[98.3%置信区间,0.03 至 0.08 rise/s],P=0.003;每日地夫可特组比泼尼松间歇组快 0.06 rise/s[98.3%置信区间,0.03 至 0.09 rise/s],P=0.017;每日泼尼松组比每日地夫可特组慢 0.004 rise/s[98.3%置信区间,-0.03 至 0.02 rise/s],P=0.75)。用力肺活量和 TSQM 总体满意度亚量表评分的两两比较无统计学意义。最常见的不良事件是异常行为(每日泼尼松组 22 例[34%],每日地夫可特组 25 例[38%],泼尼松间歇组 24 例[36%])、上呼吸道感染(每日泼尼松组 24 例[37%],每日地夫可特组 19 例[29%],泼尼松间歇组 24 例[36%])和呕吐(每日泼尼松组 19 例[29%],每日地夫可特组 17 例[26%],泼尼松间歇组 15 例[23%])。
结论和相关性:在杜兴氏肌肉营养不良症患者中,与泼尼松间歇组相比,每日泼尼松或地夫可特治疗 3 年后,运动功能、肺功能和治疗满意度的综合结局均有显著改善;两种每日皮质类固醇方案之间无显著差异。这些发现支持在这项研究中作为杜兴氏肌肉营养不良症男孩初始治疗的方案,使用每日皮质类固醇方案而不是测试的泼尼松间歇方案。
试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT01603407。