Nelson H S, Hamilos D L, Corsello P R, Levesque N V, Buchmeier A D, Bucher B L
Department of Medicine, National Jewish Center for Immunology and Respiratory Medicine, Denver, CO 80206.
Am Rev Respir Dis. 1993 Feb;147(2):398-404. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm/147.2.398.
A group of 75 subjects with asthma requiring daily corticosteroids for control were enrolled in a 2-yr, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the use of troleandomycin combined with methylprednisolone, compared with methylprednisolone alone, for the management of their asthma. The primary outcome variables were determination of the lowest stable methylprednisolone dose and assessment of corticosteroid side effects. Methylprednisolone dose was adjusted to maintain optimal control of asthma symptoms. A total of 30 patients receiving TAO and 27 patients receiving placebo completed 1 yr; 17 on TAO and 8 on placebo completed 2 yr of double-blind participation. Control of asthma was equivalent in both groups. The vast majority of patients in both groups achieved alternate-day dosing (29 of 30 on TAO and 23 of 27 on placebo in the first year). The lowest stable doses of methylprednisolone achieved were 10.4 mg/day (placebo) versus 6.3 mg/day (TAO) in the 1-yr group (p = 0.03). However, the baseline dose was also significantly higher in the placebo group (22.8 versus 17.6 mg/day in the TAO group). Therefore, the reductions in methylprednisolone dose were not significantly different between treatment groups. Differences were observed between the two treatment groups in serum IgG, fasting blood sugar, serum cholesterol, and progression of osteoporosis. In each instance the more unfavorable response occurred in those subjects receiving TAO. We conclude that the addition of TAO to methylprednisolone was not accompanied by a reduction in corticosteroid side effects compared with treatment with methylprednisolone alone. Furthermore, no evidence was found for a subset of "TAO responders."(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
一组75名需要每日使用皮质类固醇来控制哮喘的受试者参加了一项为期2年的双盲、安慰剂对照研究,该研究比较了醋竹桃霉素联合甲泼尼龙与单独使用甲泼尼龙治疗哮喘的效果。主要结局变量是确定最低稳定甲泼尼龙剂量和评估皮质类固醇的副作用。调整甲泼尼龙剂量以维持对哮喘症状的最佳控制。共有30名接受醋竹桃霉素治疗的患者和27名接受安慰剂治疗的患者完成了1年的研究;17名接受醋竹桃霉素治疗的患者和8名接受安慰剂治疗的患者完成了2年的双盲参与。两组的哮喘控制效果相当。两组中的绝大多数患者实现了隔日给药(第一年,接受醋竹桃霉素治疗的30名患者中有29名,接受安慰剂治疗的27名患者中有23名)。在1年组中,甲泼尼龙的最低稳定剂量为安慰剂组10.4毫克/天,醋竹桃霉素组6.3毫克/天(p = 0.03)。然而,安慰剂组的基线剂量也显著更高(醋竹桃霉素组为17.6毫克/天,安慰剂组为22.8毫克/天)。因此,治疗组之间甲泼尼龙剂量的降低没有显著差异。在血清IgG、空腹血糖、血清胆固醇和骨质疏松进展方面,两个治疗组之间观察到差异。在每种情况下,接受醋竹桃霉素治疗的受试者出现的不良反应更严重。我们得出结论,与单独使用甲泼尼龙治疗相比,在甲泼尼龙中添加醋竹桃霉素并不能减少皮质类固醇的副作用。此外,没有发现“醋竹桃霉素反应者”亚组的证据。(摘要截选至250字)