4.5 Article

Repository corticotropin for Chronic Pulmonary Sarcoidosis

Journal

LUNG
Volume 195, Issue 3, Pages 313-322

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00408-017-9994-4

Keywords

Sarcoidosis; Repository corticotrophin; Acthar gel; PET scan; Quality of life

Funding

  1. Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals
  2. Center for Clinical and Translational Science and Training grant support [1UL1TR001425-01]
  3. Mallinckrodt
  4. Gilead
  5. Novartis
  6. Celgene
  7. Bayer
  8. Foundation for Sarcoidosis Research
  9. National Institutes of Health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pupose The dose of repository corticotropin (RCI) and need for a loading dose in sarcoidosis patients receiving chronic corticosteroids are unclear. We performed a single-blind prospective study, comparing two doses of RCI in sarcoidosis. Methods Chronic pulmonary sarcoidosis patients receiving prednisone therapy with deterioration by 5% in FVC in the previous year were studied. RCI was administered subcutaneously at a loading dose of 80 units RCI for 10 days. Patients were randomized at day 14 to receive either 40- or 80-unit RCI twice a week. The dose of prednisone was modified by the clinician who was blinded to the patient's dosage of RCI. Results Sixteen patients completed the full 24 weeks of the study. At week 24, there was a decrease in the dose of prednisone, and improvements in DLCO, King's Sarcoidosis Questionnaire health status and fatigue score. There was no significant change in FVC % predicted. For the PET scan, there was a significant fall in the standard uptake value (SUV) of the lung lesions. Only 3/8 patients remained on 80 units RCI for full 24 weeks. There was no significant difference in the response to therapy for those treated with 40- versus 80-unit RCI. Conclusions Repository corticotropin treatment was prednisone-sparing and associated with significant improvement in DLCO, PET scan, and patient-reported outcome measures. A dose of 40-unit RCI twice a week was as effective as 80-unit RCI and was better tolerated.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available