4.7 Article

Hydroxychloroquine in systemic lupus erythematosus: results of a French multicentre controlled trial (PLUS Study)

Journal

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
Volume 72, Issue 11, Pages 1786-1792

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-202322

Keywords

Systemic Lupus Erythematosus; Pharmacokinetics; Treatment

Categories

Funding

  1. French PHRC Ministere de la Sante [05-125]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is an important medication for treating systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Its blood concentration ([HCQ]) varies widely between patients and is a marker and predictor of SLE flares. This prospective randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study sought to compare standard and adjusted HCQ dosing schedules that target [HCQ] 1000ng/ml to reduce SLE flares. Patients and methods [HCQ] was measured in 573 patients with SLE (stable disease and SELENA-SLEDAI12) treated with HCQ for at least 6months. Patients with [HCQ] from 100 to 750ng/ml were randomised to one of two treatment groups: no daily dose change (group 1) or increased HCQ dose to achieve the target [HCQ] (group 2). The primary end point was the number of patients with flares during 7months of follow-up. Results Overall, mean [HCQ] was 918451ng/ml. Active SLE was less prevalent in patients with higher [HCQ]. A total of 171 patients were randomised and followed for 7months. SLE flare rates were similar in the two groups (25% in group 1 vs 27.6% in group 2; p=0.7), but a significant spontaneous increase in [HCQ] in both groups between inclusion and randomisation strongly suggested improved treatment adherence. Patients at the therapeutic target throughout follow-up tended to have fewer flares than those with low [HCQ] (20.5% vs 35.1%, p=0.12). Conclusions Although low [HCQ] is associated with higher SLE activity, adapting the HCQ dose did not reduce SLE flares over a 7-month follow-up. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00413361

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available