4.5 Article

Repository corticotropin for Chronic Pulmonary Sarcoidosis

期刊

LUNG
卷 195, 期 3, 页码 313-322

出版社

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

关键词

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

资金

  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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据