Steroids for sarcoidosis: How much and for how long?

High-dose (40 mg) versus low-dose (20 mg) prednisolone for treating sarcoidosis: a randomised trial (SARCORT trial)

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend 20-40 mg·day-1 of oral prednisolone for treating pulmonary sarcoidosis. Whether the higher dose (40 mg·day-1) can improve outcomes remains unknown.

METHODS

We conducted an investigator-initiated, single-centre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03265405). Consecutive subjects with pulmonary sarcoidosis were randomised (1:1) to receive either high-dose (40 mg·day-1 initial dose) or low-dose (20 mg·day-1 initial dose) oral prednisolone, tapered over 6 months. The primary outcome was the frequency of relapse or treatment failure at 18 months from randomisation. Key secondary outcomes included the time to relapse or treatment failure, overall response, change in forced vital capacity (FVC, in litres) at 6 and 18 months, treatment-related adverse effects and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores using the Sarcoidosis Health Questionnaire and Fatigue Assessment Scale.

FINDINGS

We included 86 subjects (43 in each group). 42 and 43 subjects completed treatment in the high-dose and low-dose groups, respectively, while 37 (86.0%) and 41 (95.3%), respectively, completed the 18-month follow-up. 20 (46.5%) subjects had relapse or treatment failure in the high-dose group and 19 (44.2%) in the low-dose group (p=0.75). The mean time to relapse/treatment failure was similar between the groups (high-dose 307 days versus low-dose 269 days, p=0.27). The overall response, the changes in FVC at 6 and 18 months and the incidence of adverse effects were also similar. Changes in HRQoL scores did not differ between the study groups.

INTERPRETATION

High-dose prednisolone was not superior to a lower dose in improving outcomes or the HRQoL in sarcoidosis and was associated with similar adverse effects.

Efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone pulse followed by oral prednisone versus oral prednisone alone in sarcoidosis tubulointerstitial nephritis. A randomized, open-label, controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine the benefit of pulsed methylprednisolone for improving renal function in sarcoidosis tubulointerstitial nephritis (TIN).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-labeled, controlled trial in patients with biopsy-proven acute TIN due to sarcoidosis was conducted in 21 sites in France. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a methylprednisolone pulse 15 mg/kg/day for 3 days then oral prednisone (MP group) or oral prednisone 1 mg/kg/day alone (PRD group). The primary endpoint was a positive response at 3 months, defined as a doubling of eGFR as compared with before randomization.

RESULTS

We randomized 40 participants. Baseline eGFR before PRD was 22 ml/min/1.73m2 (interquartile range [IQR] 16-44) and before MP was 25 ml/min/1.73m2 (IQR 22-36) (P = 0.3). The two groups did not differ in underlying pathological lesions, including mean percentage of interstitial fibrosis and intensity of interstitial infiltrate. In the intent-to-treat population, the median eGFR at 3 months did not significantly differ between the PRD and MP groups: 45 (IQR 34-74) and 46 (IQR 39-65) ml/min/1.73m2. The primary endpoint at 3 months was achieved in 16/20 (80%) PRD patients and 10/20 (50%) MP patients (P = 0.0467). eGFR was similar between the two groups after 1, 3, 6, and 12 months of treatment. For both groups, eGFR at 1 month was highly correlated with eGFR at 12 months (P < 0.0001). The two groups did not differ in severe adverse events.

CONCLUSION

As compared with a standard oral-steroid regimen, intravenous MP may have no supplemental benefit for renal function in patients with TIN due to sarcoidosis. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01652417; EudraCT: 2012-000149-11.

Rationale and design of the SARCoidosis Outcomes in all respiratory Viral Infectious Diseases (SARCOVID) Study

INTRODUCTION

Respiratory infections are ubiquitous. The COVID-19 pandemic has refocused our attention on how morbid and potentially fatal they can be, and how host factors have an impact on the clinical course and outcomes. Due to a range of vulnerabilities, patients with sarcoidosis may be at higher risk of poor outcomes from respiratory infections. The objective of the SARCoidosis Outcomes in all respiratory Viral Infectious Diseases (SARCOVID) Study is to determine the short-term and long-term impacts of respiratory viral illnesses (COVID-19 and non-COVID-19) in sarcoidosis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Up to 20 clinical sites across the USA are participating in the recruitment of 2000 patients for this observational, prospective study. To ensure that the study cohort is representative of the general population with sarcoidosis, participating sites include those dedicated to reaching under-represented minorities or patients from non-urban areas. Baseline data on demographic features, comorbidities, sarcoidosis characteristics and pre-enrolment lung function will be captured at study entry. During this 3-year study, all acute respiratory infectious events (from SARS-CoV-2 and any other respiratory pathogen) will be assessed and recorded at quarterly intervals. The level of required medical care and survival outcomes determine infection severity, and the impact of infection on quality of life measures will be recorded. Post-infection lung function and imaging results will measure the long-term impact on the trajectory of sarcoidosis. Patients will be analysed according to the clinical phenotypes of cardiac and fibrotic pulmonary sarcoidosis. Control groups include non-infected patients with sarcoidosis and patients with non-sarcoidosis interstitial lung disease.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Each site received local institutional review board approval prior to enrolling patients, with the consent process determined by local institution standards. Data will be published in a timely manner (goal <12 months) at the conclusion of the 3-year follow-up period and will be made available upon request.

[Hydroxychloroquine for non-severe extra-pulmonary sarcoidosis]

Sarcoidosis can develop into a chronic disease in about 30% of cases. When general treatment is indicated, corticosteroids are the first-line treatment. More than one third of patients treated with corticosteroids receive a steroid-sparing agent. Although methotrexate is the most commonly used sparing agent, synthetic antimalarials have been used for more than fifty years on the basis of small, randomised, therapeutic trials. Despite this low level of evidence, chloroquine or more often hydroxychloroquine are used in daily practice, particularly to treat skin, bone and joint sarcoidosis, as well as hypercalcemia and certain types of uveitis. This review summarises the state of knowledge on steroid-sparing therapy in sarcoidosis, particularly in its extra-pulmonary form. These data support the need for good quality therapeutic trials to validate the use of hydroxychloroquine in this specific indication.

Biologic and advanced immunomodulating therapeutic options for sarcoidosis: a clinical update

Introduction: Sarcoidosis is a multi-organ disease with a wide range of clinical manifestations and outcomes. A quarter of sarcoidosis patients require long-term treatment for chronic disease. In this group, corticosteroids and cytotoxic agents be insufficient to control diseaseAreas covered: Several biologic agents have been studied for treatment of chronic pulmonary and extra-pulmonary disease. A review of the available literature was performed searching PubMed and an expert opinion regarding specific therapy was developed.Expert opinion: These agents have the potential of treating patients who have progressive disease. Many of these agents have different mechanisms of action, response rates, and toxicity profiles.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Sarcoidosis

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) describes an individual's perception of the impact of health, disease, and treatment on their quality of life (QoL). It is a reflection of how the manifestation of an illness and its treatment is personally experienced. Assessing HRQoL is particularly important in sarcoidosis because the attributable disease mortality is relatively low, and one of the major reasons for initiating treatment is to improve quality of life. HRQoL has been assessed in sarcoidosis using various generic and sarcoid-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). It is important that both the direct and indirect effects of the disease, as well as potential toxicities of therapy, are captured in the various PROMs used to assess HRQoL in sarcoidosis. This article provides a general overview of HRQoL in patients with sarcoidosis. It describes the various PROMs used to assess HRQoL in sarcoidosis and addresses the various factors that influence HRQoL in sarcoidosis. Specific attention is paid to fatigue, small fiber neuropathy, corticosteroid therapy, and other disease-specific factors that affect HRQoL in sarcoidosis. It also provides an insight into interventions that have been associated with improved HRQoL in sarcoidosis and offers suggestions for future research in this important area.