Patient reported side-effects of prednisone and methotrexate in a real-world sarcoidosis population

Anti-inflammatory Therapy for Sarcoidosis

Over 50% of patients with sarcoidosis will require anti-inflammatory therapy at some point in their disease course. Indications for therapy are to improve health-related quality of life, prevent or arrest organ dysfunction (or organ failure) or avoid death. Recently published treatment guidelines recommended a stepwise approach to therapy however there are some patients for whom up front combination or more intense therapy maybe reasonable. The last decade has seen an explosion of studies and trials evaluating novel therapeutic agents and treatment strategies. Currently available anti-inflammatory therapies and several novel therapies are discussed here.

Quality of life in sarcoidosis

Having sarcoidosis often has a major impact on quality of life of patients and their families. Improving quality of life is prioritized as most important treatment aim by many patients with sarcoidosis, but current evidence and treatment options are limited. In this narrative review, we describe the impact of sarcoidosis on various aspects of daily life, evaluate determinants of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and provide an overview of the different patient-reported outcome measures to assess HRQoL in sarcoidosis. Moreover, we review the current evidence for pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to improve quality of life for people with sarcoidosis.

Prednisone vs methotrexate in treatment naïve cardiac sarcoidosis

BACKGROUND

Side effects limit the long-term use of glucocorticoids in cardiac sarcoidosis (CS), and methotrexate has gained attention as steroid sparing agent although the supporting evidence is poor. This study compared prednisone monotherapy, methotrexate monotherapy or a combination of both, in the reduction of myocardial Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake and clinical stabilization of CS patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this retrospective cohort study, 61 newly diagnosed and treatment naïve CS patients commenced treatment with prednisone (N = 21), methotrexate (N = 30) or prednisone and methotrexate (N = 10) between January 2010 and December 2017. Primary outcome was metabolic response on FDG PET/CT and secondary outcomes were treatment patterns, major adverse cardiovascular events, left ventricular ejection fraction, biomarkers and side effects. At a median treatment duration of 6.2 [5.7-7.2] months, 71.4% of patients were FDG PET/CT responders, and the overall myocardial maximum standardized uptake value decreased from 6.9 [5.0-10.1] to 3.4 [2.1-4.7] (P < 0.001), with no significant differences between treatment groups. During 24 months of follow-up, 7 patients (33.3%; prednisone), 6 patients (20.0%; methotrexate) and 1 patient (10.0%; combination group) experienced at least one major adverse cardiovascular event (P = 0.292). Left ventricular ejection fraction was preserved in all treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant suppression of cardiac FDG uptake occurred in CS patients after 6 months of prednisone, methotrexate or combination therapy. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes during follow-up. These results warrant further investigation of methotrexate treatment in CS patients.

Treat to target and tight control: Could be a new approach in the treatment of sarcoidosis?

Sarcoidosis is a chronic granulomatous disease with multisystemic involvement. Although it is accepted as a benign disease, it can sometimes cause life-threatening organ (heart, brain) involvement that determines the prognosis of the disease. There are conflicting opinions about the treatment of the disease. In the generally accepted treatment approach the "step-by-step" model has gained weight. According to this approach, corticosteroids (CS) drugs alone are preferred in the first step in patients who require treatment. In the second step, immunosuppressive drugs (IS) are used in patients who do not respond to CS and/or have contraindications to CS use, and biologics (TNF-alpha inhibitors) are used in the third step. This treatment approach may be valid in cases with mild sarcoidosis. However, although sarcoidosis is considered a benign and self-limiting disease in some major organ involvement, the "step-by-step" approach may be a treatment option that puts the patient's life in danger. In such selected patients, much more rigorous, early and combined treatment approaches that definitely include CS, IS or biologic drugs may be required. In selected sarcoidosis patients with high risk, early diagnosis, "treat-to-target" (T2T) and "tight control" follow-up of patients seems to be a rational approach. This article reviews the "step-down" treatment regimens in light of recent literature data and hypothesizes that the T2T model may be a probable new treatment approach in patients with sarcoidosis.

The Risk of Sarcoidosis Misdiagnosis and the Harmful Effect of Corticosteroids When the Disease Picture Is Incomplete

Sarcoidosis is a complex granulomatous disease of unknown etiology. Due to the heterogeneity of the disease, the diagnosis remains challenging in many cases, often at the physician's discretion, requiring a thorough and complex investigation. Many other granulomatous diseases have the potential to mimic sarcoidosis, whether infectious, occupational, or autoimmune diseases and starting an unnecessary corticosteroid treatment can worsen the patient's prognosis, leading to side effects that can be harder to treat than the actual disease.

Hit-hard and early versus step-up treatment in severe sarcoidosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The treatment of sarcoidosis remains uncertain, despite 70 years of study. The conventional approach is to initiate corticosteroids in individuals who require treatment. The position of more aggressive regimes is unknown.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent recognition that many patients will require prolonged therapy, and the observation that corticosteroids lead to overt and insidious toxicities, have led to suggestions that steroid-sparing medications be used earlier in the management of sarcoidosis. Individuals with poor prognostic features, designated as 'high-risk' sarcoidosis may, especially benefit from a broader palette of therapeutic options in the initial treatment regimen. An even more aggressive approach, known as 'top-down' or 'hit-hard and early' therapy has emerged in the fields of gastroenterology and rheumatology in the past 15 years, on the premise that highly effective early control of inflammation leads to better outcomes. These regimens typically involve early initiation of biologic therapies.

SUMMARY

For certain subpopulations of sarcoidosis patients, 'top-down' therapy could be helpful. Severe pulmonary sarcoidosis, neurosarcoidosis, cardiac sarcoidosis and multiorgan sarcoidosis are phenotypes that may be most relevant for revised therapeutic algorithms. Precision medicine approaches and randomized trials will be necessary to confirm a role for top-down therapy in the routine management of sarcoidosis.