We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
A randomized, controlled trial of methotrexate versus placebo in early diffuse scleroderma.
Arthritis and Rheumatism 2001 June
OBJECTIVE: Early diffuse scleroderma (systemic sclerosis; SSc) has no proven treatment. This study was undertaken to examine the efficacy of methotrexate (MTX) in improving the skin and other disease parameters in early diffuse SSc.
METHODS: Seventy-one patients with diffuse SSc of <3 years' duration were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. Thirty-five patients were treated with MTX and 36 with placebo. Treatment was administered for 12 months. The primary outcome measures were skin score (as determined with 2 different indices) and physician global assessment.
RESULTS: At baseline, there were no statistically significant differences in skin scores, carbon monoxide diffusing capacity (DLco), physician global assessment, or other secondary outcome measurements between the 2 treatment groups. At study completion, results slightly favored the MTX group (mean +/- SEM modified Rodnan skin score 21.4+/-2.8 in the MTX group versus 26.3+/-2.1 in the placebo group [P < 0.17]; UCLA skin score 8.8+/-1.2 in the MTX group versus 11.0+/-0.9 in the placebo group [P < 0.15]; DLco in the MTX group 75.7+/-4.6 versus 61.8+/-3.4 in the placebo group [P < 0.2]). In addition, physician global assessment results favored MTX (P < 0.035), whereas patient global assessment did not differ significantly between groups. When between-group differences for changes in scores from baseline to 12 months were examined using intent-to-treat methodology, MTX appeared to have a favorable effect on skin scores (modified Rodnan score -4.3 in the MTX group versus 1.8 in the placebo group [P < 0.009]; UCLA score -1.2 in the MTX group versus 1.2 in the placebo group [P < 0.02]), but differences in the degree of change in the DLco and physician global assessment were not significant. For the UCLA skin score, these differences in results were not statistically significant after adjustment for baseline differences in sex distribution and steroid use. Dropout rates were similar in the 2 groups.
CONCLUSION: Although results of this trial demonstrated a trend in favor of MTX versus placebo in the treatment of early diffuse SSc, the between-group differences were small and the power to rule out false-negative results was only 50%. Our findings do not provide evidence that MTX is significantly effective in the treatment of early diffuse SSc.
METHODS: Seventy-one patients with diffuse SSc of <3 years' duration were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. Thirty-five patients were treated with MTX and 36 with placebo. Treatment was administered for 12 months. The primary outcome measures were skin score (as determined with 2 different indices) and physician global assessment.
RESULTS: At baseline, there were no statistically significant differences in skin scores, carbon monoxide diffusing capacity (DLco), physician global assessment, or other secondary outcome measurements between the 2 treatment groups. At study completion, results slightly favored the MTX group (mean +/- SEM modified Rodnan skin score 21.4+/-2.8 in the MTX group versus 26.3+/-2.1 in the placebo group [P < 0.17]; UCLA skin score 8.8+/-1.2 in the MTX group versus 11.0+/-0.9 in the placebo group [P < 0.15]; DLco in the MTX group 75.7+/-4.6 versus 61.8+/-3.4 in the placebo group [P < 0.2]). In addition, physician global assessment results favored MTX (P < 0.035), whereas patient global assessment did not differ significantly between groups. When between-group differences for changes in scores from baseline to 12 months were examined using intent-to-treat methodology, MTX appeared to have a favorable effect on skin scores (modified Rodnan score -4.3 in the MTX group versus 1.8 in the placebo group [P < 0.009]; UCLA score -1.2 in the MTX group versus 1.2 in the placebo group [P < 0.02]), but differences in the degree of change in the DLco and physician global assessment were not significant. For the UCLA skin score, these differences in results were not statistically significant after adjustment for baseline differences in sex distribution and steroid use. Dropout rates were similar in the 2 groups.
CONCLUSION: Although results of this trial demonstrated a trend in favor of MTX versus placebo in the treatment of early diffuse SSc, the between-group differences were small and the power to rule out false-negative results was only 50%. Our findings do not provide evidence that MTX is significantly effective in the treatment of early diffuse SSc.
Full text links
Trending Papers
Monitoring Macro- and Microcirculation in the Critically Ill: A Narrative Review.Avicenna Journal of Medicine 2023 July
ANCA-associated vasculitis - Treatment Standard.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2023 November 9
ASA Consensus-based Guidance on Preoperative Management of Patients on Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists.Anesthesiology 2023 November 21
Common postbariatric surgery emergencies for the acute care surgeon: What you need to know.Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 2023 December 2
How we approach titrating PEEP in patients with acute hypoxemic failure.Critical Care : the Official Journal of the Critical Care Forum 2023 October 32
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
Read by QxMD is copyright © 2021 QxMD Software Inc. All rights reserved. By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app