Vivienne Kahlmann,Montse Janssen Bonás,Catharina C Moor,Jan C Grutters,Rémy L M Mostard,Henricus N A J van Rijswijk,Jan van der Maten,Emiel R Marges,Linda A A Moonen,Maria J Overbeek,Bart Koopman,Daan W Loth,Esther J Nossent,Michiel Wagenaar,Henk Kramer,Pascal L M L Wielders,Peter I Bonta,Stefan Walen,Brigitte A H A Bogaarts,Réne Kerstens,Mayka Overgaauw,Marcel Veltkamp,Marlies S Wijsenbeek
{"title":"强的松或甲氨蝶呤治疗肺结节病的一线治疗。","authors":"Vivienne Kahlmann,Montse Janssen Bonás,Catharina C Moor,Jan C Grutters,Rémy L M Mostard,Henricus N A J van Rijswijk,Jan van der Maten,Emiel R Marges,Linda A A Moonen,Maria J Overbeek,Bart Koopman,Daan W Loth,Esther J Nossent,Michiel Wagenaar,Henk Kramer,Pascal L M L Wielders,Peter I Bonta,Stefan Walen,Brigitte A H A Bogaarts,Réne Kerstens,Mayka Overgaauw,Marcel Veltkamp,Marlies S Wijsenbeek","doi":"10.1056/nejmoa2501443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nPrednisone is currently recommended as the first-line treatment for pulmonary sarcoidosis but is associated with many side effects. Methotrexate, which is recommended as a second-line treatment, appears to have fewer side effects than prednisone but a slower onset of action. Data are needed on the efficacy and side-effect profile of methotrexate as compared with prednisone as first-line treatment for pulmonary sarcoidosis.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nIn this multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial involving patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis who had not previously received treatment, we randomly assigned patients, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive prednisone or methotrexate according to a prespecified treatment schedule. The primary end point was the mean change from baseline to week 24 in the percentage of the predicted forced vital capacity (FVC), as estimated with the use of mixed models for repeated measures. The noninferiority margin for the primary end point was 5 percentage points.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nOf the 138 patients who underwent randomization, 70 were assigned to receive prednisone and 68 to receive methotrexate. The unadjusted mean change from baseline to week 24 in the percentage of the predicted FVC was 6.75 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.50 to 8.99) in the prednisone group and 6.11 percentage points (95% CI, 3.72 to 8.50) in the methotrexate group. Methotrexate was noninferior to prednisone with regard to the primary end point, with an adjusted between-group difference of -1.17 percentage points (95% CI, -4.27 to 1.93). Adverse events occurred in a similar percentage of patients in the two trial groups. Weight gain, insomnia, and increased appetite were the most common adverse events with prednisone, and nausea, fatigue, and any abnormal liver-function test were among the most common adverse events with methotrexate.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nIn patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis, initial treatment with methotrexate was noninferior to that with prednisone with regard to the change from baseline to week 24 in the percentage of the predicted FVC. Differences in the side-effect profile between methotrexate and prednisone may inform shared decision making by providers and patients about the appropriate treatment approach. (Funded by the Dutch Lung Foundation; PREDMETH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04314193.).","PeriodicalId":54725,"journal":{"name":"New England Journal of Medicine","volume":"132 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":96.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"First-Line Treatment of Pulmonary Sarcoidosis with Prednisone or Methotrexate.\",\"authors\":\"Vivienne Kahlmann,Montse Janssen Bonás,Catharina C Moor,Jan C Grutters,Rémy L M Mostard,Henricus N A J van Rijswijk,Jan van der Maten,Emiel R Marges,Linda A A Moonen,Maria J Overbeek,Bart Koopman,Daan W Loth,Esther J Nossent,Michiel Wagenaar,Henk Kramer,Pascal L M L Wielders,Peter I Bonta,Stefan Walen,Brigitte A H A Bogaarts,Réne Kerstens,Mayka Overgaauw,Marcel Veltkamp,Marlies S Wijsenbeek\",\"doi\":\"10.1056/nejmoa2501443\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\r\\nPrednisone is currently recommended as the first-line treatment for pulmonary sarcoidosis but is associated with many side effects. Methotrexate, which is recommended as a second-line treatment, appears to have fewer side effects than prednisone but a slower onset of action. Data are needed on the efficacy and side-effect profile of methotrexate as compared with prednisone as first-line treatment for pulmonary sarcoidosis.\\r\\n\\r\\nMETHODS\\r\\nIn this multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial involving patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis who had not previously received treatment, we randomly assigned patients, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive prednisone or methotrexate according to a prespecified treatment schedule. The primary end point was the mean change from baseline to week 24 in the percentage of the predicted forced vital capacity (FVC), as estimated with the use of mixed models for repeated measures. The noninferiority margin for the primary end point was 5 percentage points.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nOf the 138 patients who underwent randomization, 70 were assigned to receive prednisone and 68 to receive methotrexate. The unadjusted mean change from baseline to week 24 in the percentage of the predicted FVC was 6.75 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.50 to 8.99) in the prednisone group and 6.11 percentage points (95% CI, 3.72 to 8.50) in the methotrexate group. Methotrexate was noninferior to prednisone with regard to the primary end point, with an adjusted between-group difference of -1.17 percentage points (95% CI, -4.27 to 1.93). Adverse events occurred in a similar percentage of patients in the two trial groups. Weight gain, insomnia, and increased appetite were the most common adverse events with prednisone, and nausea, fatigue, and any abnormal liver-function test were among the most common adverse events with methotrexate.\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSIONS\\r\\nIn patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis, initial treatment with methotrexate was noninferior to that with prednisone with regard to the change from baseline to week 24 in the percentage of the predicted FVC. Differences in the side-effect profile between methotrexate and prednisone may inform shared decision making by providers and patients about the appropriate treatment approach. (Funded by the Dutch Lung Foundation; PREDMETH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04314193.).\",\"PeriodicalId\":54725,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New England Journal of Medicine\",\"volume\":\"132 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":96.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New England Journal of Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2501443\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New England Journal of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2501443","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
First-Line Treatment of Pulmonary Sarcoidosis with Prednisone or Methotrexate.
BACKGROUND
Prednisone is currently recommended as the first-line treatment for pulmonary sarcoidosis but is associated with many side effects. Methotrexate, which is recommended as a second-line treatment, appears to have fewer side effects than prednisone but a slower onset of action. Data are needed on the efficacy and side-effect profile of methotrexate as compared with prednisone as first-line treatment for pulmonary sarcoidosis.
METHODS
In this multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial involving patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis who had not previously received treatment, we randomly assigned patients, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive prednisone or methotrexate according to a prespecified treatment schedule. The primary end point was the mean change from baseline to week 24 in the percentage of the predicted forced vital capacity (FVC), as estimated with the use of mixed models for repeated measures. The noninferiority margin for the primary end point was 5 percentage points.
RESULTS
Of the 138 patients who underwent randomization, 70 were assigned to receive prednisone and 68 to receive methotrexate. The unadjusted mean change from baseline to week 24 in the percentage of the predicted FVC was 6.75 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.50 to 8.99) in the prednisone group and 6.11 percentage points (95% CI, 3.72 to 8.50) in the methotrexate group. Methotrexate was noninferior to prednisone with regard to the primary end point, with an adjusted between-group difference of -1.17 percentage points (95% CI, -4.27 to 1.93). Adverse events occurred in a similar percentage of patients in the two trial groups. Weight gain, insomnia, and increased appetite were the most common adverse events with prednisone, and nausea, fatigue, and any abnormal liver-function test were among the most common adverse events with methotrexate.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis, initial treatment with methotrexate was noninferior to that with prednisone with regard to the change from baseline to week 24 in the percentage of the predicted FVC. Differences in the side-effect profile between methotrexate and prednisone may inform shared decision making by providers and patients about the appropriate treatment approach. (Funded by the Dutch Lung Foundation; PREDMETH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04314193.).
期刊介绍:
The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) stands as the foremost medical journal and website worldwide. With an impressive history spanning over two centuries, NEJM boasts a consistent publication of superb, peer-reviewed research and engaging clinical content. Our primary objective revolves around delivering high-caliber information and findings at the juncture of biomedical science and clinical practice. We strive to present this knowledge in formats that are not only comprehensible but also hold practical value, effectively influencing healthcare practices and ultimately enhancing patient outcomes.