Search

Importance: Corticosteroids improve strength and function in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. However, there is uncertainty regarding the optimum regimen and dosage.Objective: To compare efficacy and adverse effects of the 3 most frequently prescribed corticosteroid regimens in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy.Design, Setting, and Participants: Double-blind, parallel-group randomized clinical trial including 196 boys aged 4 to 7 years with Duchenne muscular dystrophy who had not previously been treated with corticosteroids; enrollment occurred between January 30, 2013, and September 17, 2016, at 32 clinic sites in 5 countries. The boys were assessed for 3 years (last participant visit on October 16, 2019).Interventions: Participants were randomized to daily prednisone (0.75 mg/kg) (n = 65), daily deflazacort (0.90 mg/kg) (n = 65), or intermittent prednisone (0.75 mg/kg for 10 days on and then 10 days off) (n = 66).Main Outcomes and Measures: The global primary outcome comprised 3 end points: rise from the floor velocity (in rise/seconds), forced vital capacity (in liters), and participant or parent global satisfaction with treatment measured by the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM; score range, 0 to 100), each averaged across all study visits after baseline. Pairwise group comparisons used a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .017.Results: Among the 196 boys randomized (mean age, 5.8 years [SD, 1.0 years]), 164 (84%) completed the trial. Both daily prednisone and daily deflazacort were more effective than intermittent prednisone for the primary outcome (P < .001 for daily prednisone vs intermittent prednisone using a global test; P = .017 for daily deflazacort vs intermittent prednisone using a global test) and the daily regimens did not differ significantly (P = .38 for daily prednisone vs daily deflazacort using a global test). The between-group differences were principally attributable to rise from the floor velocity (0.06 rise/s [98.3% CI, 0.03 to 0.08 rise/s] for daily prednisone vs intermittent prednisone [P = .003]; 0.06 rise/s [98.3% CI, 0.03 to 0.09 rise/s] for daily deflazacort vs intermittent prednisone [P = .017]; and -0.004 rise/s [98.3% CI, -0.03 to 0.02 rise/s] for daily prednisone vs daily deflazacort [P = .75]). The pairwise comparisons for forced vital capacity and TSQM global satisfaction subscale score were not statistically significant. The most common adverse events were abnormal behavior (22 [34%] in the daily prednisone group, 25 [38%] in the daily deflazacort group, and 24 [36%] in the intermittent prednisone group), upper respiratory tract infection (24 [37%], 19 [29%], and 24 [36%], respectively), and vomiting (19 [29%], 17 [26%], and 15 [23%]).Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, treatment with daily prednisone or daily deflazacort, compared with intermittent prednisone alternating 10 days on and 10 days off, resulted in significant improvement over 3 years in a composite outcome comprising measures of motor function, pulmonary function, and satisfaction with treatment; there was no significant difference between the 2 daily corticosteroid regimens. The findings support the use of a daily corticosteroid regimen over the intermittent prednisone regimen tested in this study as initial treatment for boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01603407. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the safety and tolerability of recombinant humaninsulin-like growth factor 1 (rhIGF-1) complexed with IGF binding protein 3 (rhIGF-1/ rhIGFBP-3) in patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1). Design: Open-label dose-escalation clinical trial. Setting: University medical center. Participants: Fifteen moderately affected ambulatory participants with genetically proven myotonic dystrophy type 1. Intervention: Participants received escalating dosages of subcutaneous rhIGF-1/rhIGFBP-3 for 24 weeks followed by a 16-week washout period. Main Outcome Measures: Serial assessments of safety, muscle mass, muscle function, and metabolic state were performed. The primary outcome variable was the ability of participants to complete 24 weeks receiving rhIGF-1/ rhIGFBP-3 treatment. Results: All participants tolerated rhIGF-1/rhIGFBP-3. There were no significant changes in muscle strength or functional outcomes measures. Lean body muscle mass measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry increased by 1.95 kg (P<.001) after treatment. Participants also experienced a mean reduction in triglyceride levels of 47 mg/dL(P=.002), amean increase in HDL levels of 5.0mg/dL (P=.03), a mean reduction in hemoglobin A1c levels of 0.15% (P=.03), and a mean increase in testosterone level (in men) of 203 ng/dL (P=.002) while taking rhIGF-1/ rhIGFBP-3. Mild reactions at the injection site occurred (9 participants), as did mild transient hypoglycemia (3), light headedness (2), and transient papilledema (1). Conclusions: Treatment with rhIGF-1/rhIGFBP-3 was generally well tolerated in patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1. Treatment with rhIGF-1/rhIGFBP-3 was associated with increased lean body mass and improvement in metabolism but not increased muscle strength or function. Larger randomized controlled trials would be needed to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of this medication in patients with neuromuscular disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]