47
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of the two most commonly used treatments for pyoderma gangrenosum: results of the STOP GAP randomised controlled trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective To determine whether ciclosporin is superior to prednisolone for the treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum, a painful, ulcerating skin disease with a poor evidence base for management.

          Design Multicentre, parallel group, observer blind, randomised controlled trial.

          Setting 39 UK hospitals, recruiting from June 2009 to November 2012.

          Participants 121 patients (73 women, mean age 54 years) with clinician diagnosed pyoderma gangrenosum. Clinical diagnosis was revised in nine participants after randomisation, leaving 112 participants in the analysis set (59 ciclosporin; 53 prednisolone).

          Intervention Oral prednisolone 0.75 mg/kg/day compared with ciclosporin 4 mg/kg/day, to a maximum dose of 75 and 400 mg/day, respectively.

          Main outcome measures The primary outcome was speed of healing over six weeks, captured using digital images and assessed by blinded investigators. Secondary outcomes were time to healing, global treatment response, resolution of inflammation, self reported pain, quality of life, number of treatment failures, adverse reactions, and time to recurrence. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and six weeks and when the ulcer had healed (to a maximum of six months).

          Results Of the 112 participants, 108 had complete primary outcome data at baseline and six weeks (57 ciclosporin; 51 prednisolone). Groups were balanced at baseline. The mean (SD) speed of healing at six weeks was −0.21 (1.00) cm 2/day in the ciclosporin group compared with −0.14 (0.42) cm 2/day in the prednisolone group. The adjusted mean difference showed no between group difference (0.003 cm 2/day, 95% confidence interval −0.20 to 0.21; P=0.97). By six months, ulcers had healed in 28/59 (47%) participants in the ciclosporin group compared with 25/53 (47%) in the prednisolone group. In those with healed ulcers, eight (30%) receiving ciclosporin and seven (28%) receiving prednisolone had a recurrence. Adverse reactions were similar for the two groups (68% ciclosporin and 66% prednisolone), but serious adverse reactions, especially infections, were more common in the prednisolone group.

          Conclusion Prednisolone and ciclosporin did not differ across a range of objective and patient reported outcomes. Treatment decisions for individual patients may be guided by the different side effect profiles of the two drugs and patient preference.

          Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN35898459.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          EuroQol: the current state of play.

          R. Brooks (1996)
          The EuroQol Group first met in 1987 to test the feasibility of jointly developing a standardised non-disease-specific instrument for describing and valuing health-related quality of life. From the outset the Group has been multi-country, multi-centre, and multi-disciplinary. The EuroQol instrument is intended to complement other forms of quality of life measures, and it has been purposefully developed to generate a cardinal index of health, thus giving it considerable potential for use in economic evaluation. Considerable effort has been invested by the Group in the development and valuation aspects of health status measurement. Earlier work was reported upon in 1990; this paper is a second 'corporate' effort detailing subsequent developments. The concepts underlying the EuroQol framework are explored with particular reference to the generic nature of the instrument. The valuation task is reviewed and some evidence on the methodological requirements for measurement is presented. A number of special issues of considerable interest and concern to the Group are discussed: the modelling of data, the duration of health states and the problems surrounding the state 'dead'. An outline of some of the applications of the EuroQol instrument is presented and a brief commentary on the Group's ongoing programme of work concludes the paper.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Pyoderma gangrenosum: clinicopathologic correlation and proposed diagnostic criteria.

            Pyoderma gangrenosum is a rare but significant cause of ulcerations. It is a diagnosis of exclusion. Herein, we suggest diagnostic criteria and some historical perspectives on the diagnosis of pyoderma gangrenosum.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Infliximab for the treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial.

              Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is a chronic ulcerating skin condition that often occurs in association with inflammatory bowel disease. There have been a number of reports of PG responding to infliximab, a monoclonal antibody against tumour necrosis factor alpha. In the first randomised placebo controlled trial of any drug for the treatment of PG, we have studied the role of infliximab in this disorder. Patients 18 years of age or older with a clinical diagnosis of PG were invited to take part. Patients were randomised to receive an infusion of infliximab at 5 mg/kg or placebo at week 0. Patients were then assessed at week 2 and non-responders were offered open labelled infliximab. The primary end point was clinical improvement at week 2, with secondary end points being remission and improvement at week 6. Thirty patients were entered into the study. After randomisation, 13 patients received infliximab and 17 patients received placebo. At week 2, significantly more patients in the infliximab group had improved (46% (6/13)) compared with the placebo group (6% (1/17); p = 0.025). Overall, 29 patients received infliximab with 69% (20/29) demonstrating a beneficial clinical response. Remission rate at week 6 was 21% (6/29). There was no response in 31% (9/29) of patients. This study has demonstrated that infliximab at a dose of 5 mg/kg is superior to placebo in the treatment of PG. Open label treatment with infliximab also produced promising results. Infliximab treatment should be considered in patients with PG.

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: professor of dermatology
                Role: professor of applied dermatology research
                Role: consultant dermatologist
                Role: senior trial manager
                Role: trial statistician
                Role: professor of clinical trials and biostatistics
                Role: professor of health economics
                Role: consultant dermatologist
                Role: consultant dermatologist
                Role: professor of dermato-epidemiology
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                bmj
                BMJ : British Medical Journal
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2015
                12 June 2015
                : 350
                : h2958
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Applied Medicine, Aberdeen University, Aberdeen, UK
                [2 ]Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, NG7 2NR, UK
                [3 ]Department of Dermatology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK
                [4 ]Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
                [5 ]Robertson Centre for Biostatistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
                [6 ]Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, Aberdeen University, Aberdeen, UK
                [7 ]School of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham University, Durham, UK
                [8 ]Department of Dermatology, Hull Royal Infirmary, Hull, UK
                [9 ]Department of Dermatology, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: K S Thomas kim.thomas@ 123456nottingham.ac.uk
                Article
                orma025628
                10.1136/bmj.h2958
                4469977
                26071094
                01786948-2790-496f-b05e-7ece4e4714be
                © Ormerod et al 2015

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 27 April 2015
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log