Randomised trial of oral and intravenous methylprednisolone in acute relapses of multiple sclerosis. A randomised controlled trial comparing rehabilitation against standard therapy in multiple sclerosis patients receiving intravenous steroid treatment. A short-term randomized MRI study of high-dose oral vs intravenous methylprednisolone in MS. Methylprednisolone in multiple sclerosis: a comparison of oral with intravenous therapy at equivalent high dose. Efficacy of intravenous pulse cyclophosphamide treatment versus combination of intravenous dexamethasone and oral cyclophosphamide treatment in steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome. High-dose intravenous methylprednisolone in the treatment of multiple sclerosis: clinical-immunologic correlations. Intravenous pulse cyclophosphamide--a new regime for steroid-resistant minimal change nephrotic syndrome. Pulse cyclophosphamide therapy in steroid-dependent nephrotic syndrome. Intravenous cyclosporine versus intravenous corticosteroids as single therapy for severe attacks of ulcerative colitis.
An intravenous rather than oral course of methylprednisolone is often prescribed for treating acute relapses in multiple sclerosis (MS) despite the lack of evidence to support this route of administration. Our double-blind placebo-controlled randomised trial was designed to compare the efficacy of commonly used intravenous and oral steroid regimens in promoting recovery from acute relapses in MS.
                42 patients with clinically definite relapse in MS received oral, and 38 intravenous, methylprednisolone. Clinical measurements at entry and at 1 week, 4 weeks, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks included Kurtzke's expanded disability status scale (EDSS), Hauser's Ambulatory Index, and an arm-function index. The primary outcome criterion was a difference between the two treatment groups of one or more EDSS grades at 4 weeks.
                There were no significant differences between the two groups at any stage of the study in any measurement taken: the mean difference in EDSS at 4 weeks (adjusted for baseline level) was 0.07 grades more in those taking oral steroids (95% CI -0.46 to 0.60). The most optimistic outcome for intravenous therapy is an average benefit of less than half a grade improvement on EDSS over oral treatment.
                Since our study did not show any clear advantage of the intravenous regime we conclude that it is preferable to prescribe oral rather than intravenous steroids for acute relapses in MS for reasons of patient convenience, safety, and cost. There is evidence to support both the use of intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP) in multiple sclerosis (MS) relapse and physiotherapy in the management of MS, but no studies have investigated the combination of steroids and rehabilitation together.
                To evaluate the benefits of IVMP with planned, comprehensive multidisciplinary team (MDT) care compared to IVMP with standard care.
                In this randomised controlled trial, patients confirmed to have had a definite MS relapse severe enough to warrant IVMP (1 g daily for three days) were randomised to two groups. The control group was managed according to the standard ward routine; the treatment group received planned coordinated multidisciplinary team assessment and treatment. Baseline assessments, including demographics and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) were carried out on both groups. The primary outcome measures were Guy's Neurological Disability Scale (GNDS), and Amended Motor Club Assessment (AMCA). The secondary measures were the Barthel Index (BI), Human Activity Profile (HAP), and Short Form Item 36 Health Survey (SF-36). All measures have published data on reliability and validity. Measures were administered at one and three months.
                Forty subjects, including 27 females, completed data collection. There were no significant differences between the two groups at baseline. Results showed statistically significant differences in GNDS (p = 0.03), AMCA (p = 0.03), HAPM (p < 0.01), HAPA (p = 0.02), and BI (p = 0.02) at three months in favour of planned MDT care.
                This study indicates that combining steroids with planned MDT care is superior to administering them in a standard neurology or day ward setting. Further research is necessary in order to confirm this finding. To compare the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of IV methylprednisolone (IV MP) vs oral methylprednisolone (oMP) at equivalent high doses in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) experiencing a recent relapse.
                Patients with a clinical relapse within the previous 2 weeks and at least 1 gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing lesion on a screening brain MRI scan were included. Forty patients with MS were randomized to receive either 1 g/day for 5 days of oMP (20 patients) or 1 g/day for 5 days of IV MP (20 patients). Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and brain MRI (dual-echo and postcontrast T1-weighted scans) were assessed at baseline and at weeks 1 and 4. The study primary research question (endpoint) was to compare the efficacy of the 2 treatment routes in reducing the number of Gd-enhancing lesions after 1 week from treatment initiation. Secondary outcomes were safety, tolerability, and clinical efficacy profiles of the 2 routes of administration.
                The 2 groups showed a reduction of Gd-enhancing lesions over time (p = 0.002 for oMP and p = 0.001 for IV MP) with a "non-inferiority effect" between the 2 routes of administration at week 1. Both groups showed an improvement of EDSS over time (p < 0.001) without between-group difference at week 4. Both treatments were well-tolerated and adverse events were minimal and occurred similarly in the 2 treatment arms.
                Oral methylprednisolone (oMP) is as effective as IV methylprednisolone in reducing gadolinium-enhancing lesions in patients with MS soon after an acute relapse with similar clinical, safety, and tolerability profiles. This study provides class III evidence that 1 g oMP x 5 days is not inferior to 1 g IV MP x 5 days in reducing the number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions over a period of 1 week (mean difference in lesion reduction comparing IV MP to oMP is -20%, 95% confidence interval -48% to + 5%). A randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial of intravenous methylprednisolone versus oral methylprednisolone at equivalent high dose was carried out on 35 patients with an acute relapse of multiple sclerosis (MS). After baseline evaluation each was randomly allocated to oral treatment and intravenous placebo or intravenous treatment and oral placebo, receiving 500 mg of methylprednisolone for five consecutive days and with reassessment at days five and twenty-eight. There was no significant difference in response when disability or functional scores were compared in the two groups. Adverse effects were minor and equally distributed. In this study oral treatment with methylprednisolone was as effective as intravenous treatment in acute relapse of MS. We compared, in a randomized controlled trial, the efficacy of a regimen based on intravenous (i.v.) cyclophosphamide therapy with a combination of i.v. dexamethasone and oral cyclophosphamide therapy in inducing remission in patients with steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome (SRNS). During April 2001 to December 2003, 52 consecutive patients with idiopathic SRNS, normal renal function and renal histology findings showing minimal change disease, focal segmental glomerulosclerosis or mesangioproliferative glomerulonephritis were enrolled into the study. Patients in group I received i.v. injection of cyclophosphamide once a month for 6 months and prednisolone on alternate days. Those in group II received i.v. treatment with dexamethasone (initially on alternate days, later fortnightly and monthly; total 14 doses), oral cyclophosphamide therapy (for 3 months) and prednisolone on alternate days. Data from 49 patients (26 in group I, 23 in group II) were analyzed; their clinical and biochemical features were similar at inclusion. Following treatment, complete remission was seen in 53.8% and 47.8% patients in groups I and II, respectively (P = 0.6). Long-term follow up showed favorable outcome in 14 (53.8%) patients in group I, and 9 (39.1%) in group II. Chief adverse effects, including cushingoid features and serious infections, were similar in both groups. Patients receiving i.v. dexamethasone therapy commonly showed hypertension and hypokalemia, while vomiting and reversible alopecia occurred in those receiving i.v. treatment with cyclophosphamide. In patients with SRNS, the efficacy of treatment intravenously with cyclophosphamide and orally with prednisolone was similar to the combination of dexamethasone intravenously, orally administered cyclophosphamide and prednisolone. We conducted a double-blind trial of high-dose parenteral 6-methylprednisolone (MP) and placebo on 23 patients with acute MS. After the double-blind trial, the patients were given corticosteroids in gradually decreasing doses. The frequency of improvement was significantly higher and the bout duration significantly lower in the MP group than in the placebo group. The first signs of improvement (3 to 6 days after starting MP) were associated with a marked decrease in the rate of CNS IgG synthesis, but IgG CSF oligoclonal bands did not change. CNS IgG production slowly returned toward baseline despite progressive clinical improvement. The treatment of steroid-resistant minimal change nephrotic syndrome (MCNS) continues to pose a therapeutic challenge. We conducted a randomised prospective controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of i.v. cyclophosphamide compared with oral cyclophosphamide in 13 children with biopsy-proven steroid-resistant MCNS. All 7 patients receiving i.v. cyclophosphamide achieved remission; this was sustained in 4 patients, while 3 relapsed. However, even these 3 patients subsequently became steroid sensitive. Of the 6 patients who received oral cyclophosphamide, 2 dropped out, 1 responded and 3 children continued to remain steroid resistant. The children who received IV cyclophosphamide had more sustained remissions, longer periods without proteinuria and fewer significant side effects; this was achieved at a lower cumulative dose. Intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVCP) has been shown to be effective in lupus nephritis. This is a randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of IVCP with oral cyclophosphamide (OCP) in patients with steroid-dependent (SD) idiopathic nephrotic syndrome (INS). Forty-seven consecutive children who were SD were randomized to receive either OCP (2 mg/kg per dayx12 weeks) or IVCP (500 mg/m(2) per month IVx6 months) after achieving a steroid-induced remission. The response was evaluated in terms of remission, change in steroid response status, duration of remission (i.e., proteinuria-free days), side effects, and compliance. Of the 47, IVCP was given to 26 children and OCP to 21 children. The demographic data, histopathology, biochemical profile, and duration of follow-up in the two groups were similar. On Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, the median proteinura-free time was 360+/-88 days compared with 96+/-88 days in the OCP group (values median+/-SE, log rank P=0.05). The actuarial cumulative sustained remission in our study was 73% in IVCP compared with 38.1% in OCP at 6 months after therapy, but was almost identical (18.6% in IVCP vs. 19%in OCP) after 2 years. Thus in our study the overall improvement in steroid response category from SD to sustained remission, infrequent relapser, and frequent relapser (88% in IVCP vs. 57% in OCP) was significantly better in the IVCP group, although the number of children with persistent remission tended to be similar at 2 years. Furthermore, the response was observed with a 40% lower cumulative dose than OCP. Hence, we conclude that IVCP is a safe and effective therapeutic modality in children with INS who are SD. Cyclosporine has been effective in patients with steroid-refractory attacks of ulcerative colitis (UC). We investigated the effects of intravenous (IV) cyclosporine as single IV therapy (without glucocorticosteroids) for severe UC and compared these with the response to glucocorticosteroids.
                Patients with a severe attack of UC were randomized to treatment with IV cyclosporine, 4 mg x kg(-1) x day(-1), or with methylprednisolone, 40 mg/day, in a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. After 8 days, patients who had a response received the same medication orally in combination with azathioprine. Patients were followed up clinically, endoscopically, and by scintigraphy. Renal function was assessed using urinary inulin clearances. Endpoints were clinical improvement, discharge from the hospital, and remission up to 12 months after intravenous therapy.
                Thirty patients were included. After 8 days, 8 of 15 patients (53%) who received methylprednisolone had a response to therapy vs. 9 of 14 (64%) receiving cyclosporine. In nonresponders, 3 of 7 methylprednisolone patients and 1 of 3 cyclosporine patients improved when both treatments were combined. No serious drug-related toxicity was observed with either treatment. At 12 months, 7 of 9 patients (78%) initially controlled with cyclosporine maintained their remission vs. 3 of 8 (37%) initially treated with methylprednisolone. No clinically significant decrease of renal function was observed.
                Cyclosporine monotherapy is an effective and safe alternative to glucocorticosteroids in patients with severe attacks of UC.
The analysis of the five included trials comparing intravenous versus oral steroid therapy for MS relapses do not demonstrate any significant differences in clinical (benefits and adverse events), radiological or pharmacological outcomes. Based on the evidence, oral steroid therapy may be a practical and effective alternative to intravenous steroid therapy in the treatment of MS relapses.