IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0168834.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Double-Blind Controlled Randomized Trial of Cyclophosphamide versus Methylprednisolone in Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis

Author

Listed:
  • Bruno Brochet
  • Mathilde S A Deloire
  • Paul Perez
  • Timothé Loock
  • Louise Baschet
  • Marc Debouverie
  • Sophie Pittion
  • Jean-Christophe Ouallet
  • Pierre Clavelou
  • Jérôme de Sèze
  • Nicolas Collongues
  • Patrick Vermersch
  • Hélène Zéphir
  • Giovanni Castelnovo
  • Pierre Labauge
  • Christine Lebrun
  • Mikael Cohen
  • Aurélie Ruet
  • PROMESS study investigators

Abstract

Background: Therapeutic options are limited in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS). Open-label studies suggested efficacy of monthly IV cyclophosphamide (CPM) without induction for delaying progression but no randomized trial was conducted so far. Objective: To compare CPM to methylprednisolone (MP) in SPMS. Methods: Randomized, double-blind clinical trial on two parallel groups. Patient with SPMS, with a documented worsening of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score during the last year and an EDSS score between 4·0 and 6·5 were recruited and received one intravenous infusion of treatment (CPM: 750 mg /m2 body surface area—MP: 1g) every four weeks for one year, and every eight weeks for the second year. The primary endpoint was the time to EDSS deterioration, when confirmed sixteen weeks later, analyzed using a Cox model. Results: Due to recruitment difficulties, the study was terminated prematurely after 138 patients were included (CPM, n = 72; MP, n = 66). In the CPM group, 33 patients stopped treatment prematurely, mainly due to tolerability, compared with 22 in the MP group. Primary endpoint: the hazard ratio for EDSS deterioration in the CPM in comparison with the MP group was 0.61 [95% CI: 0·31–1·22](p = 0·16). According to the secondary multistate model analysis, patients in the CPM group were 2.2 times more likely ([1·14–4.29]; p = 0.02) to discontinue treatment than those in the MP group and 2.7 times less likely (HR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.17–0.84; p = 0.02) to experience disability progression when they did not stop treatment prematurely. Safety profile was as expected. Conclusion: Although the primary end-point was negative, secondary analysis suggested that CPM decreases the risk of progression in SPMS, but its use may be limited by low tolerability. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00241254

Suggested Citation

  • Bruno Brochet & Mathilde S A Deloire & Paul Perez & Timothé Loock & Louise Baschet & Marc Debouverie & Sophie Pittion & Jean-Christophe Ouallet & Pierre Clavelou & Jérôme de Sèze & Nicolas Collongues , 2017. "Double-Blind Controlled Randomized Trial of Cyclophosphamide versus Methylprednisolone in Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0168834
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168834
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0168834
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0168834&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0168834?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0168834. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.