OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical usefulness of 2 novel therapies for treatment-resistant myositis. METHODS:Thirty patients with refractory myositis, of whom 25 had an inadequate or no response to previous cytotoxic therapy, were randomized to begin either a combination of weekly oral methotrexate and daily azathioprine (MTX/AZA) or intravenous methotrexate with leucovorin rescue (I.V. MTX) every 2 weeks for 6 months. Crossover to the alternate therapy occurred according to defined rules; evaluations of muscle strength and functional abilities were performed at the beginning, and after 3 and 6 months, of each treatment. RESULTS: Of the 15 patients initially randomized tooral MTX/AZA, 8 improved with oral therapy and 1 improved with I.V. MTX during the crossover period. Of the 15 patients initially randomized to I.V. MTX therapy, 3 improved with the I.V. therapy and 4 with the oral combination during the crossover period. Although the study lacked the power to directly compare both treatments, intention-to-treat analysis showed a trend in favor of those patients who first received oral combination therapy (P = 0.025). There were 0.09 adverse events per patient-month with oral combination therapy and 0.16 per patient-month with I.V. therapy (P = 0.09). CONCLUSION: Combination oral MTX/AZA may benefit patients with treatment-resistant myositis, including those who previously had inadequate responses to either MTX or AZA alone. I.V. MTX with leucovorin rescue may also benefit some patients with refractory myositis.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical usefulness of 2 novel therapies for treatment-resistant myositis. METHODS: Thirty patients with refractory myositis, of whom 25 had an inadequate or no response to previous cytotoxic therapy, were randomized to begin either a combination of weekly oral methotrexate and daily azathioprine (MTX/AZA) or intravenous methotrexate with leucovorin rescue (I.V. MTX) every 2 weeks for 6 months. Crossover to the alternate therapy occurred according to defined rules; evaluations of muscle strength and functional abilities were performed at the beginning, and after 3 and 6 months, of each treatment. RESULTS: Of the 15 patients initially randomized to oral MTX/AZA, 8 improved with oral therapy and 1 improved with I.V. MTX during the crossover period. Of the 15 patients initially randomized to I.V. MTX therapy, 3 improved with the I.V. therapy and 4 with the oral combination during the crossover period. Although the study lacked the power to directly compare both treatments, intention-to-treat analysis showed a trend in favor of those patients who first received oral combination therapy (P = 0.025). There were 0.09 adverse events per patient-month with oral combination therapy and 0.16 per patient-month with I.V. therapy (P = 0.09). CONCLUSION: Combination oral MTX/AZA may benefit patients with treatment-resistant myositis, including those who previously had inadequate responses to either MTX or AZA alone. I.V. MTX with leucovorin rescue may also benefit some patients with refractory myositis.