Steroids for prevention of long-term renal disease in Henoch-Schönlein Purpura SCH Journal Club 9 January 2014 Dr James Donnelly Selected paper Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to determine whether steroids reduce the incidence and severity of nephropathy in Henoch-Schönlein Purpura (HSP) Dudley J, Smith G, Llewelyn-Edwards A, et al. Arch Dis Child 2013;98:756–763 Published online 11 July 2013 Study conducted January 2001 – January 2005 (!) Background What is already known on this topic: ◦ “There has been a long debate over the role of steroids in the prevention and management of HSP nephritis” 2 previous systematic reviews: ◦ ◦ Weiss PF, Feinstein JA, Luan X, et al. Effects of corticosteroid on HenochSchönlein purpura: a systematic review. Pediatrics 2007;120:1079–87. “early corticosteroid treatment significantly reduced the odds of developing persistent renal disease” Chartapisak W, Opastiraku S, Willis NS, et al. Prevention and treatment of renal disease in Henoch-Schönlein purpura: a systematic review. Arch Dis Child 2009;94:132–7. “there was no significant difference in the risk of development or persistence of renal involvement at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months (fig 1) with prednisone compared with placebo or no specific treatment” PICO question Population In children with Henoch-Schönlein Purpura, Intervention does early treatment with steroids Comparison (compared to placebo) Outcome prevent clinically significant renal disease? Population: Inclusion criteria • Multicentre recruitment – 24 secondary care centres in England & Wales – n = 352 • Age < 18 • Definition of HSP: – 1990 American College of Rheumatology criteria – 2 or more of: • age less than or equal to 20 years at disease onset • palpable purpura • acute abdominal pain • biopsy showing granulocytes in the walls of small arterioles or venules Population: Exclusion criteria • • • • • • Already receiving steroids/immunosuppressants Already receiving ACE inhibitors Pre-existing renal disease (excluding UTI) Pre-existing hypertension Evidence of immunodeficiency/systemic infection Contraindications for steroid therapy ◦ glaucoma – epilepsy – diabetes mellitus ◦ peptic ulceration • Had the rash for more than 7 days Intervention & Comparison • 14 days of steroid treatment – – – – starting from day 7 of the rash prednisolone 2mg/kg/day for 7 days then prednisolone 1mg/kg/day for 7 days then stop vs. • Identically labelled, blinded placebo Primary outcomes • Proteinuria at 12 months – urine protein : creatinine ratio >20 mg/mmol OR • Need for additional treatment – Hypertension • on an antihypertensive agent started for hypertension – Renal biopsy anomaly • all showed mesangial IgA deposits and proliferation – Renal disease • on steroids (non-trial) for renal reasons • on ACE inhibitors (enalapril) for proteinuria Secondary outcome • Symptoms of possible medication-induced toxicity by Polyuria 1 week 4 – – – – hypertension abdominal pain nausea and/or vomiting adverse events • … but nearly all can also be Polydipsia 1 Glycosuria 0 Irritability 2 Headache 2 Bruising/skin problems 2 Malaise 2 Infection 2 Gastrointestinal bleed 0 Behavioural change 10 Other 0 symptoms of HSP! • “included if the clinician … deemed them probably or definitely due to the trial medication” (A) Are the results of the trial valid? CASP analysis 1. Did the trial address a clearly focused issue? • Yes • Designed to address “flaws” in previous trials 2. Was the assignment of patients to treatments randomised? • Yes – by computer remote from the study sites • Allocation concealment satisfactory http://www.casp-uk.net/ (A) Are the results of the trial valid? CASP analysis 3. Were all of the patients who entered the trial properly accounted for at its conclusion? • Yes • Recruitment rate: 76% • Dropout rate: 30% • Study was powered for dropout rate of 15% 76% 70% – therefore slightly underpowered – was this why published so late? http://www.casp-uk.net/ (A) Are the results of the trial valid? CASP analysis 5. Were the groups similar at the start of the trial? • Yes – for 3 baseline metrics and 6 clinical characteristics http://www.casp-uk.net/ (A) Are the results of the trial valid? CASP analysis 4. Were patients , health workers and study personnel ‘blind’ to treatment? • Yes – follows from good placebo control • Only 3 patients unblinded for investigation of adverse events 6. Aside from the experimental intervention, were the groups treated equally? • Yes – follows from good control and good blinding http://www.casp-uk.net/ (B) What are the results? Results 7. How large was the treatment effect? 8. How precise was the estimate of the treatment effect? Proteinuria at 12/12: ◦ Not significant ◦ OR 1.46 (0.68 – 3.14) Additional treatment: ◦ Not significant ◦ OR 0.53 (0.18 – 1.59) Proteinuria at baseline: No (86%) Yes (14%) http://www.casp-uk.net/ (C) Will the results help locally? CASP analysis 9. Can the results be applied in your context? Yes ◦ UK based data, right age group, matching definition ◦ SCH guideline: ◦ to be inserted ◦ Nottingham guideline: steroids only for severe gut involvement; requires consultant approval https://www.nuh.nhs.uk/healthcare-professionals/clinical-guidelines/ ◦ Leeds guideline: to be inserted http://www.casp-uk.net/ (C) Will the results help locally? CASP analysis 10. Were all clinically important outcomes considered? For this specific study question… ie. does early prednisolone make a difference in terms of prevention of renal disease http://www.casp-uk.net/ What this study adds Enough data to change the clinical bottom line of a systematic review Viewed as settling the debate on a long argument Any information on the use of steroids (or other treatments) to treat : ◦ established HSP nephropathy ◦ extrarenal manifestations of HSP (C) Will the results help locally? Clinical bottom line 11. Are the benefits worth the harms and costs? • No • Steroids in early HSP do not prevent progression to significant renal disease • Important negative results are worth publishing, even years later! #alltrials – http://www.alltrials.net/ http://www.casp-uk.net/