Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first study that quantifies the risk of corticosteroid use on overall organ damage or individual organ damage by dose cut-off points endorsed in some SLE clinical trials. This analysis is of significance when attempting to understand the long-term benefit of corticosteroid-sparing agents in the clinical setting. Overall, this study confirmed what has been previously reported on the increased risk of irreversible organ damage associated with corticosteroid use in SLE.2 The most important finding of this study was the dose-response relationship between mean prior prednisone dose during follow-up and the risk of developing irreversible organ damage over time. Patients who received, on average, higher prednisone doses (≥7.5 mg/day) during follow-up were significantly more likely to develop any new organ damage over time, compared with those who were exposed, on average, to prednisone doses <7.5 mg/day after adjustment for disease activity and other variables. Patients in the highest dose subgroup (prednisone dose ≥20 mg/day) were more than twice more likely to experience organ damage than those who received <7.5 mg/day (HR=2.514; p<0.001). Significant predictors of organ damage other than mean prior prednisone dose during follow-up (HR=1.742; p<0.001) were recent SELENA-SLEDAI score during follow-up (HR=1.398, p<0.001); immunosuppressant use during follow-up (HR=1.225; p=0.012); SDI score at cohort entry (HR=1.064; p=0.002); age at cohort entry (HR=1.032; p<0.001); and year of SLE diagnosis (HR=0.992; p=0.044) (Model 1). The sensitivity analyses completed using the inception cohort(s) were consistent with the findings of the overall model (N=2199) for any new organ damage, where corticosteroid was a significant predictor of the risk of any new organ damage over time while adjusting for important confounders (table 4).
Previous analysis from the Hopkins Lupus Cohort has demonstrated a reduced risk of organ damage associated with average cumulative doses of prednisone <6 mg/day.3 In this analysis, we estimated the impact of average prednisone dose as a continuous variable (rather than a discrete variable) and we quantified the risk associated with an increase in average daily prednisone dose of 1 mg/day (HR=1.028; p<0.001), irrespective of baseline prednisone dose (table 3). These data on the risk of damage associated with an increase in average prednisone dose of 1 mg/day and 5 mg/day (HR=1.150, p<0.001) may help inform the clinical decision-making process for corticosteroid dose tapering in SLE. Successful corticosteroid tapering below levels of 5 mg/day is possible with low levels of disease activity (SELENA-SLEDAI 0–2),5 highlighting the significantly great unmet need for corticosteroid-sparing therapies that simultaneously reduce disease activity in SLE.
Another significance of this study is that it demonstrates the risk associated with corticosteroids on individual organ systems within the same study cohort, which further provides insight into the types of damage that are more likely to occur first over time. Daily prednisone doses ≥7.5 mg increased the risk of developing cataracts, osteoporotic fractures and cardiovascular damage, but not renal damage. The relative impact of corticosteroid use on cataracts, osteoporotic fractures and cardiovascular damage varied as is evident by the different effect size values (HR values) for these different types of organ damage (table 5). The effect size value was higher for cataracts than for osteoporotic fractures and for cardiovascular damage.
When evaluating mean prednisone dose as a continuous measure for the cataract and osteoporotic fracture models, we estimated that an increase in average prednisone dose of 1 mg/day was associated with the increased risk of cataracts by 3.8% and osteoporotic fractures by 4.2%. Furthermore, our data demonstrated that the most frequent types of organ damage to first occur over time were musculoskeletal damage and ocular damage (cataracts), the rates of which may potentially be attenuated by the use of corticosteroid-sparing agents in SLE (table 2).
The findings from this study are representative of a well-controlled patient population with SLE (mean SELENA-SLEDAI score at baseline was 3.5) with relatively lower exposure to corticosteroids over time. We do not know how these data may compare with other patients with SLE across the USA; however, we believe that the results of this study may represent one of the most conservative estimates of the rates of organ damage in SLE to date, given the smaller percentage of patients receiving higher doses on prednisone (≥7.5 mg/day) over time (from the Hopkins cohort, the proportion of patients on prednisone ≥7.5 mg/day had declined from 57.4% since 1987 to 11.2% as of 2012). Furthermore, there are short-term side effects associated with varied levels of exposure to corticosteroids that were not explored in this study, including the risk of infections. Considering all these factors together, the burden imposed by corticosteroid use in SLE is important. Clearly, there is an urgent need for corticosteroid-sparing therapies that also better control SLE disease activity. A reduction of as little as 1 mg/day or 5 mg/day in mean prednisone dose would have benefits and potential healthcare savings based on our analyses. Evaluation of non-corticosteroid therapies that manage disease activity and symptoms but avoid the adverse effects of corticosteroids (including but not limited to organ damage) is required to improve the treatment of patients with SLE. Corticosteroid-sparing agents would potentially decrease the risk of these corticosteroid-related comorbidities in a rather young patient population and subsequently decrease the healthcare costs needed to manage these conditions over time.
There are limitations to this study. In the Hopkins Lupus Cohort, measures of treatment adherence or compliance between quarterly patients’ visits were not available; thus, our analyses were based on the assumption that the corticosteroid dose was constant for the quarter after each person-quarter record. Furthermore, the analyses were based on the assumption that those who are censored are not different, on average, from those who are not censored with respect to the relationship between predictors and damage rates, after adjustment for other variables in the Cox models. This seems like a reasonable assumption given the fact that dropouts occur for many reasons. However, if this assumption does not hold, our estimates could be somewhat biased.
Disease activity is a predictor of damage, and prednisone reduces disease activity; therefore, prednisone might have some benefit on preventing some types of organ damage due to SLE alone. For this reason, the HRs reported, while clinically important, are not pure estimates of the impact of prednisone.
In conclusion, understanding the overall risk of organ damage and risk at individual organ systems associated with exposure to high-dose prednisone over time (ie, ≥7.5 mg/day) and further understanding the risk imposed by an average of a 1 mg/day or 5 mg/day increase in prednisone dose would help clinicians better understand the long-term benefit gained from the use of corticosteroid-sparing therapies that are currently in development in SLE clinical trials.