Is intravenous glucocorticoid therapy better than an oral regimen for asymptomatic cardiac rejection? A randomized...

This study assessed whether treatment with oral prednisone (bolus plus tapered doses) is comparable to intravenous methylprednisolone sodium succinate (Solu-Medrol) therapy in patients with asymptomatic moderate cardiac allograft rejection episodes without hemodynamic compromise.

Intravenous Solu-Medrol therapy is frequently administered for moderate rejection episodes after heart transplantation but has not previously been compared with an oral prednisone therapy for asymptomatic cardiac rejection in a randomized trial. Compared with oral prednisone therapy, the administration of intravenous Solu-Medrol is more costly and resource intensive, and it can require loss of work time for patients and the family members who accompany them to treatment.

Forty-one heart transplant patients with 43 episodes of asymptomatic moderate cardiac rejection were randomized to receive 3 days of 1,000 mg of intravenous Solu-Medrol (20 episodes) or prednisone as a bolus dose of 100 mg orally for 3 days, tapering to the previous maintenance dosage over 14 days (23 episodes). Follow-up endomyocardial biopsies were performed at 2 and 4 weeks. Infectious complications were monitored and the cost of the two forms of therapy was assessed.

Resolution of moderate rejection occurred within 4 weeks in 19 (95%) of 20 patients treated with intravenous steroids and in 21 (91%) of 23 patients treated with oral prednisone. No significant difference in infectious complications occurred between the two groups in the ensuing 3 months after therapy. The cost of the oral prednisone therapy was $6.30 compared with the cost of $180 to $966 for administration of intravenous Solu-Medrol.

Oral prednisone (bolus plus tapered doses) appears to be as effective and to have similar infectious complication rates as intravenous Solu-Medrol for the treatment of asymptomatic cardiac rejection. The convenience and lower cost of oral prednisone therapy may warrant its routine use for this type of cardiac rejection.