Extending Prednisolone TX Does Not Reduce Relapse

Click here to load reader

  • date post

    04-Oct-2015
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    3
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

description

JOURNAL

Transcript of Extending Prednisolone TX Does Not Reduce Relapse

  • CLINICAL RESEARCH www.jasn.org

    Extending Prednisolone Treatment Does Not ReduceRelapses in Childhood Nephrotic Syndrome

    Nynke Teeninga,* Joana E. Kist-van Holthe, Nienske van Rijswijk,* Nienke I. de Mos,

    Wim C.J. Hop, Jack F.M. Wetzels,| Albert J. van der Heijden,* and Jeroen Nauta*

    *Department of Pediatrics, Division of Nephrology, Erasmus University Medical CentreSophia Childrens Hospital,Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO Institute for Health and CareResearch, Vrije Universiteit University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Pediatrics,Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands; Department of Biostatistics, Erasmus MC UniversityMedical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; and |Department of Nephrology, Radboud University NijmegenMedical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    ABSTRACTProlonged prednisolone treatment for the initial episode of childhood nephrotic syndrome may reducerelapse rate, but whether this results from the increased duration of treatment or a higher cumulative doseremains unclear.We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 69 hospitals in TheNetherlands. We randomly assigned 150 children (9 months to 17 years) presenting with nephrotic syn-drome to either 3 months of prednisolone followed by 3 months of placebo (n=74) or 6 months of pred-nisolone (n=76), and median follow-up was 47 months. Both groups received equal cumulative dosesof prednisolone (approximately 3360 mg/m2). Among the 126 children who started trial medication,relapses occurred in 48 (77%) of 62 patients who received 3 months of prednisolone and 51 (80%) of 64patients who received 6 months of prednisolone. Frequent relapses, according to international criteria,occurred with similar frequency between groups as well (45% versus 50%). In addition, there were nostatistically significant differences between groups with respect to the eventual initiation of prednisolonemaintenance and/or other immunosuppressive therapy (50% versus 59%), steroid dependence, or ad-verse effects. In conclusion, in this trial, extending initial prednisolone treatment from 3 to 6 monthswithout increasing cumulative dose did not benefit clinical outcome in children with nephrotic syndrome.Previous findings indicating that prolonged treatment regimens reduce relapsesmost likely resulted fromincreased cumulative dose rather than the treatment duration.

    J Am Soc Nephrol 24: 149159, 2013. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2012070646

    Nephrotic syndrome (NS) is the most commonmanifestation of glomerular disease in childhood.Despite its relatively low incidence of 17 in 100,000children,1,2 NS poses recurring challenges to manyclinicians.

    Corticosteroids induce remission of proteinuriain 90%95% of patients.36 Despite this high initialresponse rate, relapses occur in 60%90% of theinitial responders.6,7 The disease progresses tofrequent relapses, often accompanied by steroiddependence, in around 20%60% of patients. Re-current or continuous corticosteroid therapy inthese patients frequently results in corticosteroidtoxicity.1 This finding calls for the improvement

    of existing treatment regimens, for which no inter-national consensus currently exists.8

    The present treatment modalities for initial child-hood NS are mostly based on reports by the Inter-national Study of Kidney Disease in Children and

    Received July 3, 2012. Accepted October 10, 2012.

    Published online ahead of print. Publication date available atwww.jasn.org.

    Correspondence: Ms. Nynke Teeninga, Department of Pediat-ric Nephrology, Erasmus MCSophia Childrens Hospital,Dr. Molewaterplein 60, Room number Sp-2456, 3015 GJ Rotter-dam, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected]

    Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Nephrology

    J Am Soc Nephrol 24: 149159, 2013 ISSN : 1046-6673/2401-149 149

    http://www.jasn.orgmailto:[email protected]

  • the Arbeitsgemeinschaft fr PdiatrischeNephrologie. Currentyused regimens vary in dose and duration (Supplemental Table1).6,9,10 The regimen prescribed in The Netherlands is made upof 60 mg/m2 prednisolone daily for 6 weeks followed by 40mg/m2 prednisolone on alternate days for 6 weeks.10 The cu-mulative dose of this regimen is 3360 mg/m2.

    In 2000, Hodson et al.11 performed a meta-analysis of cor-ticosteroid therapy in childhood NS to evaluate the potentialbenefits of different corticosteroid regimens.11 Based on theanalysis of seven clinical trials in patients with an initial epi-sode of NS, it was concluded that the risk of relapse was sig-nificantly reduced by prednisolone regimens that were bothlonger and more intensive. Additional analysis suggested thatthe benefits were more likely to be related to the increasedduration of the treatment than the higher cumulative dose.However, collinearity between treatment duration and doseprevented the work by Hodson et al.11 from drawing definiteconclusions.11 A subsequent study by Hiraoka et al.12 compar-ing 3 months of prednisolone treatment to 6 month of treat-ment was also inconclusive. In this study, prolonged treatmentreduced the relapse rate in children ages under 4 years; how-ever, this intervention also consisted of a higher cumulative

    dose.12 The independent effects of treatment duration andcumulative dose, thus, remained undetermined.

    Based on these data, we designed a study protocol to explorethe independent effect of treatment duration. In the presentstudy, we hypothesized that prolongation of a 3-month initialprednisolone treatment to 6 months using equal cumulativedoses would reduce the occurrence of frequently relapsing NS(FRNS) without increasing adverse effects.

    RESULTS

    From February of 2005 to December of 2009, 212 patientswere evaluated for eligibility. Participants and nonparticipantswere similar in terms of sex and age at onset (SupplementalTable 2); 150 patients from 69 hospitals (60 general and 9university hospitals) were randomized to either 3 monthsprednisolone followed by 3months placebo or 6months pred-nisolone (Figure 1). In both groups, 12 patients could notstart trial medication because of either steroid resistance orwithdrawn consent. These patients were excluded from the anal-ysis. Median follow-up was 47 months in the 3-month group

    Figure 1. Patients were analysed in a modified intention to treat analysis. All patients that started trial medication were analysedaccording to their allocated treatment. SRNS, steroid-resistant NS.

    150 Journal of the American Society of Nephrology J Am Soc Nephrol 24: 149159, 2013

    CLINICAL RESEARCH www.jasn.org

    http://jasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1681/ASN.2012070646/-/DCSupplementalhttp://jasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1681/ASN.2012070646/-/DCSupplementalhttp://jasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1681/ASN.2012070646/-/DCSupplementalhttp://jasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1681/ASN.2012070646/-/DCSupplemental

  • (interquartile range [IQR]=3260) and 47 months in the 6-month group (IQR=3760).

    Induction therapy and trial medication were administeredwithin a total of 24 weeks in both groups. The prescribedcumulative dose of prednisolone in the 6-month group de-pended on the number of days to remission, which is shown inFigure 2. Because themedian number of days to remissionwas10 days in both groups (IQR=814 and 714 days, respec-tively), the median prescribed cumulative prednisolone dosewas 3360mg/m2 in the 3-month group and 3390mg/m2 in the6-month group. Baseline characteristics revealed no relevantdifferences between the two groups (Table 1); 65% of the studypopulation was of Western European descent.

    FRNS was scored and analyzed according to strict defini-tions (strict FRNS) as well as a broader, clinically relevantdefinition (clinical FRNS) as explained below.

    The cumulative incidences of FRNS did not reveal a benefitof the 6-month regimen, regardless of the definition used(Table 2). Strict FRNS was found in 28 of 62 children (45%)in the 3-month group and 32 of 64 children (50%) in the6-month group (log rank test: P=0.91) (Figure 3A and Table3). Three patients in the 3-month group and six patients in the6-month group did not meet the strict criteria for FRNS, butthey were characterized as having clinical FRNS (Supplemen-tal Table 3B). Accordingly, clinical FRNS occurred in 31 of 62children (50%) in the 3-month group versus 38 of 64 children

    Figure 2. Treatment regimens were built up of comparable cumulative doses of prednisolone. The dotted line represents the mediannumber of days to remission (10 days in both groups), the gray area represents the IQR. Doses are in mg/m2. AD, alternate days; D, daily.

    Table 1. Baseline characteristics

    Overall (n=126) 3 Months Prednisolone (n=62) 6 Months Prednisolone (n=64)

    Male, n (%) 86 (68) 39 (63) 47 (73)Age (yr) median (IQR) 4.2 (3.26.2) 4.7 (3.25.8) 3.8 (3.26.4)BPa (mean 6 SD)Systolic, Z-value 1.761.3b 1.761.3c 1.661.3d

    Diastolic, Z-value 1.661.1b 1.761.3c 1.661.0d

    Serum albumin (g/L) median (IQR) 14.0 (10.016.2) 14.0 (10.017.0) 13.4 (10.016.0)Microscopic hematuriae, n (%) 40 (33)f 19 (32)g 21 (34)h

    Hospital, n (%)University 14 (11.1) 5 (8.0) 9 (14.1)General 112 (88.9) 57 (92.0) 55 (85.9)

    Descent, n (%)Western European 83 (65.9) 46 (74.2) 37 (57.8)Non-Western European 16 (12.7) 6 (9.7) 10 (15.6)Mixed 13 (10.3) 3 (4.8) 10 (15.6)Not reported 14 (11.1) 7 (11.3) 7 (10.9)

    Quarterly distribution of disease onset, n (%)January to March 25 (19.8) 14 (22.6) 11 (17.2)April to June 24 (19.0) 11 (17.7) 13 (20.3)July to September 40 (31.7) 19 (30.6) 21 (32.8)October to December 37 (29.4) 18 (29.0) 19 (29.7)aLowest BP reported in patients chart at diagnosis. Z-values are adjusted for sex, age, and height.33bData available for 123 of 126 patients.cData available for 61 of 62 patients.dData available for 62 of 64 patients.eDefined as .5 erythrocytes/field; if cell count not available, $+ on dipstick analysis.fData available for 121 of 126 patients.gData available for 59 of 62 patients.hData available for 62 of 64 patients.

    J Am Soc Nephrol 24: 149159, 2013 Randomized Controlled Trial Childhood Nephrotic Syndrome 151

    www.jasn.org CLINICAL RESEARCH

    http://jasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1681/ASN.2012070646/-/DCSupplementalhttp://jasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1681/ASN.2012070646/-/DCSupplemental

  • (59%) in the 6-month group (log rank test: P=0.76) (Figure3B).

    The cumulative incidences of first relapses were similar inthe two treatment groups. At least one relapse occurred in 48 of62 children (77%) in the 3-month group and 51 of 64 children(80%) in the 6-month group. Median survival time fromrandomization to the first relapse was 6 months (95%confidence interval [CI]=4.008.00) in the 3-month groupand 8 months (95% CI=6.0010.00) in the 6-month group(log rank test: P=0.69) (Figure 3C).

    Children allocated to the 6-month group experiencedmorerelapses during follow-up compared with the 3-month group,although differences were not statistically significant. Themedian total number of relapses during follow-up was 2.5(IQR=1.05.0) in the 3-month group and 4.0 (IQR=1.06.0)in the 6-month group (P=0.13). The median number of re-lapses per year of follow-up was 0.6 (IQR=0.21.4) and 1.0(IQR=0.31.6), respectively (P=0.16). Simultaneous evalua-tion (performed with Poisson regression) of relapse rates inrelation to treatment, sex, age category, and follow-up period(I, II, and III) showed no significant difference between treat-ments. The adjusted overall relative relapse rate (RRR) for the3- compared with 6-month groupwas 0.81 (95%CI=0.601.09;

    P=0.16). The RRRwas highest in the period between 6 and 12months after diagnosis (1.5; P=0.008). The effect of treat-ment did not differ between the three follow-up periods(P=0.46).

    Steroid dependence was noted less often in the 3-monthgroup: 15 of 62 children (24%) versus 24 of 64 children (38%)in the 6-month group (Table 3). The difference did not reachstatistical significance (log rank test, P=0.10).

    Cox regression analysis revealed that boys tended to de-velop FRNS more often than girls, although differences werenot statistically significant. For strict FRNS, the male versusfemale hazard ratio (HR) was 1.68 (95% CI=0.923.01;P=0.09); a similar HR was found for clinical FRNS: HR=1.72(95% CI=0.983.03; P=0.06) (Table 4). Interaction betweensex and treatment group was not significant, indicating thatneither boys nor girls benefitted more from one treatmentover the other. During follow-up, boys tended to have higherrelapse rates than girls (RRR=1.4, P=0.05). Sex was not asso-ciated with the incidences of a first relapse or steroid depen-dence (Table 4). Age at onset (,4 or$4 years) had no effect onany of the therapeutic outcome events; the same was true forthe number of days to remission (Table 4). Hematuria and BPat presentation were not related to development of any of the

    Table 2. KaplanMeier estimates of the cumulative incidences of strict and clinical FRNS

    3-Month Group (n=62) 6-Month Group (n=64) Difference (%; 95% CI) Log Rank Test

    Strict FRNS (%)6 months 14.564.5 3.162.2 211.40 (221.20, 21.60)1 year 38.766.2 39.166.1 0.40 (216.60, 17.40)2 years 45.266.3 45.666.2 0.40 (216.90, 17.70)3 years 45.266.3 49.366.4 4.10 (213.50, 21.70)4 years 45.266.3 52.566.7 7.30 (210.70, 25.30)5 years 45.266.3 52.566.7 7.30 (210.70, 25.30) P=0.91

    Clinical FRNS (%)6 months 17.764.9 10.963.9 26.80 (219.10, 5.50)1 year 41.966.3 46.966.2 5.00 (29.10, 19.10)2 years 50.166.4 53.366.3 3.20 (214.40, 20.80)3 years 50.166.4 59.466.4 9.30 (28.40, 27.00)4 years 50.166.4 59.466.4 12.20 (25.70, 30.10)5 years 50.166.4 62.366.5 12.20 (25.70, 30.10) P=0.76

    Data are expressed as percentages6 SEMs at 6months and yearly afterward. Between-groupdifferences are expressed as percentageswith 95%CIs. Log rank testswere performed on all available data at the end of follow-up. Clinical FRNS, FRNS according to the definition of strict FRNS or other indications for additionaltreatment measures (e.g., prednisolone maintenance therapy, ciclosporin, etc.); strict FRNS, FRNS based on more than or equal to two relapses within 6 monthsafter initial treatment or four relapses within any 12 months.

    Table 3. Distribution of patients according to three criteria for FRNS

    3-Month Group (n=62) 6-Month Group (n=64)

    A (two relapses within 6 months after ending first treatment), n 23 (11 SD) 18 (11 SD)B (four relapses within any period of 12 months), n 5 (3 SD) 14 (10 SD)C (need for additional treatment for other reasons than A or B), n 3 (1 SD) 6 (3 SD)Strict FRNS (A or B) 28 (45%) 32 (50%)Clinical FRNS (A, B, or C) 31 (50%) 38 (59%)

    Patients fulfilling criterionA or Bwere characterized as strict FRNS. Patients fulfilling criterionA, B, or Cwere characterized as clinical FRNS.Numbers of patients thatalso fulfilled criteria for steroid dependence are shown in parentheses. Detailed information on patients fulfilling only criterionC is presented in Supplemental Table3. SD, steroid dependence.

    152 Journal of the American Society of Nephrology J Am Soc Nephrol 24: 149159, 2013

    CLINICAL RESEARCH www.jasn.org

    http://jasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1681/ASN.2012070646/-/DCSupplementalhttp://jasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1681/ASN.2012070646/-/DCSupplemental

  • therapeutic outcome events (data not shown). Interestingly,five patients achieved remission after more than 4 weeks ofdaily prednisolone treatment. Of these patients, four patientshad only one relapse, and one patient had no relapses at allduring follow-up.

    Secondary steroid resistance was noted in two patients al-located to the 3-month regimen and one patient allocated tothe 6-month regimen.

    Adverse effects were mostly transient and similar betweenthe two groups (Table 5). Evaluation of height SD scoresshowed a significant decrease of growth at 3-months follow-up compared with baseline (P,0.01), which was restoredwithin 1 year after the start of initial treatment. Growth didnot differ between treatment groups (P=0.58) (SupplementalFigure 1). Overall height SD scores at baseline were lower thananticipated (20.3560.90). This observationwas irrespective ofdescent (P=0.83).

    No effect of treatment was observed in the behavioral visualanalog scales at any time. Compared with baseline, childrenscored significantly higher on eating, overactive behavior, andaggressive behavior at 3-months follow-up (all P value,0.01).These scores returned to baseline within 1 year in both groups.Scores for happiness temporarily dropped in the first 6months, while scores for sleeping remained relatively stableover the whole observation period.

    Bone mineral density (BMD) at 6 months was not differentfrom baseline in both groups. Mean change in Z-scores oflumbar spine BMD was +0.09 (20.17 to 0.36) and +0.33(20.06 to 0.71) in the 3- (n=17) and 6-month group (n=19),respectively (P=0.35). Mean change in Bone Health Index SDscores was20.10 (20.35 to 0.14) in the 3-month group (n=33)and 20.03 (20.16 to 0.11) in the 6-month group (n=30;P=0.56).

    DISCUSSION

    Our study shows that prolongation of initial prednisolonetreatment from 3 to 6 months, while maintaining an equal cu-mulative dose, does not reduce the risk of frequent relapsesin childhood NS. This finding challenges the previous as-sumption that prolonged treatment duration improves clin-ical outcome.

    The high relapse rate in childhood NS initiated researchaimed at improving prednisolone treatment regimens. ACochrane meta-analysis of seven clinical trials by Hodsonet al.7,11 last updated in 2007 showed that prednisolone regi-mens with both higher cumulative doses and longer treatmentdurations (up to 7 months and 5235 mg/m2) resulted in areduction of relapses compared with a standard 2-month reg-imen (2240 mg/m2). The works by Hodson et al.7,11 assumedthat longer duration of treatment was of greater importancethan increased dose and suggested at least 3 months prednis-olone should be given for the first episode of NS.7,11 Unfor-tunately, the existing studies have not led to international

    Figure 3. Initial prednisolone treatments of 3 and 6 months resultedin similar therapeutic outcome. KaplanMeier curves represent cu-mulative incidences of (A) strict FNRS based on more than or equal totwo relapses within 6 months after initial treatment or four relapseswithin any 12 months, (B) clinical FRNS according to either the def-inition of strict FRNS or a clinical indication for additional treatment(e.g., prednisolone maintenance therapy, cyclophosphamide, etc.),and (C) cumulative incidence of a first relapse.

    J Am Soc Nephrol 24: 149159, 2013 Randomized Controlled Trial Childhood Nephrotic Syndrome 153

    www.jasn.org CLINICAL RESEARCH

    http://jasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1681/ASN.2012070646/-/DCSupplementalhttp://jasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1681/ASN.2012070646/-/DCSupplemental

  • consensus. Two matters still deserved attention. First, the in-dependent effects of treatment duration and dose remainedunproven. Second, studies comparing 3-month regimenswith longer regimens were of limited methodological quality.The present study addresses both issues for the first time.

    The main strength of our study is its design. To review ourresults in the context of other reports, we searched for studiescomparing 3- with (approximately) 6-months prednisoloneuse for the initial episode ofNS. Four studies had been reportedin thework byHodson et al.7We found one additional study byMishra et al.13 Characteristics of the five previous studies re-vealed several limitations (Supplemental Table 4). None of thestudies included a placebo or blinding in their design1216;allocation concealment was inadequate or not reported inthree studies.13,14,16 In at least one study, patients who didnot complete study medication were excluded from the anal-ysis after randomization.13 Interestingly, two studies werenever fully published. Before our study, the Japanese trialby Hiraoka et al.12 was the only published study reportingadequate concealment of allocation. This work found a

    therapeutic benefit of the 6-month regimen only in a smallsubgroup of children aged less than 4 years; overall relapse rateand FRNS did not differ significantly between the twogroups.12 We evaluated the occurrence of FRNS in a meta-analysis, of which the results are shown in Figure 4. Four stud-ies, including our study, reported FRNS. Overall analysisrevealed no significant benefit of long versus short regimens;however, significant heterogeneity was present (Figure 4A).Heterogeneity was no longer significant when only fully pub-lished studies and our study were included (Figure 4B). None-theless, these studies are still quite different from each otherwith respect to administered dose, design, definitions, and ob-servation time; therefore, overall results of this meta-analysisshould be interpreted with caution.

    The incidences of both strict and clinical FRNS in our studypopulation were higher than anticipated: 60/126 (48%) and69/126 (55%), respectively. In previous studies, FRNS was re-ported in 32%78% of patients who received 2-month prednis-olone treatment (2240mg/m2)10,1721 and 18%44% of patientswho received prednisolone for 3 months (3360 mg/m2).10,12,20

    Table 4. Adjusted multivariate analysis of treatment group, sex, age, and time to remission

    HR (95% CI)

    First Relapse Strict FRNS Clinical FRNS SDNS

    Treatment: 3 versus 6 months 1.11 (0.741.64) 1.08 (0.651.80) 0.97 (0.601.56) 0.62 (0.321.18)Sex: male versus female 1.19 (0.771.84) 1.68 (0.923.06) 1.77 (0.983.03) 1.96 (0.904.28)Age: ,4 versus $4 yr 1.22 (0.821.82) 0.97 (0.591.62) 0.97 (0.601.56) 1.30 (0.692.44)Time to remission (per day) 1.01 (0.991.04) 0.96 (0.921.01) 0.98 (0.951.02) 0.98 (0.931.03)

    SDNS, steroid-dependent NS.

    Table 5. Adverse effects

    3 Months Prednisolone 6 Months Prednisolone P Value

    BP$P95At diagnosis 36/61 (59%) 28/62 (45%) 0.15At 3 months FU 12/57 (21%) 7/60 (12%) 0.21At 6 months FU 8/55 (14%) 10/52 (19%) 0.61

    Cushingoid appearance at 6 months FUCushing (moon face) 14/59 (23.7%) 21/58 (36.2%) 0.14Striae 3/58 (5.2%) 4/60 (6.7%) 1.00

    Ophtalmological abnormalities at 6 months FUGlaucoma 0/51 (0.0%) 0/45 (0.0%) Cataract 1/53(1.9%)a 0/46 (0.0%) 1.00

    Severe infectionsPneumonia 1/62 (1.6%) 6/64 (9.4%) 0.16Meningitis 0/62 (0.0%) 0/64 (0.0%) Osteomyelitis 0/62 (0.0%) 0/64 (0.0%) VZV reactivation 2/62 (3.2%) 1/64 (1.6%) 0.62Whooping cough 0/62 (0.0%) 2/64 (3.1%) 0.50Miscellaneousb 3/62 (4.8%) 1/64 (1.6%) 0.36Overall 6/62 (9.7%) 10/64 (15.6%) 0.42

    Dyspepsia 1/62 (1.6%) 2/64 (3.1%) 1.00Thrombosis 0/62 (0.0%) 0/64 (0.0%)

    Data are expressed as number of events/number analyzed (percentages). FU, follow-up; VZV, Varicella Zoster virus.aMild cataract, which was absent at diagnosis.bThree-month group: n=1 cellulitis, n=1 muscle abscess, n=1 intracranial abscess. Six-month group: n=1 appendicitis.

    154 Journal of the American Society of Nephrology J Am Soc Nephrol 24: 149159, 2013

    CLINICAL RESEARCH www.jasn.org

    http://jasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1681/ASN.2012070646/-/DCSupplemental

  • This variationmay, in part, be explained by regional differencesor variations in definitions of FRNS, length of observation, andrelapse treatments.

    Based on our data, a benefit of the 6-month regimen cannotbe excluded if the study had beenperformedwith larger samplesizes. However, the CIs that we found for the difference inFRNS between the two groups exclude a clinically relevantdifference in favor of the experimental regimen (Table 2). At 5years, the difference between the two groups for strict FRNSwas 7.30%, with a 95% CI ranging from210.70% to 25.30%.At best, the experimental 6-month treatment was 10.7 percentpoints better than the standard 3-month treatment. For clin-ical FRNS, which in our opinion, represents an even morerelevant group for clinicians, this difference was 12.20%,with a 95% CI ranging from 25.70% to 30.10%. Accordingly,applying the 6-month regimen would gain 5.7 percent points atmost. The cumulative incidences of steroid dependence at 5 yearsfurther illustrate these statements, because they were 24.90%65.6 and 40.10%66.80 respectively, corresponding with abetween-group difference of 15.20% (95% CI=22.10% to32.50%). Based on these results, we are confident that a clinicallyrelevant difference in favor of the 6-month regimen is unlikely.

    Previous studies have differed in observing and reporting(frequent) relapses from either the start or end of initial ther-apy. We chose a transitional type of observation to make a faircomparison but still include early relapses during treatment.We did verify that observing strictly from the end of initialtreatment did not lead to differences between the two treat-ments (data not shown).

    Analysis of covariates in our study revealed findings of clini-cal interest, although not supported by statistical significance.

    Boys tended to have worse outcomes than girls in terms offrequent relapses and RRR. In the few studies that observedan effect of sex on the clinical course of NS, males were at adisadvantage.20,22 It would be interesting to further explorewhether boys and girls benefit from different treatment regi-mens in studies with larger sample sizes. We found no effect ofage at onset. The influence of age at onset is still debated, be-cause several studies have reported young age to be associatedwith FRNS and/or steroid dependence.3,20,22,23 However, othersdid not find an effect of age on the clinical course of NS.21,24,25

    Side effects were equally distributed over the two treat-ment groups. Cushingoid side effects, high BP, and behavioralchanges were clearly present but transient in the vast majorityof patients. Ophtalmological complications were rare in ourstudy. Cataract and glaucoma have previously most often beenreported in Japanese patients12,26; in general, these complica-tions are rare.7 Our findings indicate that there is no need forstandard ophtalmological screening in children with NS at anearly stage. The same applies to measurements of BMD, whichremained stable over the first 6 months. We found severe in-fections in a clinically relevant proportion of both treatmentgroups. This observation is consistent with previous reports7

    and justifies awareness of and early therapeutic intervention inchildren with NS facing infectious diseases.

    Our prospective growth data noticeably illustrated howgrowth velocity significantly dropped in the first months dur-ing highly dosed prednisolone treatment and subsequentlyreturned to its baseline within 1 year. Although this study wasnot designed to assess a causal relationship, this temporaryeffect corresponds with previous retrospective studies that de-scribe a dose-dependent effect of corticosteroids on growth in

    Figure 4. Meta-analyses of studies comparing 3 months of prednisolone to 6 months of prednisolone do not reveal a benefit ofprolonged treatment duration. (A) All four available studies (B) Two fully published studies. In both analyses, numbers of FRNS of thecurrent study correspond with numbers of strict FRNS. Analyses were performed with ReviewManager (RevMan) version 5.1 for Windows(The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2011).

    J Am Soc Nephrol 24: 149159, 2013 Randomized Controlled Trial Childhood Nephrotic Syndrome 155

    www.jasn.org CLINICAL RESEARCH

  • children with NS.2729 It is unclear why baseline height SDscores were relatively low in our study population. A similarobservation was reported in the work by Schrer et al.,30

    whereas others described normal height SD scores at diagnosisof NS.27

    In countries where a 2-month prednisolone regimen isapplied for the first episode of NS, childrenwho do not achieveremission within 4 weeks of daily prednisolone are generallycharacterized as steroid-resistant. Steroid resistance is associ-ated with increased risk of renal failure and entails more ag-gressive immunosuppressive therapy.1 Intriguingly, all fivepatients in our study who achieved remission after 46 weeksof prednisolone treatment subsequently experienced a mildclinical course. As argued in the work by Ehrich et al.,31 thisfinding suggests that patients who do not respond within4 weeks of daily prednisolone should be offered at least an-other 2 weeks of daily prednisolone to prevent late respondersfrom undergoing unnecessary and potentially harmfulinterventions.

    A limitation of our study is the fact that participants wereobserved and treated at their local hospital. Adverse effectswere scored by multiple observers, and ophtalmological andradiologic assessments were not available for all patients. Amore centralized approach could have prevented these issuesto some extent; however, the setting that we chose made par-ticipation feasible throughout the country. We were able to in-clude at least one half of all newly diagnosed patients with NSin The Netherlands.2 By including patients in a nationwide set-ting, we believe that we have sufficiently avoided selection bias.7

    Frequent relapses remain a major challenge in the treat-ment of childhood NS. In our opinion, FRNS, rather than theoccurrence of relapses in general, should be the focus of on-going research. Broader uniform definitions for FRNS thattake into account other clinically relevant aspects besidesrelapse frequency per se should be considered to facilitate amore evidence-based approach to both treatment and re-search. A possible effect of higher cumulative prednisolonedose during initial treatment needs additional exploration,because it may explain better outcomes in some of the reportedprolonged treatment regimens.7

    In contrast to what was previously assumed but unproven,the present study shows that extending initial prednisolonetreatment from 3 to 6 months, while maintaining an equalcumulative dose, does not improve clinical outcomes inchildrenwithNS.Webelieve that our results offer an importantcontribution tomore evidence-based treatment of this disease.

    CONCISE METHODS

    Trial DesignAdouble-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial

    was carried out in 84 of 87 (97%) general hospitals in TheNetherlands

    alongwith 1 Belgian and all 8Dutch university hospitals. The trial was

    approved by the medical ethics committee of Erasmus University

    Medical Centre in Rotterdam and registered at The Netherlands Trial

    Register (www.trialregister.nl; registration number NTR255). De-

    tailed information regarding median inclusion rates per hospital

    and reasons for not participating can be found in Supplemental Table

    5, A and B, respectively.

    ParticipantsChildren with a first episode of NS ages 9 months to 17 years were

    assessed for eligibility. NS was defined as .200 mg protein/mmol

    creatinine in urine and albumin,25 g/L in serum. Renal biopsy was

    not required to establish the diagnosis, because it is generally not

    indicated at this stage of childhood NS.1 Patients with underlying

    disease, such as HenochSchnlein purpura or postinfectious GN,

    were excluded. Remissionwas defined as urinary protein excretion,20

    mg/L or negative trace on dipstick analysis on 3 consecutive days.

    Patients who did not achieve remission within 6 weeks of 60 mg/m2

    daily prednisolone were characterized as steroid-resistant. Relapse was

    defined as proteinuria$++ on dipstick analysis or.200mg protein/

    mmol creatinine for 3 consecutive days after previously achieved

    remission. When milder proteinuria was present, pediatricians

    were instructed to hold off corticosteroid treatment, particularly

    when signs of mild infection were present. In these patients, relapse

    treatment was indicated when spontaneous remission became un-

    likely: continued proteinuria for more than 10 days, marked edema,

    or decrease of serum albumin to less than 30 g/L. Relapses were

    treated with prednisolone (60 mg/m2 per day) until remission fol-

    lowed by prednisolone (40 mg/m2) on alternate days for 4 weeks.

    For our study, the definition of FRNS was originally restricted to

    commonly used criteria: (A) Two or more relapses within 6 months

    after completing initial treatment, or (B) Four relapses within any

    period of 12 months, including relapses during initial treatment. How-

    ever, during the blindeddata collectionphase, it became clear that the use

    of this definition posed difficulties in some cases. Five patients displayed

    secondary steroid resistance and/or steroid dependency within 36

    months after diagnosis. Consequently, they experienced their first re-

    lapses before the end of trial therapy; additional treatment measures

    were taken before these patients could even meet criterion A or B.

    Four additional patients experienced several relapses within short

    periods of time but did not fulfill criterion A or B. The high burden

    of multiple relapses within a relatively short period of time, the pros-

    pect of experiencing another relapse in the near future, and several

    signs of steroid toxicity resulted in a clinical indication for additional

    measures in these patients. Because we found all of these patients to

    be clinically relevant, we decided to add a third criterion: (C) FRNS

    based on a clinical decision that included additional treatment of

    prednisolone maintenance therapy (.3 months) or other immuno-

    suppressive agents. Detailed information on patients characterized

    as FRNS based on criterion C can be found in Supplemental Table

    3A. We analyzed both modalities of FRNS: strict FRNS (criterion A

    or B) to facilitate comparison with other studies and clinical FRNS

    (criterion A, B, or C) to report all clinically relevant outcomes.

    Steroid dependence was defined as two or more consecutive re-

    lapses either during or within 2 weeks after cessation of prednis-

    olone. All patients were diagnosed and treated according to the study

    protocol at their local hospital by their own pediatrician. Participants

    156 Journal of the American Society of Nephrology J Am Soc Nephrol 24: 149159, 2013

    CLINICAL RESEARCH www.jasn.org

    http://www.trialregister.nlhttp://jasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1681/ASN.2012070646/-/DCSupplementalhttp://jasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1681/ASN.2012070646/-/DCSupplementalhttp://jasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1681/ASN.2012070646/-/DCSupplementalhttp://jasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1681/ASN.2012070646/-/DCSupplemental

  • descent was obtained from self-reported countries of birth of parents

    and grandparents.

    ProceduresA statistician provided the central trial pharmacy with a computer-

    generated random number table. Allocation to 3 months of prednis-

    olone plus 3 months of placebo (referred to as the 3-month group) or

    6 months of prednisolone was stratified for type of hospital (general

    or university) and balanced with a ratio of 1:1 in fixed blocks of

    four patients. The central trial pharmacy fabricated trial medication,

    controlled allocation concealment, allocated patients, and distributed

    trial medication after informed consent was obtained. Participants,

    health care providers, data collectors, and researchers were blinded

    to group allocation. Trial medication was sent prepackaged to local

    pharmacies and consisted of identical tasteless capsules containing

    either prednisolone or placebo. Trial medication was dispensed in five

    containers, each with a fixed blinded dose and a preset time frame.

    Although doses of the containers differed between treatment groups,

    container time frames were exactly the same. Container 1 was used from

    remission to week 6, 2 was used from weeks 7 to 10, 3 was used

    from weeks 11 to 12, 4 was used from weeks 13 to 14, and 5 was used

    from weeks 15 to 24. The first patient was randomized in February

    of 2005, and the last patient was randomized in December of 2009.

    Follow-up started at diagnosis and was truncated at either 5 years after

    diagnosis or July of 2011, at which time the last enrolled patients had

    a minimum follow-up of 18 months. The randomization code was

    subsequently broken in September of 2011.

    All children diagnosed with NS started induction therapy of 60

    mg/m2 oral prednisolone one time daily. Participants switched to trial

    medication only after remission was achieved. If remission was not

    achieved within 6 weeks of 60 mg/m2 daily prednisolone, patients

    were characterized as steroid-resistant, and trial medication was not

    started. Both treatment regimens are shown in detail in Figure 2. In

    both groups, induction therapy and trial medication were adminis-

    tered within a total of 24 weeks. The prescribed cumulative dose of

    prednisolone in the 3-month group was 3360 mg/m2. Depending on

    the number of days to remission, the prescribed cumulative dose of

    prednisolone in the 6-month group was 33203710 mg/m2, corre-

    sponding with 99%110% of the cumulative dose in the 3-month

    group. Prescribed cumulative doses did not include potential relapse

    treatments during trial medication, because the occurrence of a re-

    lapse and the total dose administered for that particular relapse could

    not be anticipated. In the event of a relapse occurring during the

    period of trial medication, relapse treatment temporarily replaced

    trial medication to maintain a 24-week schedule duration.

    OutcomesThe primary outcome event was FRNS. Secondary outcome param-

    eters were cumulative incidences of a first relapse, steroid dependence,

    number of relapses per patient per year, and adverse effects. Height SD

    scores, BP, Cushingoid appearance (moon face or striae), dyspepsia,

    thrombosis, severe infections, and behavior were noted at diagnosis

    and after 3 and 6months and 1 and 2 years. Height SD scores were cal-

    culated with Dutch pediatric reference data.32 High BP was defined as

    systolic and/or diastolic BP more than or equal to the 95th percentile for

    sex, age, and height.33 Severe infections were defined as nonself-

    limiting infections requiring hospital admission. Behavior was scored

    by parents on visual analog scales for overactive and aggressive behav-

    ior, happiness, eating, and sleeping. At diagnosis and after 6 months,

    participants were screened for cataract and glaucoma by an ophthal-

    mologist; at the same time points, BMD was assessed. Using dual

    energy x-ray absorptiometry, Z-scores of lumbar spine BMD were

    calculated according to local reference data. Changes in individual

    Z-scores over time were calculated from paired measurements. As

    an additional indicator of BMD, Bone Health Index SD scores from

    hand x-rays was calculated with BoneXpert.34

    Statistical AnalysesPrimary outcome events were originally defined as the cumulative

    incidences of first relapses and FRNS. Subsequently, at the time the

    study was still blinded, FRNS was chosen as the sole primary out-

    come, because we considered FRNS to be the most relevant parameter.

    Incidence of a first relapse became the secondary outcome. For the

    cumulative incidence of FRNS to decrease by 20% points, 72 patients

    per treatment arm were sufficient (80% power, a=0.05).

    A modified intention-to-treat principle was applied in such a way

    that all patients who started trial medication were included in the

    analysis. Participants who were subsequently lost to follow-up or in

    whom trial medication was stopped prematurely were analyzed ac-

    cording to their allocated groups.

    Cumulative event rates are expressed as KaplanMeier estimates

    with SEMs. Treatment group, sex, age at onset, and number of days to

    remission were included as covariates in the Cox regression analysis.

    Age at onset was stratified as ,4 and $4 years.23

    For comparison of relapses within time intervals between treat-

    ments, follow-up was categorized into three periods (period I, 06

    months; period II, 612 months; period III, .12 months after ran-

    domization), and within each period, the number of relapses was

    counted. Poisson regression was used to evaluate relapse rates in re-

    lation to treatment, sex, age category, and period. Calculations were

    done using Generalized Estimation Equations with a log link. Lon-

    gitudinal data concerning height SD scores and behavior were ana-

    lyzed with linear mixed models that included treatment, age strata,

    sex, time, baseline values, and interaction between time and treat-

    ment as fixed effects. For the remaining variables, continuous outcome

    was analyzed with either the t or MannWitney test, and categorical

    outcome was analyzed with either the Pearson chi-squared or Fisher

    exact test. P values,0.05 were considered statistically significant. All

    analyses were performed with SPSS (version 17.0).

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

    We thank the children and their parents participating in this study,

    the central trial pharmacy, and the Hans Mak Institute for meticu-

    lous work during the recruitment and data monitoring phases. We

    acknowledge the Working Group Nephrotic Syndrome (WINS),

    which provided advice on the study design.

    This study was funded by Dutch Kidney Foundation Grant C03.

    2072 and the Vrienden van het Sophia Foundation.

    J Am Soc Nephrol 24: 149159, 2013 Randomized Controlled Trial Childhood Nephrotic Syndrome 157

    www.jasn.org CLINICAL RESEARCH

  • An abstract containing data from this study was submitted and

    accepted for presentation at the European Society of Pediatric Ne-

    phrology 2012 Meeting, September 68 2012, Cracow, Poland.

    Pediatricians from participating centers: Albert Schweitzer Hos-

    pital E de Klein, Amphia Hospital S de Pont, Atrium Medical Centre

    Parkstad P Theunissen and H Sijstermans, Beatrix Hospital M Visser,

    Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital BA Semmekrot, Catharina Hospital

    JE Bunt, Diaconessenhuis Utrecht AJ Kok, Diakonessenhuis Leiden

    DAJP Haring, Diakonessenhuis Meppel FJ Kloosterman-Eygenraam,

    Diakonessenhuis Zeist AJ Kok, Dr. JH Jansen Hospital WP Vogt,

    Elkerliek Hospital MA Breukels, Academic Medical Centre- Emma

    ChildrensHospital JCDavin, FlevoHospitalMAJMTrijbels-Smeulders,

    Franciscus Hospital ND van Voorst Vader-Boon, Gelre Hospital HFH

    Thijs and DJ Pot, Gemini Hospital MC Wallis-Spit, BovenIJ Hospital

    N Menelik, Groene Hart Hospital EHG van Leer, Hofpoort Hospital

    C Dorrepaal, IJsselland Hospital AAM Leebeek, Ikazia Hospital C

    Aleman, Isala Klinieken JME Quak, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, AHPM

    Essink and PE Jira, Haga Hospital-Juliana Childrens hospital P

    Vos, Kennemergasthuis A Adeel, VU University Medical Centre JAE

    van Wijk and A Bkenkamp, Maastricht University Medical Centre

    FAPT Horuz-Engels, Radboud University Medical Centre L Koster-

    Kamphuis, Lange Land Hospital ED Stam, Leiden University Medical

    Centre Sukhai, Maas Hospital A Verhoeven-van Lieburg, Maasland

    Hospital JWCM Heynens, Martini Hospital HJ Waalkens, Maxima

    Medical Centre SHJ Zegers, Maasstad Hospital JG Brinkman, Mean-

    der Medical Centre MR Ernst-Kruis, Alkmaar Medical Centre WWM

    Hack, Leeuwarden Medical Centre TE Faber, Medisch Spectrum

    Twente EWDtenKate-Westerhof, St. AntoniusHospital HEBlokland-

    Loggers and MMJ van der Vorst, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis J van

    Andel, Oosterschelde Hospital AGH Poot, Refaja Hospital SS Nowak,

    Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis LC ten Have, Rijnland Hospital EA Schell-

    Feith, RodeKruisHospital KOlie, Rpcke-ZweersHospital IFMFagel,

    Ruwaard van Putten Hospital D Birnie, Scheper Hospital A Colijn,

    Vlietland Hospital NJ Langendoen, Slingeland Hospital MAM Jacobs,

    Slotervaart Hospital JHM Budde, Erasmus Medical Centre-Sophia

    Childrens Hospital EM Dorresteijn, Spaarne Hospital JP de Winter,

    St. Anna Hospital MCG Beeren, Antonius Hospital AH van der Vlugt,

    St. Elisabeth Hospital RA de Moor, St. Franciscus Gasthuis HTM

    Jongejan, St. Jans Gasthuis M van Helvoirt-Jansen, St. Jansdal Hospital

    W Peelen, St. Laurentius Hospital ST Potgieter, St. Lucas Andreas

    Hospital MK Sanders, St. Lucas Hospital GHC van Weert, Deventer

    Hospital J van der Deure, Streekziekenhuis Koningin Beatrix AJM

    van Kuppevelt, Streekziekenhuis Midden-Twente A van der Wagen,

    Ter Gooi Hospital AJ van der Kaaden and CA Lasham, TweeSteden

    Hospital JAC van Lier, Twenteborg Hospital IT Merth, Groningen

    University Medical Centre M Kmhoff, Utrecht University Medical

    Centre-Wilhelmina Childrens Hospital MR Lilien, Vie Curi Medical

    Centre AAM Haagen and CML van Dael, Waterland Hospital F

    Veenstra, West-Fries Gasthuis BJ Tuitert, Wilhelmina Hospital R

    Meekma, Zaans Medical Centre JM Karperien, Amstelland Hospital

    L Spanjerberg-Rademaker, Bernhoven Hospital JP Leusink and EML

    Rammeloo, Bethesda Hospital Chr van Ingen, De Sionsberg Hospital

    J Karsten, De Tjongerschans Hospital AI Kistemaker, Dirksland Hos-

    pital IN Snoeck, De Gelderse Vallei Hospital M Koppejan-Stapel,

    Lievensberg Hospital AJJ van der Linden, Nij Smellinghe Hospital WA

    van Asselt, Rijnstate Hospital DGJWCreemers, Rivierenland Hospital

    CS Barbian, Admiraal de Ruyter Hospital JG van Keulen, ZorgSaam

    Hospital WS Corijn, IJsselmeer Hospital WP Vogt, University Medical

    Centre Leuven EN Levtchenko.

    DISCLOSURESNone.

    REFERENCES

    1. Eddy AA, Symons JM: Nephrotic syndrome in childhood. Lancet 362:629639, 2003

    2. El Bakkali L, Rodrigues Pereira R, Kuik DJ, Ket JC, van Wijk JA: Ne-phrotic syndrome in TheNetherlands: Apopulation-based cohort studyand a review of the literature. Pediatr Nephrol 26: 12411246, 2011

    3. Trompeter RS, Lloyd BW, Hicks J, White RH, Cameron JS: Long-termoutcome for children withminimal-change nephrotic syndrome. Lancet1: 368370, 1985

    4. Bruneau S, Dantal J: New insights into the pathophysiology of idio-pathic nephrotic syndrome. Clin Immunol 133: 1321, 2009

    5. International Study of Kidney Disease in Children: The primary ne-phrotic syndrome in children. Identification of patients with minimalchange nephrotic syndrome from initial response to prednisone. A re-port of the International Study of Kidney Disease in Children. J Pediatr98: 561564, 1981

    6. Tarshish P, Tobin JN, Bernstein J, Edelmann CM Jr: Prognostic signif-icance of the early course of minimal change nephrotic syndrome:Report of the International Study of Kidney Disease in Children. J AmSoc Nephrol 8: 769776, 1997

    7. Hodson EM, Willis NS, Craig JC: Corticosteroid therapy for nephroticsyndrome in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4: CD001533,2007

    8. MacHardy N, Miles PV, Massengill SF, Smoyer WE, Mahan JD,GreenbaumL,Massie S, Yao L,Nagaraj S, Lin JJ,Wigfall D, TrachtmanH,Hu Y, Gipson DS: Management patterns of childhood-onset nephroticsyndrome. Pediatr Nephrol 24: 21932201, 2009

    9. Frange P, FreyMA, DeschnesG: Immunity and immunosuppression inchildhood idiopathic nephrotic syndrome. Arch Pediatr 12: 305315,2005

    10. Ehrich JH, Brodehl J: Long versus standard prednisone therapyfor initial treatment of idiopathic nephrotic syndrome in children.Arbeitsgemeinschaft fr Pdiatrische Nephrologie. Eur J Pediatr 152:357361, 1993

    11. Hodson EM, Knight JF, Willis NS, Craig JC: Corticosteroid therapy innephrotic syndrome: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Arch Dis Child 83: 4551, 2000

    12. Hiraoka M, Tsukahara H, Matsubara K, Tsurusawa M, Takeda N, HarukiS, Hayashi S, Ohta K, Momoi T, Ohshima Y, Suganuma N, Mayumi M;West Japan Cooperative Study Group of Kidney Disease in Children: Arandomized study of two long-course prednisolone regimens for ne-phrotic syndrome in children. Am J Kidney Dis 41: 11551162, 2003

    13. Mishra OP, Thakur N, Mishra RN, Prasad R: Prolonged versus standardprednisolone therapy for initial episode of idiopathic nephrotic syn-drome. J Nephrol 25: 394400, 2012

    14. Ksiazek J, Wyszynska T: Short versus long initial prednisone treatmentin steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome in children. Acta Paediatr 84:889893, 1995

    15. Gulati S,AhmedM,SharmaR,GuptaA,Pokhariyal S:Comparisonof abruptwithdrawal versus slow tapering regimen of prednisolone therapy in themanagement of first episode of steroid responsive childhood idiopathicnephrotic syndrome [Abstract].Nephrol Dial Transplant 16: A87, 2001

    158 Journal of the American Society of Nephrology J Am Soc Nephrol 24: 149159, 2013

    CLINICAL RESEARCH www.jasn.org

  • 16. Pecoraro C, Caropreso M, Malgieri G, Ferretti A, Raddi G, Piscitelli A,Nuzzi F: Therapy of first episodeof steroid responsive nephrotic syndrome:A randomised controlled trial [Abstract]. Pediatr Nephrol 19: C72, 2004

    17. Bagga A, Hari P, Srivastava RN: Prolonged versus standard predniso-lone therapy for initial episode of nephrotic syndrome. Pediatr Nephrol13: 824827, 1999

    18. Arbeitsgemeinschaft fr Pdiatrische Nephrologie: Short versus stan-dard prednisone therapy for initial treatment of idiopathic nephroticsyndrome in children.Arbeitsgemeinschaft fr PdiatrischeNephrologie.Lancet 1: 380383, 1988

    19. Koskimies O, Vilska J, Rapola J, Hallman N: Long-term outcome ofprimary nephrotic syndrome. Arch Dis Child 57: 544548, 1982

    20. Andersen RF, Thrane N, Noergaard K, Rytter L, Jespersen B, Rittig S:Early age at debut is a predictor of steroid-dependent and frequentrelapsing nephrotic syndrome. Pediatr Nephrol 25: 12991304,2010

    21. International Study of KidneyDisease in Children: Early identification offrequent relapsers among children with minimal change nephroticsyndrome. A report of the International Study of Kidney Disease inChildren. J Pediatr 101: 514518, 1982

    22. Lewis MA, Baildom EM, Davis N, Houston IB, Postlethwaite RJ: Ne-phrotic syndrome: From toddlers to twenties. Lancet 1: 255259, 1989

    23. Kabuki N,Okugawa T, HayakawaH, Tomizawa S, Kasahara T, UchiyamaM: Influence of age at onset on the outcome of steroid-sensitive ne-phrotic syndrome. Pediatr Nephrol 12: 467470, 1998

    24. Yap HK, Han EJ, Heng CK, Gong WK: Risk factors for steroid de-pendency in children with idiopathic nephrotic syndrome. PediatrNephrol 16: 10491052, 2001

    25. Takeda A, Takimoto H, Mizusawa Y, Simoda M: Prediction of sub-sequent relapse in children with steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome.Pediatr Nephrol 16: 888893, 2001

    26. Hiraoka M, Tsukahara H, Haruki S, Hayashi S, Takeda N, Miyagawa K,Okuhara K, Suehiro F, Ohshima Y, Mayumi M; The West Japan Co-operative Study of Kidney Disease in Children: Older boys benefit from

    higher initial prednisolone therapy for nephrotic syndrome. Kidney Int58: 12471252, 2000

    27. Donatti TL, Koch VH: Final height of adults with childhood-onsetsteroid-responsive idiopathic nephrotic syndrome.Pediatr Nephrol 24:24012408, 2009

    28. Simmonds J, Grundy N, Trompeter R, Tullus K: Long-term steroidtreatment and growth: A study in steroid-dependent nephrotic syn-drome. Arch Dis Child 95: 146149, 2010

    29. HungYT, Yang LY: Follow-upof linear growth of body height in childrenwith nephrotic syndrome. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 39: 422425,2006

    30. Schrer K, Essigmann HC, Schaefer F: Body growth of children withsteroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome. Pediatr Nephrol 13: 828834,1999

    31. Ehrich JH, Geerlings C, ZivicnjakM, Franke D, Geerlings H, GellermannJ: Steroid-resistant idiopathic childhood nephrosis: Overdiagnosedand undertreated. Nephrol Dial Transplant 22: 21832193, 2007

    32. Talma H, Schnbeck Y, Bakker B, Hirasing R, van Buuren S: GrowthDiagrams 2010: Manual for Measuring andWeighing Children and theUse of Growth Diagrams, Leiden, The Netherlands, TNO kwaliteit vanleven, 2010

    33. National High Blood Pressure Education Program Working Group onHigh Blood Pressure in Children and Adolescents: The fourth report onthe diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure in chil-dren and adolescents. Pediatrics 114[Suppl 4th Report]: 555576, 2004

    34. Thodberg HH, van Rijn RR, Tanaka T, Martin DD, Kreiborg S: A pae-diatric bone index derived by automated radiogrammetry.OsteoporosInt 21: 13911400, 2010

    See related editorial, Corticosteroid Therapy for Steroid-Sensitive Ne-phrotic Syndrome in Children: Dose or Duration?, on pages 79.

    This article contains supplemental material online at http://jasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1681/ASN.2012070646/-/DCSupplemental.

    J Am Soc Nephrol 24: 149159, 2013 Randomized Controlled Trial Childhood Nephrotic Syndrome 159

    www.jasn.org CLINICAL RESEARCH

    http://jasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1681/ASN.2012070646/-/DCSupplementalhttp://jasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1681/ASN.2012070646/-/DCSupplemental