Abstract
Background Treatment of Raynaud phenomenon(RP) with oral vasodilators(calcium channel blockers and phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors) has shown moderate efficacy, may not benefit to all patients, and adverse effects often compromise long-term treatment. In addition, a large placebo effect may jeopardize the assessment of treatment benefits. Pharmaconutritional strategies aiming at increasing nitric oxide bioavailability (beetroot juice and L-citrulline) may be promising alternatives, and we further hypothesized that patient preference for a treatment could be a driver of the response.
Methods This study consisted of a series of randomized, double-blind, N-of-1 trials conducted in outpatients with primary or secondary RP. Each patient underwent a multiple crossover design with repeated blocks of randomized treatments periods: 2 weeks of placebo, 2 weeks of active treatments, and 1 week of washout. Outcomes included the Raynaud Condition Score(RCS), frequency and daily duration of attacks. Each patient prespecified its preferred primary outcome, efficacy threshold and preferred treatment, which was used for stratified randomization. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to determine individual and aggregated efficacy.
Results Twenty-one patients completed 2 to 8 treatment blocks. Seventeen patients tested L-citrulline, 17 beetroot juice and 13 both treatments. Ten patients selected RCS as a primary outcome, 6 patients the number of attacks and 5 the duration of attacks. Median threshold for considering treatment efficacy chosen by patients was 50% (min-max 20% to 75%) reduction of symptoms. Using individual criteria to define efficacy neither L-citrulline nor beetroot juice showed significant efficacy compared to baseline. Based on the aggregated data, our results show no significant difference between L-citrulline and the L-citrulline-based placebo, nor between beetroot juice and nitrate-depleted beetroot juice, with the exception of the daily duration of RP attacks with beetroot juice (p=0.002). Finally, there was a marked placebo response, notably when patients received their preferred treatment.
Conclusions Our study did not show significant beetroot juice or L-citrulline efficacy in RP. However, we found that individual preference for one treatment over another maximizes responses to both placebo and active treatments, particularly with regard to the frequency and duration of RP attacks, thus suggesting that a real and modifiable placebo effect exists in RP.
Trial registration NCT03749577
Funding Primary Funding Source: Grenoble Alpes University Hospital & Association des Sclérodermiques de France (academic funding).
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
NCT03749577
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The investigation conformed to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol of the study was approved by the Ethics Committee "Comite de Protection des Personnes Est II "(Institutional Review Board 18/591) and the National Agency for Medicines Safety (ANSM), and each patient gave written informed consent before participation.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* co-first author
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors





