6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Call for Papers: Green Renal Replacement Therapy: Caring for the Environment

      Submit here before July 31, 2024

      About Blood Purification: 3.0 Impact Factor I 5.6 CiteScore I 0.83 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Mycophenolate as Maintenance Therapy for Lupus Nephritis with Impaired Renal Function

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: Mycophenolate (MF) is effective as a maintenance therapy after induction therapy in patients with lupus nephritis (LN). However, little is known about its role in patients with impaired renal function. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MF as a maintenance therapy for LN and its association with renal function. Methods: Data were obtained for 56 Spanish patients who were receiving MF as a maintenance therapy for LN. Patients were classified into two groups according to renal function at the initiation of MF treatment: group 1 [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup>] and group 2 (eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup>). The primary endpoints of the study were the rates of renal relapse and responses, and their relationship with baseline renal function. Secondary outcomes were the appearance of side effects during treatment. Results: At initiation of MF treatment, the only differences between the groups were for age, hemoglobin levels, anti-DNA antibody titer, proteinuria, and renal function. In group 1 (n = 38), the eGFR was 98 ± 34 ml/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup> and in group 2 (n = 18) the eGFR was 43 ± 14 ml/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup>. Only 3 cases had an eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup>. No significant differences were observed in the rate of relapse at 6 months (group 1: 20%; group 2: 23%) or at 12 months (group 1: 25%; group 2: 17%). Response rates were also similar in both groups. Side effects were unremarkable. Conclusions: MF is effective and safe as a maintenance therapy for LN both in patients with normal renal function and in those with renal impairment.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclophosphamide for induction treatment of lupus nephritis.

          Recent studies have suggested that mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) may offer advantages over intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVC) for the treatment of lupus nephritis, but these therapies have not been compared in an international randomized, controlled trial. Here, we report the comparison of MMF and IVC as induction treatment for active lupus nephritis in a multinational, two-phase (induction and maintenance) study. We randomly assigned 370 patients with classes III through V lupus nephritis to open-label MMF (target dosage 3 g/d) or IVC (0.5 to 1.0 g/m(2) in monthly pulses) in a 24-wk induction study. Both groups received prednisone, tapered from a maximum starting dosage of 60 mg/d. The primary end point was a prespecified decrease in urine protein/creatinine ratio and stabilization or improvement in serum creatinine. Secondary end points included complete renal remission, systemic disease activity and damage, and safety. Overall, we did not detect a significantly different response rate between the two groups: 104 (56.2%) of 185 patients responded to MMF compared with 98 (53.0%) of 185 to IVC. Secondary end points were also similar between treatment groups. There were nine deaths in the MMF group and five in the IVC group. We did not detect significant differences between the MMF and IVC groups with regard to rates of adverse events, serious adverse events, or infections. Although most patients in both treatment groups experienced clinical improvement, the study did not meet its primary objective of showing that MMF was superior to IVC as induction treatment for lupus nephritis.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Immunosuppressive therapy in lupus nephritis: the Euro-Lupus Nephritis Trial, a randomized trial of low-dose versus high-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide.

            Glomerulonephritis is a severe manifestation of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) that is usually treated with an extended course of intravenous (IV) cyclophosphamide (CYC). Given the side effects of this regimen, we evaluated the efficacy and the toxicity of a course of low-dose IV CYC prescribed as a remission-inducing treatment, followed by azathioprine (AZA) as a remission-maintaining treatment. In this multicenter, prospective clinical trial (the Euro-Lupus Nephritis Trial [ELNT]), we randomly assigned 90 SLE patients with proliferative glomerulonephritis to a high-dose IV CYC regimen (6 monthly pulses and 2 quarterly pulses; doses increased according to the white blood cell count nadir) or a low-dose IV CYC regimen (6 fortnightly pulses at a fixed dose of 500 mg), each of which was followed by AZA. Intent-to-treat analyses were performed. Followup continued for a median of 41.3 months in the low-dose group and 41 months in the high-dose group. Sixteen percent of those in the low-dose group and 20% of those in the high-dose group experienced treatment failure (not statistically significant by Kaplan-Meier analysis). Levels of serum creatinine, albumin, C3, 24-hour urinary protein, and the disease activity scores significantly improved in both groups during the first year of followup. Renal remission was achieved in 71% of the low-dose group and 54% of the high-dose group (not statistically significant). Renal flares were noted in 27% of the low-dose group and 29% of the high-dose group. Although episodes of severe infection were more than twice as frequent in the high-dose group, the difference was not statistically significant. The data from the ELNT indicate that in European SLE patients with proliferative lupus nephritis, a remission-inducing regimen of low-dose IV CYC (cumulative dose 3 gm) followed by AZA achieves clinical results comparable to those obtained with a high-dose regimen.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Azathioprine versus mycophenolate mofetil for long-term immunosuppression in lupus nephritis: results from the MAINTAIN Nephritis Trial

              Background Long-term immunosuppressive treatment does not efficiently prevent relapses of lupus nephritis (LN). This investigator-initiated randomised trial tested whether mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) was superior to azathioprine (AZA) as maintenance treatment. Methods A total of 105 patients with lupus with proliferative LN were included. All received three daily intravenous pulses of 750 mg methylprednisolone, followed by oral glucocorticoids and six fortnightly cyclophosphamide intravenous pulses of 500 mg. Based on randomisation performed at baseline, AZA (target dose: 2 mg/kg/day) or MMF (target dose: 2 g/day) was given at week 12. Analyses were by intent to treat. Time to renal flare was the primary end point. Mean (SD) follow-up of the intent-to-treat population was 48 (14) months. Results The baseline clinical, biological and pathological characteristics of patients allocated to AZA or MMF did not differ. Renal flares were observed in 13 (25%) AZA-treated and 10 (19%) MMF-treated patients. Time to renal flare, to severe systemic flare, to benign flare and to renal remission did not statistically differ. Over a 3-year period, 24 h proteinuria, serum creatinine, serum albumin, serum C3, haemoglobin and global disease activity scores improved similarly in both groups. Doubling of serum creatinine occurred in four AZA-treated and three MMF-treated patients. Adverse events did not differ between the groups except for haematological cytopenias, which were statistically more frequent in the AZA group (p=0.03) but led only one patient to drop out. Conclusions Fewer renal flares were observed in patients receiving MMF but the difference did not reach statistical significance.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                AJN
                Am J Nephrol
                10.1159/issn.0250-8095
                American Journal of Nephrology
                S. Karger AG
                0250-8095
                1421-9670
                2013
                June 2013
                08 May 2013
                : 37
                : 6
                : 509-517
                Affiliations
                aHospital General Universitario de Ciudad Real, Ciudad Real, bHospital General Universitario de Albacete, Albacete, cHospital Universitari de Bellvitge, Barcelona, dHospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Asturias, eFundación Hospital Alcorcón, Madrid, fFundació Puigvert, Barcelona, gHospital Severo Ochoa, Leganés, hHospital Universitario Infantil La Fé, Valencia, iHospital San Pedro de Logroño, Logroño, jHospital Universitario Carlos Haya, Málaga, kHospital Clinic Universitari de Valencia, Valencia, lHospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, and mHospital Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain
                Author notes
                *Dr. Francisco Rivera, Sección de Nefrología, Hospital General de Ciudad Real, ES-13004 Ciudad Real (Spain), E-Mail friverahdez@senefro.org
                Article
                350756 Am J Nephrol 2013;37:509-517
                10.1159/000350756
                23689615
                09339fb3-9b28-497f-bff6-8d648262b5e9
                © 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                History
                : 20 February 2013
                : 19 March 2013
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 4, Pages: 9
                Categories
                Original Report: Patient-Oriented, Translational Research

                Cardiovascular Medicine,Nephrology
                Lupus nephritis,Mycophenolate,Systemic lupus erythematous,Renal failure

                Comments

                Comment on this article