95
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • 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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

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

          Updating the American College of Rheumatology revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus.

          M Hochberg (1997)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Prevalence and correlates of accelerated atherosclerosis in systemic lupus erythematosus.

            Although systemic lupus erythematosus is associated with premature myocardial infarction, the prevalence of underlying atherosclerosis and its relation to traditional risk factors for cardiovascular disease and lupus-related factors have not been examined in a case-control study. In 197 patients with lupus and 197 matched controls, we performed carotid ultrasonography, echocardiography, and an assessment for risk factors for cardiovascular disease. The patients were also evaluated with respect to their clinical and serologic features, inflammatory mediators, and disease treatment. The risk factors for cardiovascular disease were similar among patients and controls. Atherosclerosis (carotid plaque) was more prevalent among patients than the controls (37.1 percent vs. 15.2 percent, P<0.001). In multivariate analysis, only older age, the presence of systemic lupus erythematosus (odds ratio, 4.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.6 to 8.7), and a higher serum cholesterol level were independently related to the presence of plaque. As compared with patients without plaque, patients with plaque were older, had a longer duration of disease and more disease-related damage, and were less likely to have multiple autoantibodies or to have been treated with prednisone, cyclophosphamide, or hydroxychloroquine. In multivariate analyses including patients with lupus, independent predictors of plaque were a longer duration of disease, a higher damage-index score, a lower incidence of the use of cyclophosphamide, and the absence of anti-Smith antibodies. Atherosclerosis occurs prematurely in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and is independent of traditional risk factors for cardiovascular disease. The clinical profile of patients with lupus and atherosclerosis suggests a role for disease-related factors in atherogenesis and underscores the need for trials of more focused and effective antiinflammatory therapy. Copyright 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society
              Bookmark
              • 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

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ann Rheum Dis
                annrheumdis
                ard
                Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
                BMJ Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                0003-4967
                1468-2060
                1 December 2010
                12 October 2010
                : 69
                : 12
                : 2083-2089
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Rheumatology Department, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium
                [2 ]Louise Coote Lupus Unit, St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK
                [3 ]Nephrology Department, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
                [4 ]Clinical Immunology Unit, Hospital Santo Antonio, ICBAS, Porto, Portugal
                [5 ]Institute of Rheumatology, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
                [6 ]Center for Rheumatic Diseases, Baden-Baden, Germany
                [7 ]General Internal Medicine, Hospital Regional Universitario Carlos Haya, Malaga, Spain
                [8 ]Rheumatology Department, Rikshospitalet University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
                [9 ]Department of Pathophysiology, National University of Athens, Athens, Greece
                [10 ]General Internal Medicine Department, UZ Gasthuisberg, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
                [11 ]Rheumatology Department, Onze-Lieve-Vrouw Ziekenhuis, Aalst, Belgium
                [12 ]General Internal Medicine Department, Hôpital Cochin, Paris, France
                [13 ]Department of Autoimmune Diseases, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
                Author notes
                Correspondence to Professor Frédéric A Houssiau, Rheumatology Department, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Saint-Luc University Hospital, Avenue Hippocrate, 10, Brussels 1200, Belgium; frederic.houssiau@ 123456uclouvain.be
                Article
                annrheumdis131995
                10.1136/ard.2010.131995
                3002764
                20833738
                62ee9cae-b19b-45ff-9df0-ef241d3a1f1c
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.

                History
                : 10 July 2010
                Categories
                Clinical and Epidemiological Research
                1506
                1507
                Extended report
                Custom metadata
                unlocked
                editors-choice

                Immunology
                Immunology

                Comments

                Comment on this article