Tratamiento inmunosupresor de nefritis lúpica en insuficiencia renal grave.: Sobre el estudio ALMS Translated title: Immunosuppressive treatment of lupus nephritis in severe kidney disease.: On the ALMS study

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.

Cyclophosphamide (CYC) has proven beneficial in preserving renal function in patients with lupus with diffuse proliferative glomerulonephritis (DPGN). However, the optimal route of CYC administration is unknown because direct comparative studies are unavailable. In this open study, we compared the renal outcome of two historical cohorts of patients with diffuse proliferative lupus nephritis (World Health Organization classes IVa and IVb) treated with either intravenous (IV) pulse CYC (group A; n = 22) or sequential oral CYC followed by azathioprine (AZA; group B; n = 21) and followed up prospectively. Both groups of patients had similar clinical, biochemical, and renal parameters at baseline. At 24 months posttreatment, significant improvements in proteinuria, creatinine clearance, serum albumin level, and lupus serological results were evident in both groups. Compared with patients in group A, patients in group B had more complete or partial remission (90% versus 73%) and less risk for treatment failure (5% versus 14%), renal flares (5% versus 14%), and doubling of creatinine levels (5% versus 9%), but the difference was not statistically significant. However, patients treated with oral immunosuppression had an insignificant increase in rates of herpes zoster infection (19% versus 9%) and menstrual disturbance (50% versus 29%). We conclude that sequential oral immunosuppression with CYC and AZA tended to have better efficacy than IV pulse CYC in the treatment of lupus DPGN but was associated with more toxicities. Additional randomized trials involving a larger cohort of patients with a longer period of observation are necessary.