Low-dose cyclosporine for active lupus nephritis: a dose titration approach
- 66 Downloads
Achievement of complete renal remission (CR) is an important goal in lupus nephritis (LN) treatment. The use of cyclosporine (CsA) for active LN has been challenged because of variations in CsA doses and reports of adverse reactions (AR).
A cohort of 62 patients with active LN (induction-resistant LN and flared LN) who were treated with CsA was evaluated. CsA was started at 50 mg/day and titrated up 25 mg/day every 2–4 weeks until CR was achieved or until treatment termination because of AR.
The range of CsA dosage was 50–200 mg/day, and mean CsA dose was 102.8 ± 50.43 mg/day (1.73 ± 0.91 mg/kg/day). CsA plus mycophenolate mofetil and prednisolone was administered to 35.5% of patients, while the other 64.5% were treated with CsA and prednisolone. 90.32% had achieved CR and 4.84% had partial remission after 12 months of treatment. UPCR (urinary protein:creatinine ratio) decreased significantly in both groups (2.58 ± 3.37 to 0.36 ± 0.71 and 2.32 ± 1.45 to 0.29 ± 0.24 respectively) (P < 0.001). Non-renal activity including arthritis, alopecia, hematologic and cutaneous conditions improved in all patients. Patients whose prednisolone dose were increase received higher doses of prednisolone at baseline than patients who had stable prednisolone dose, but after 12 months the difference in dosage was insignificant (p = 0.58).
Patients with active LN can be effectively treated with low dose CsA, and the dose titration approach can lead to 90.32% CR with low AR rates. No difference in clinical response was observed among patients who received CsA plus prednisolone or CsA plus MMF and prednisolone.
KeywordsAdverse reaction Cyclosporine Flared Induction resistant Lupus nephritis Multitarget therapy
Compliance with ethical standards
The study was approved by the ethics committee of the investigating hospital.
- 3.Bertsias GK, Tektonidou M, Amoura Z, Aringer M, Bajema I, Berden JH, Boletis J, Cervera R, Dorner T, Doria A, Ferrario F, Floege J, Houssiau FA, Ioannidis JP, Isenberg DA, Kallenberg CG, Lightstone L, Marks SD, Martini A, Moroni G, Neumann I, Praga M, Schneider M, Starra A, Tesar V, Vasconcelos C, van Vollenhoven RF, Zakharova H, Haubitz M, Gordon C, Jayne D, Boumpas DT (2012) Joint European League Against Rheumatism and European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (EULAR/ERA-EDTA) recommendations for the management of adult and paediatric lupus nephritis. Ann Rheum Dis 71(11):1771–1782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Hahn BH, McMahon MA, Wilkinson A, Wallace WD, Daikh DI, Fitzgerald JD, Karpouzas GA, Merrill JT, Wallace DJ, Yazdany J, Ramsey-Goldman R, Singh K, Khalighi M, Choi SI, Gogia M, Kafaja S, Kamgar M, Lau C, Martin WJ, Parikh S, Peng J, Rastogi A, Chen W, Grossman JM (2012) American College of Rheumatology guidelines for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 64(6):797–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Suzuki K, Saito K, Tsujimura S, Nakayamada S, Yamaoka K, Sawamukai N, Iwata S, Nawata M, Nakano K, Tanaka Y (2010) Tacrolimus, a calcineurin inhibitor, overcomes treatment unresponsiveness mediated by P-glycoprotein on lymphocytes in refractory rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 37(3):512–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Uribe AG, Vila LM, McGwin G Jr, Sanchez ML, Reveille JD, Alarcon GS (2004) The Systemic Lupus Activity Measure-revised, the Mexican Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI), and a modified SLEDAI-2K are adequate instruments to measure disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol 31(10):1934–1940Google Scholar
- 26.Ruiz-Arruza I, Lozano J, Cabezas-Rodriguez I, Medina JA, Ugarte A, Erdozain JG, Ruiz-Irastorza G (2018) Restrictive use of oral glucocorticoids in systemic lupus erythematosus and prevention of damage without worsening long-term disease control: an observational study. Arthritis Care Res 70(4):582–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Radhakrishnan J, Kunis CL, D'Agati V, Appel GB (1994) Cyclosporine treatment of lupus membranous nephropathy. Clin Nephrol 42(3):147–154Google Scholar