Is mycophenolate mofetil superior to pulse intravenous cyclophosphamide for induction therapy of proliferative lupus nephritis in Egyptian patients?
- 340 Downloads
Recent studies have suggested that mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) may offer advantages over intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVC) for the treatment of lupus nephritis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of MMF compared with IVC in the induction therapy of proliferative lupus nephritis.
We randomly assigned 47 patients with newly diagnosed active proliferative lupus nephritis class III or IV to open-label oral MMF 2 g/day for 6 months or intravenous cyclophosphamide 0.5–1 g/m2 monthly for 6 months in addition to corticosteroids.
In the intention-to-treat analysis, 14 of the 24 patients (58.33%) receiving MMF and 12 of the 23 patients receiving cyclophosphamide (52.17%) had remission (P = 0.48); complete remission occurred in 6 of the 24 patients (25%) and 5 of the 23 patients (21.74%), respectively (P = 0.53). Improvements in packed cell volume, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate, anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies titer (anti-dsDNA), serum complement, proteinuria, urinary activity, renal function, serum soluble interleukin-2 receptor alpha concentration and the systemic lupus activity measure score were similar in both groups. Two patients assigned to MMF and another patient assigned to IVC developed end-stage renal failure with commencement of dialysis. Adverse events were similar. Major infections occurred in two patients in each group. There was no difference in gastrointestinal side effects, but more diarrhea occurred in those receiving MMF.
In this 24-week trial, MMF or IVC combined with corticosteroids demonstrated equal efficacy in inducing remission of proliferative lupus nephritis.
KeywordsIntravenous cyclophosphamide (IVC) Mycophenolate mofetil Proliferative lupus nephritis
Conflict of interest statement
A limitation of our study is that treatment assignment was not blinded. Although this could lead to potential bias in patient recruitment and in the interpretation of results, the marked differences in the side-effect profiles of the two drugs would probably make true blinding difficult. Another limitation of our study is its short duration and the restriction to induction therapy.
- 3.Churg JSL. Lupus nephritis. In: Churg JSL, editor. Renal disease, classification and atlas of glomerular diseases. 1st ed. New York: Igaku-Shoin; 1982. p. 127–49.Google Scholar
- 10.Halloran P, Mathew T, Tomlanovich S, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil in renal allograft recipients: A pooled efficacy analysis of three randomized, double-blind, clinical studies in prevention of rejection. The International Mycophenolate Mofetil Renal Transplant Study Groups. Transplantation. 1997;63:39–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Weening JJ, D’Agati VD, Schwartz MM et al. The classification of glomerulo-nephritis in systemic lupus erythematosus revisited. J Am Soc Nephrol 2004;15:241–250 [published erratum in J Am Soc Nephrol. 2004; 15:835–6.Google Scholar
- 30.Illei GG, Takada K, Parkin D, et al. Renal flares are common in patients with severe proliferative lupus nephritis treated with pulse immunosuppressive therapy: longterm followup of a cohort of 145 patients participating in randomized controlled studies. Arthritis Rheum. 2002;46:995–1002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar