Advertisement

Drugs

, Volume 72, Issue 11, pp 1521–1533 | Cite as

Efficacy and Safety of Mycophenolate Mofetil versus Cyclophosphamide for Induction Therapy of Lupus Nephritis

A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
  • Lin-lin Liu
  • Yi Jiang
  • Li-ning WangEmail author
  • Li Yao
  • Zi-long Li
Systematic Review

Abstract

Introduction: Whether mycophenolate mofetil is superior to cyclophosphamide as induction therapy for lupus nephritis (LN) remains controversial.

Objective: Our objective was to investigate the efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil compared with cyclophosphamide as induction therapy for LN patients.

Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on humans were identified in searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (all to 1 December 2011). Studies that compared the efficacy and safety between mycophenolate mofetil and cyclophosphamide as induction therapy in LN patients were selected.

Methodological quality of the included trials was assessed according to Cochrane criteria and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The fixed effects model was applied for pooling where there was no significant heterogeneity, otherwise the random effects model (Dersimonian and Laird method) was performed.

Results: Seven trials were identified, including 725 patients. The Dersimonian and Laird method was applied for renal remission in the presence of significant heterogeneity, and no statistically significant differences were distinguished between mycophenolate mofetil and cyclophosphamide. To explore the possible source of heterogeneity, meta-regression was performed. It was suggested that no obvious study- or patient-level factors could explain interstudy heterogeneity with statistical significance. Among all these factors, the mode of administration of cyclophosphamide could explain most of the heterogeneity, although the coefficient was insignificant. Therefore, we performed a sensitivity analysis by excluding the trial in which cyclophosphamide was administered orally instead of intravenously, which suggested that mycophenolate mofetil was more effective than intravenous cyclophosphamide for inducing complete remission (relative risk [RR] 1.72; 95% CI 1.17, 2.55; p = 0.006) and complete or partial remission (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.04, 1.35; p = 0.01). In addition, mycophenolate mofetil was superior to cyclophosphamide for significantly reducing end-stage renal disease (ESRD) or death (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.41,0.98; p = 0.04). For the safety comparison, lower risks of leukopenia, amenorrhoea and alopecia, and a higher risk of diarrhoea were found with mycophenolate mofetil. No statistical differences in infection and gastrointestinal symptoms were distinguished between mycophenolate mofetil and cyclophosphamide. The relatively small number and the open-label fashion of eligible RCTs may limit the value of our meta-analysis.

Conclusions: Mycophenolate mofetil is superior to intravenous cyclophosphamide for inducing renal remission, and has a significant advantage over cyclophosphamide for reducing ESRD or death. Furthermore, mycophenolate mofetil has lower risks of leukopenia, amenorrhoea and alopecia, but a higher risk of diarrhoea than cyclophosphamide. However, our conclusions need to be proved further in larger well designed trials.

Keywords

Cyclophosphamide Complete Remission Lupus Nephritis Induction Therapy Partial Remission 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundations of China (Grant No. 30170438, 30600541 and 30571701). None of the authors has any conflicts of interest associated with the work presented in this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Harley JB, Kelly JA, Kaufman KM. Unraveling the genetics of systemic lupus erythematosus. Springer Semin Immunopathol 2006 Oct; 28(2): 119–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cameron JS. Lupus nephritis. J Am Soc Nephrol 1999 Feb; 10(2): 413–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cervera R, Khamashta MA, Font J, et al. Morbidity and mortality in systemic lupus erythematosus during a 10-year period: a comparison of early and late manifestations in a cohort of 1,000 patients. Medicine (Baltimore) 2003 Sep; 82(5): 299–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bagavant H, Kalantarinia K, Scindia Y, et al. Novel therapeutic approaches to lupus glomerulonephritis: translating animal models to clinical practice. Am J Kidney Dis 2011 Mar; 57(3): 498–507PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Navaneethan SD, Viswanathan G, Strippoli GF. Treatment options for proliferative lupus nephritis: an update of clinical trial evidence. Drugs 2008; 68(15): 2095–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Petri M. Cyclophosphamide: new approaches for systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus 2004; 13(5): 366–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fulton B, Markham A. Mycophenolate mofetil: a review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and clinical efficacy in renal transplantation. Drugs 1996 Feb; 51(2): 278–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Snell GI, Westall GP. Immunosuppression for lung transplantation: evidence to date. Drugs 2007; 67(11): 1531–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Appel A, Appel G. An update on the use of mycophenolate mofetil in lupus nephritis and other primary glomerular diseases. Nat Clin Pract Nephrol 2009 Mar; 5(3): 132–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Quaglia M, Stratta P. Idiopathic membranous nephropathy: management strategies. Drugs 2009 Jul; 69(10): 1303–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li X, Ren H, Zhang Q, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil or tacrolimus compared with intravenous cyclophosphamide in the induction treatment for active lupus nephritis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2012 Apr; 27(4): 1467–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    El-Shafey EM, Abdou SH, Shareef MM. Is mycophenolate mofetil superior to pulse intravenous cyclophosphamide for induction therapy of proliferative lupus nephritis in Egyptian patients? Clin Exp Nephrol 2010 Jun; 14(3): 214–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Appel GB, Contreras G, Dooley MA, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclophosphamide for induction treatment of lupus nephritis. J Am Soc Nephrol 2009 May; 20(5): 1103–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang J, Hu W, Xie H, et al. Induction therapies for class IV lupus nephritis with non-inflammatory necrotizing vasculopathy: mycophenolate mofetil or intravenous cyclophosphamide. Lupus 2007; 16(9): 707–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ginzler EM, Dooley MA, Aranow C, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil or intravenous cyclophosphamide for lupus nephritis. N Engl J Med 2005 Nov; 353(21): 2219–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ong LM, Hooi LS, Lim TO, et al. Randomized controlled trial of pulse intravenous cyclophosphamide versus mycophenolate mofetil in the induction therapy of proliferative lupus nephritis. Nephrology 2005 Oct; 10(5): 504–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chan TM, Tse KC, Tang CS, et al. Long-term study of mycophenolate mofetil as continuous induction and maintenance treatment for diffuse proliferative lupus nephritis. J Am Soc Nephrol 2005 Apr; 16(4): 1076–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.0.1 [updated September 2008]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. [Accessed 2010 Mar 1]
  19. 19.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009 Jul; 339: b2535PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986 Sep; 7(3): 177–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weening JJ, D’Agati VD, Schwartz MM, et al. The classification of glomerulonephritis in systemic lupus erythematosus revisited. J Am Soc Nephrol 2004 Feb; 15(2): 241–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Houssiau FA. Cyclophosphamide in lupus nephritis. Lupus 2005; 14(1): 53–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bomback AS, Appel GB. Updates on the treatment of lupus nephritis. J Am Soc Nephrol 2010; 21(12): 2028–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mok CC, Ying KY, Ng WL, et al. Long-term outcome of diffuse proliferative lupus glomerulonephritis treated with cyclophosphamide. Am J Med 2006 Apr; 119(4): 355.e25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moore RA, Derry S. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials and cohort studies of mycophenolate mofetil in lupus nephritis. Arthritis Res Ther 2006; 8(6): R182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Walsh M, James M, Jayne D, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil for induction therapy of lupus nephritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2007 Sep; 2(5): 968–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhu B, Chen N, Lin Y, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil in induction and maintenance therapy of severe lupus nephritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2007 Jul; 22(7): 1933–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Touma Z, Gladman DD, Urowitz MB, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil for induction treatment of lupus nephritis: a systematic review and metaanalysis. J Rheumatol 2011 Jan; 38(1): 69–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mak A, Cheak AA, Tan JY, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil is as efficacious as, but safer than, cyclophosphamide in the treatment of proliferative lupus nephritis: a meta-analysis and meta-regression. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2009 Aug; 48(8): 944–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kamanamool N, McEvoy M, Attia J, et al. Efficacy and adverse events of mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclophosphamide for induction therapy of lupus nephritis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2010 Jul; 89(4): 227–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ting RZ, Luk AO, Chan JC. Treatment and landmark clinical trials for renoprotection. Contrib Nephrol 2011; 170: 184–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sánchez RA, Traballi CA, Marcó EJ, et al. Effects of ACE inhibition on renal haemodynamics in essential hypertension and hypertension associated with chronic renal failure. Drugs 1991; 41 Suppl. 1: 25–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wenzel RR. Renal protection in hypertensive patients: selection of antihypertensive therapy. Drugs 2005; 65 Suppl. 2: 29–39PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Boumpas DT, Balow JE. Outcome criteria for lupus nephritis trials: a critical overview. Lupus 1998; 7(9): 622–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lin-lin Liu
    • 1
  • Yi Jiang
    • 2
  • Li-ning Wang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Li Yao
    • 1
  • Zi-long Li
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of NephrologyThe First Hospital of China Medical UniversityShen YangPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of DermatologyThe First Hospital of China Medical UniversityShen YangPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations