4.7 Article

Long-term effects of combination treatment with fludarabine and low-dose pulse cyclophosphamide in patients with lupus nephritis

Journal

RHEUMATOLOGY
Volume 46, Issue 6, Pages 952-956

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kem001

Keywords

systemic lupus erythematosus; chemotherapy; myelosuppression; remission; safety

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. To determine the safety and efficacy of a short course of fludarabine combined with cyclophoshamide in lupus nephritis. Methods. A phase I/II open label pilot study. Thirteen patients with active proliferative lupus nephritis received monthly oral boluses of low-dose cyclophoshamide (0.5gm/m(2) on day 1) and subcutaneous fludarabine (30 mg/m(2) on days 1-3) for 3-6 cycles. Concomitant prednisone was aggressively tapered from 0.5 mg/kg/day to a low-dose, alternate-day schedule. Patients were followed for at least 24 months after therapy. The primary outcome was the number of patients achieving renal remission defined as stable creatinine, proteinuria <1 gm/day and inactive urine sediment for at least 6 months. Results. The study was terminated early because of bone marrow toxicity. Eleven patients who received at least three cycles were evaluated for efficacy. Ten patients improved markedly with seven patients achieving complete remission and three patients achieving partial remission. There were three serious haematological adverse events during the treatment with one death due to transfusion-associated graft vs host disease. Profound and prolonged CD4 (mean CD4: 98/mu l at 7 months and 251/mu l at 12 months) and CD20 lymphocytopenia was noted in most patients. Three patients developed Herpes zoster infections. Conclusions. A short course of low-dose fludarabine and cyclophoshamide can induce long-lasting remissions in patients with proliferative lupus nephritis, but severe myelosuppression limits its widespread use.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available