4.4 Article

Morbidity in children with frequently relapsing nephrosis: 10-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

期刊

PEDIATRIC NEPHROLOGY
卷 30, 期 3, 页码 459-468

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00467-014-2955-8

关键词

Children; Follow-up; Long-term; Nephrotic syndrome; Randomized; Controlled trial; Non-remission

资金

  1. Kidney Foundation, Japan
  2. Novartis Pharma K.K.
  3. Asahi Kasei Pharma Corporation
  4. Astellas Pharma
  5. Terumo Medical Corporation
  6. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.
  7. Pfizer Japan
  8. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
  9. Novartis Pharma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To investigate the long-term outcome in children with frequently relapsing nephrotic syndrome (FRNS) we conducted a follow-up of a previous randomized controlled trial (RCT) 10 years after the initiation of the treatment protocol. We previously conducted an RCT on the efficacy of cyclosporine for treating children with FRNS. After 2 years of treatment, a recommended a management protocol of steroids, and immunosuppressants was provided. Valid information was available for 46 of the 56 patients (82.1 %) enrolled in the original RCT. The median follow-up period was 10.3 years from the start of protocol treatment with cyclosporine. At last follow-up (mean age 18.7 years), only ten patients (21.7 %) showed disease-free remission (no relapse for at least 2 years). In contrast, 23 (50.0 %) continued to relapse frequently or were on immunosuppressants, eight patients (17.4 %) had infrequent relapses without immunosuppressants. Adverse effects attributable to treatment included short stature (6 patients), osteoporosis (six patients), obesity (4 patients), cataracts (3 patients) and hypertension (3 patients). No lethal event or renal dysfunction occurred during follow-up. This 10-year follow-up study shows that most children with FRNS experience relapses after 2 years of cyclosporine treatment, in adolescence and into adulthood. Outcomes in terms of life expectancy and renal function are favorable.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据