4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Mycophenolate mofetil for induction therapy of lupus nephritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.01200307

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Objectives: Although the accepted standard of care for induction of lupus nephritis has been cyclophosphamide, recent trials suggest that mycophenolate mofetil may be as or more effective and less toxic. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine the risk for failure to induce remission of lupus nephritis in patients who were treated with mycophenolate mofetil compared with cyclophosphamide. Design, Setting, Participants, & Measurements: Studies were identified by a search of electronic databases, bibliographies, and conference proceedings and by contacting experts. Randomized trials that compared mycophenolate mofetil with cyclophosphamide for induction therapy in adults with biopsy-proven lupus nephritis were eligible. The primary outcome was failure to induce a remission of nephritis as defined by the original studies (based on proteinuria, renal function, and urine sediment). Results: Four studies that included 268 patients and had homogeneous results across studies were identified. In a fixed-effects model, the pooled relative risk for failure to induce remission for mycophenolate mofetil compared with cyclophosphamide was 0.70. The relative risk for the composite outcome of death or end-stage renal disease for mycophenolate mofetil compared with cyclophosphamide was 0.44. Leukopenia and amenorrhea occurred more frequently in cyclophosphamide-treated patients. Conclusions: Treatment of lupus nephritis with mycophenolate mofetil compared with cyclophosphamide reduces the risk for failure to induce remission during induction therapy and may reduce the risk for death or end-stage renal disease. Mycophenolate mofetil may be considered as a first-line induction therapy for the treatment of lupus nephritis in patients without severe renal dysfunction.

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

4.6
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