4.6 Article

Mycophenolate sodium for subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus resistant to standard therapy

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
卷 156, 期 6, 页码 1321-1327

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2007.07826.x

关键词

20-MHz ultrasound scan; colorimetry; Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index; mycophenolate sodium; subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Approximately 75-95% of patients with cutaneous lupus erythematosus respond to antimalarial therapy and/or topical glucocorticosteroids. Immunosuppressive agents are usually considered a second-line approach in patients with resistant disease. Objectives This was a prospective, nonrandomized, open pilot study to evaluate the efficacy of mycophenolate sodium monotherapy in patients with recalcitrant subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE). Methods Monotherapy with oral enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium 1440 mg daily was given for a total of 3 months. Treatment outcome was evaluated by means of a validated clinical score for cutaneous lupus erythematosus, the Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index (CLASI), as well as 20-MHz ultrasound measurements and colorimetry. Safety assessment included the monitoring of adverse effects and clinical laboratory parameters. Results Ten patients with active SCLE resistant to at least one standard therapy were included in the trial. Mycophenolate sodium led to a remarkable improvement of skin lesions, resulting in a significant decrease of the mean +/- SD CLASI from 10.8 +/- 6.0 at the beginning to 2.9 +/- 2.6 at the end of therapy. Clinical improvement was confirmed by ultrasonographic assessments and colorimetry. No serious side-effects were noted. Conclusions Mycophenolate sodium is beneficial and safe in the treatment of patients with SCLE that failed standard therapy. However, these preliminary data must be confirmed by randomized controlled trials including a larger sample size.

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