EFFICACY OF MYCOPHENOLATE MOFETIL VERSUS CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE IN THE TREATMENT OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2023.v16i1.46143Keywords:
Lupus nephritis, Systemic lupus erythematosus, Mycophenolate mofetil, Cyclophosphamide, Efficacy, Observational study, Serum complements C3 & C4, Protein-creatinine ratioAbstract
Objective: Despite the prevalence of SLE, lupus nephritis (LN) is the primary cause of morbidity and mortality. This study objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of the induction treatment with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and cyclophosphamide (CYC).
Methods: This was a prospective observational study enrolled 100 LN patients who were treated with MMF and cyclophosphamide. In this study, 6 male and 44 female patients were treated with MMF and 3 male and 47 female patients were treated with cyclophosphamide. To estimate drug efficacy, patients were evaluated for 24-h urinary protein excretion estimation, serum creatinine, protein-creatinine ratio (PCR), Proteinuria, Serum complement C3, Serum complement C4, and Serum albumin. The primary end point was a prespecified decrease in urine PCR and stabilization of serum creatinine. Secondary end points were complete renal remission, systemic disease status and safety.
Results: The results indicated a potential small advantage of MMF over CYC although the results were not significant. Serum creatinine, 24-h urine protein, and serum albumin were also similar between the MMF and CYC groups after induction therapy. Leukopenia was significantly reduced in MMF treated patients. Both groups suffered from upper gastrointestinal symptoms, but the MMF group’s symptoms were mild and self-limited. MMF therapy was effective in reducing proteinuria and boosting serum complement levels.
Conclusion: MMF and CYC were not significantly different in remission induction therapies for LN. Clinical improvement was seen in most patients in both treatment groups.
Downloads
References
De Zubiria Salgado A, Herrera-Diaz C. Lupus nephritis: An overview of recent findings. Autoimmune Dis 2012;2012:849684. doi: 10.1155/2012/849684, PMID 22536486
Mjelle JE, Rekvig OP, Van Der Vlag J, Fenton KA. Nephritogenic antibodies bind in glomeruli through interaction with exposed chromatin fragments and not with renal cross-reactive antigens. Autoimmunity 2011;44:373-83. doi: 10.3109/08916934.2010.541170, PMID 21244336
Aziz F, Chaudhary K. Lupus nephritis: A treatment update. Curr Clin Pharmacol 2018;13:4-13. doi: 10.2174/1574884713666180403150359, PMID 29611488
Davidson A, Aranow C. Pathogenesis and treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus nephritis. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2006;18:468-75. doi: 10.1097/01.bor.0000240356.45550.13, PMID 16896284
Eugui EM, Almquist SJ, Muller CD, Allison AC. Lymphocyte-selective cytostatic and immunosuppressive effects of mycophenolic acid in vitro: Role of deoxyguanosine nucleotide depletion. Scand J Immunol 1991;33:161-73. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3083.1991.tb03746.x, PMID 1826793
Hurd ER, Ziff M. The mechanism of action of cyclophosphamide on the nephritis of (NZB x NZW) F1 hybrid mice. Clin Exp Immunol 1977;29:132-9. PMID 302170
Wasef SZ. Gender differences in systemic lupus erythematosus. Gend Med 2004;1:12-7. doi: 10.1016/s1550-8579(04)80006-8, PMID 16115579
Brinks R, Hoyer A, Weber S, Fischer-Betz R, Sander O, Richter JG, et al. Age-specific and sex-specific incidence of systemic lupus erythematosus: An estimate from cross-sectional claims data of 2.3 million people in the German statutory health insurance 2002. Lupus Sci Med 2016;3:e000181. doi: 10.1136/lupus-2016-000181, PMID 27933200
Erdozain JG, Villar I, Nieto J, Ruiz-Irastorza G. Peripheral arterial disease in systemic lupus erythematosus: Prevalence and risk factors. J Rheumatol 2014;41:310-7. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.130817, PMID 24429176
Nikpour M, Urowitz MB, Gladman DD. Premature atherosclerosis in systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 2005;31:329-54, vii-viii. doi: 10.1016/j.rdc.2005.01.001, PMID 15922149
Kamanamool N, McEvoy M, Attia J, Ingsathit A, Ngamjanyaporn P, Thakkinstian A. Efficacy and adverse events of mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclophosphamide for induction therapy of lupus nephritis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2010;89:227-35. doi: 10.1097/MD.0b013e3181e93d00, PMID 20616662
Dooley MA, Cosio FG, Nachman PH, Falkenhain ME, Hogan SL, Falk RJ, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil therapy in lupus nephritis: Clinical nephrology. J Am Soc Nephrol 1999;10:833-9. doi: 10.1681/ ASN.V104833
Choi SE, Park DJ, Kang JH, Lee KE, Xu HE, Lee JS, et al. Comparison of renal responses to cyclophosphamide and mycophenolate mofetil used as induction therapies in Korean patients with lupus nephritis. J Rheum Dis 2019;26:57-65. doi: 10.4078/jrd.2019.26.1.57
Jiang YP, Zhao XX, Chen RR, Xu ZH, Wen CP, Yu J. Comparative efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil and cyclophosphamide in the induction treatment of lupus nephritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020;99:e22328. doi: 10.1097/ MD.0000000000022328, PMID 32957400
Moroni G, Doria A, Ponticelli C. Cyclosporine (CsA) in lupus Nephritis: Assessing the evidence. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2009;24:15-20. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfn565, PMID 18852191
Sedhain A, Hada R, Agrawal RK, Bhattarai GR, Baral A. Low dose mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclophosphamide in the induction therapy of lupus nephritis in Nepalese population: A randomized control trial. BMC Nephrol 2018;19:175. doi: 10.1186/s12882-018- 0973-7, PMID 29996800
Li X, Ren H, Zhang Q, Zhang W, Wu X, Xu Y, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil or tacrolimus compared with intravenous cyclophosphamide in the induction treatment for active lupus nephritis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2012;27:1467-72. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfr484, PMID 21917733
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2022 PRASANTHA KUMARI MANTADA
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The publication is licensed under CC By and is open access. Copyright is with author and allowed to retain publishing rights without restrictions.
