Azathioprine versus mycophenolate mofetil for long-term immunosuppression in lupus nephritis: results from the MAINTAIN Nephritis Trial. Is mycophenolate mofetil superior to pulse intravenous cyclophosphamide for induction therapy of proliferative lupus nephritis in Egyptian patients? Cyclosporine A or intravenous cyclophosphamide for lupus nephritis: the Cyclofa-Lune study. Immunosuppressive therapy in lupus nephritis: the Euro-Lupus Nephritis Trial, a randomized trial of low-dose versus high-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide. Mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclophosphamide for induction treatment of lupus nephritis. Randomized controlled trial of pulse intravenous cyclophosphamide versus mycophenolate mofetil in the induction therapy of proliferative lupus nephritis. Azathioprine/methylprednisolone versus cyclophosphamide in proliferative lupus nephritis. A randomized controlled trial. A randomized trial of maintenance therapy for vasculitis associated with antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibodies. EULAR randomised controlled trial of pulse cyclophosphamide and methylprednisolone versus continuous cyclophosphamide and prednisolone followed by azathioprine and prednisolone in lupus nephritis.
Long-term immunosuppressive treatment does not efficiently prevent relapses of lupus nephritis (LN). This investigator-initiated randomised trial tested whether mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) was superior to azathioprine (AZA) as maintenance treatment.
                A total of 105 patients with lupus with proliferative LN were included. All received three daily intravenous pulses of 750 mg methylprednisolone, followed by oral glucocorticoids and six fortnightly cyclophosphamide intravenous pulses of 500 mg. Based on randomisation performed at baseline, AZA (target dose: 2 mg/kg/day) or MMF (target dose: 2 g/day) was given at week 12. Analyses were by intent to treat. Time to renal flare was the primary end point. Mean (SD) follow-up of the intent-to-treat population was 48 (14) months.
                The baseline clinical, biological and pathological characteristics of patients allocated to AZA or MMF did not differ. Renal flares were observed in 13 (25%) AZA-treated and 10 (19%) MMF-treated patients. Time to renal flare, to severe systemic flare, to benign flare and to renal remission did not statistically differ. Over a 3-year period, 24 h proteinuria, serum creatinine, serum albumin, serum C3, haemoglobin and global disease activity scores improved similarly in both groups. Doubling of serum creatinine occurred in four AZA-treated and three MMF-treated patients. Adverse events did not differ between the groups except for haematological cytopenias, which were statistically more frequent in the AZA group (p=0.03) but led only one patient to drop out.
                Fewer renal flares were observed in patients receiving MMF but the difference did not reach statistical significance. Recent studies have suggested that mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) may offer advantages over intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVC) for the treatment of lupus nephritis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of MMF compared with IVC in the induction therapy of proliferative lupus nephritis.
                We randomly assigned 47 patients with newly diagnosed active proliferative lupus nephritis class III or IV to open-label oral MMF 2 g/day for 6 months or intravenous cyclophosphamide 0.5-1 g/m(2) monthly for 6 months in addition to corticosteroids.
                In the intention-to-treat analysis, 14 of the 24 patients (58.33%) receiving MMF and 12 of the 23 patients receiving cyclophosphamide (52.17%) had remission (P = 0.48); complete remission occurred in 6 of the 24 patients (25%) and 5 of the 23 patients (21.74%), respectively (P = 0.53). Improvements in packed cell volume, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate, anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies titer (anti-dsDNA), serum complement, proteinuria, urinary activity, renal function, serum soluble interleukin-2 receptor alpha concentration and the systemic lupus activity measure score were similar in both groups. Two patients assigned to MMF and another patient assigned to IVC developed end-stage renal failure with commencement of dialysis. Adverse events were similar. Major infections occurred in two patients in each group. There was no difference in gastrointestinal side effects, but more diarrhea occurred in those receiving MMF.
                In this 24-week trial, MMF or IVC combined with corticosteroids demonstrated equal efficacy in inducing remission of proliferative lupus nephritis. Intravenous cyclophosphamide is considered to be the standard of care for the treatment of proliferative lupus nephritis. However, its use is limited by potentially severe toxic effects. Cyclosporine A has been suggested to be an efficient and safe treatment alternative to cyclophosphamide. Forty patients with clinically active proliferative lupus nephritis were randomly assigned to one of two sequential induction and maintenance treatment regimens based either on cyclophosphamide or Cyclosporine A. The primary outcomes were remission (defined as normal urinary sediment, proteinuria <0.3 g/24 h, and stable s-creatinine) and response to therapy (defined as stable s-creatinine, 50% reduction in proteinuria, and either normalization of urinary sediment or significant improvement in C3) at the end of induction and maintenance phase. Secondary outcomes were incidence of adverse events, and relapse-free survival. At the end of the induction phase, 24% of the 21 patients treated by cyclophosphamide achieved remission, and 52% achieved response, as compared with 26% and 43%, respectively of the 19 patients treated by the Cyclosporine A. At the end of the maintenance phase, 14% of patients in cyclophosphamide group, and 37% in Cyclosporine A group had remission, and 38% and 58% respectively response. Treatment with Cyclosporine A was associated with transient increase in blood pressure and reversible decrease in glomerular filtration rate. There was no significant difference in median relapse-free survival. In conclusion, Cyclosporine A was as effective as cyclophosphamide in the trial of sequential induction and maintenance treatment in patients with proliferative lupus nephritis and preserved renal function.(ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00976300) Glomerulonephritis is a severe manifestation of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) that is usually treated with an extended course of intravenous (IV) cyclophosphamide (CYC). Given the side effects of this regimen, we evaluated the efficacy and the toxicity of a course of low-dose IV CYC prescribed as a remission-inducing treatment, followed by azathioprine (AZA) as a remission-maintaining treatment.
                In this multicenter, prospective clinical trial (the Euro-Lupus Nephritis Trial [ELNT]), we randomly assigned 90 SLE patients with proliferative glomerulonephritis to a high-dose IV CYC regimen (6 monthly pulses and 2 quarterly pulses; doses increased according to the white blood cell count nadir) or a low-dose IV CYC regimen (6 fortnightly pulses at a fixed dose of 500 mg), each of which was followed by AZA. Intent-to-treat analyses were performed.
                Followup continued for a median of 41.3 months in the low-dose group and 41 months in the high-dose group. Sixteen percent of those in the low-dose group and 20% of those in the high-dose group experienced treatment failure (not statistically significant by Kaplan-Meier analysis). Levels of serum creatinine, albumin, C3, 24-hour urinary protein, and the disease activity scores significantly improved in both groups during the first year of followup. Renal remission was achieved in 71% of the low-dose group and 54% of the high-dose group (not statistically significant). Renal flares were noted in 27% of the low-dose group and 29% of the high-dose group. Although episodes of severe infection were more than twice as frequent in the high-dose group, the difference was not statistically significant.
                The data from the ELNT indicate that in European SLE patients with proliferative lupus nephritis, a remission-inducing regimen of low-dose IV CYC (cumulative dose 3 gm) followed by AZA achieves clinical results comparable to those obtained with a high-dose regimen. Recent studies have suggested that mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) may offer advantages over intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVC) for the treatment of lupus nephritis, but these therapies have not been compared in an international randomized, controlled trial. Here, we report the comparison of MMF and IVC as induction treatment for active lupus nephritis in a multinational, two-phase (induction and maintenance) study. We randomly assigned 370 patients with classes III through V lupus nephritis to open-label MMF (target dosage 3 g/d) or IVC (0.5 to 1.0 g/m(2) in monthly pulses) in a 24-wk induction study. Both groups received prednisone, tapered from a maximum starting dosage of 60 mg/d. The primary end point was a prespecified decrease in urine protein/creatinine ratio and stabilization or improvement in serum creatinine. Secondary end points included complete renal remission, systemic disease activity and damage, and safety. Overall, we did not detect a significantly different response rate between the two groups: 104 (56.2%) of 185 patients responded to MMF compared with 98 (53.0%) of 185 to IVC. Secondary end points were also similar between treatment groups. There were nine deaths in the MMF group and five in the IVC group. We did not detect significant differences between the MMF and IVC groups with regard to rates of adverse events, serious adverse events, or infections. Although most patients in both treatment groups experienced clinical improvement, the study did not meet its primary objective of showing that MMF was superior to IVC as induction treatment for lupus nephritis. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of mycophenolate mofetil in the induction therapy of proliferative lupus nephritis.
                Forty-four patients from eight centres with newly diagnosed lupus nephritis World Health Organization class III or IV were randomly assigned to either mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) 2 g/day for 6 months or intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVC) 0.75-1 g/m(2) monthly for 6 months in addition to corticosteroids.
                Remission occurred in 13 out of 25 patients (52%) in the IVC group and 11 out of 19 patients (58%) in the MMF group (P = 0.70). There were 12% in the IVC group and 26% in the MMF group that achieved complete remission (P = 0.22). Improvements in haemoglobin, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate, serum albumin, serum complement, proteinuria, urinary activity, renal function and the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index score were similar in both groups. Twenty-four follow-up renal biopsies at the end of therapy showed a significant reduction in the activity score in both groups. The chronicity index increased in both groups but was only significant in the IVC group. Adverse events were similar. Major infections occurred in three patients in each group. There was no difference in gastrointestinal side-effects.
                MMF in combination with corticosteroids is an effective induction therapy for moderately severe proliferative lupus nephritis. Until recently, intravenous cyclophosphamide pulses with oral corticosteroids were regarded standard therapy for proliferative lupus nephritis (LN). Azathioprine, a less toxic alternative, was never proven to be inferior. In the first Dutch lupus nephritis study (enrollment between 1995 and 2001), we randomized 87 proliferative LN patients to either cyclophosphamide pulses (750 mg/m(2), 13 pulses in 2 years) combined with oral prednisone (CY) or to azathioprine (2 mg/kg/day in 2 years) combined with intravenous pulses of methylprednisolone (3 x 3 pulses of 1000 mg) and oral prednisone (AZA). After a median follow-up of 5.7 years (interquartile range 4.1-7.2 years), doubling of serum creatinine was more frequent in the AZA group, although not statistically significant (relative risk (RR): 4.1, with 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.8-20.4). Relapses occurred more often in the AZA group (RR: 8.8, 95% CI: 1.5-31.8). Creatinine and proteinuria at last visit did not differ between the two treatment arms. Moreover, 88.4% of the patients in the AZA arm were still free of cyclophosphamide treatment. During the first 2 years, the frequency of remission was not different, but infections, especially herpes zoster virus infections (HZV) were more frequent in the AZA group. Parameters for ovarian function did not differ between the two groups. In conclusion, in this open-label randomized controlled trial, cyclophosphamide was superior to azathioprine with regard to renal relapses and HZV. At last follow-up, there were no differences in serum creatinine or proteinuria between the two groups. However, since our study lacked sufficient power, longer follow-up is needed to reveal putative differences. The primary systemic vasculitides usually associated with autoantibodies to neutrophil cytoplasmic antigens include Wegener's granulomatosis and microscopic polyangiitis. We investigated whether exposure to cyclophosphamide in patients with generalized vasculitis could be reduced by substitution of azathioprine at remission.
                We studied patients with a new diagnosis of generalized vasculitis and a serum creatinine concentration of 5.7 mg per deciliter (500 micromol per liter) or less. All patients received at least three months of therapy with oral cyclophosphamide and prednisolone. After remission, patients were randomly assigned to continued cyclophosphamide therapy (1.5 mg per kilogram of body weight per day) or a substitute regimen of azathioprine (2 mg per kilogram per day). Both groups continued to receive prednisolone and were followed for 18 months from study entry. Relapse was the primary end point.
                Of 155 patients studied, 144 (93 percent) entered remission and were randomly assigned to azathioprine (71 patients) or continued cyclophosphamide (73 patients). There were eight deaths (5 percent), seven of them during the first three months. Eleven relapses occurred in the azathioprine group (15.5 percent), and 10 occurred in the cyclophosphamide group (13.7 percent, P=0.65). Severe adverse events occurred in 15 patients during the induction phase (10 percent), in 8 patients in the azathioprine group during the remission phase (11 percent), and in 7 patients in the cyclophosphamide group during the remission phase (10 percent, P=0.94 for the comparison between groups during the remission phase). The relapse rate was lower among the patients with microscopic polyangiitis than among those with Wegener's granulomatosis (P=0.03).
                In patients with generalized vasculitis, the withdrawal of cyclophosphamide and the substitution of azathioprine after remission did not increase the rate of relapse. Thus, the duration of exposure to cyclophosphamide may be safely reduced.
                Copyright 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society To compare the efficacy and side effects of intermittent pulse cyclophosphamide plus methylprednisolone with continuous oral cyclophosphamide plus prednisolone, followed by azathioprine, in patients with proliferative glomerulonephritis caused by systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).
                A multicentre randomised controlled trial was conducted between June 1992 and May 1996 involving eight European centres. All patients satisfied the American College of Rheumatology criteria for SLE and had biopsy proven proliferative lupus nephritis. All received corticosteroids in addition to cytotoxic drugs, as defined in the protocol, for two years. The trial was terminated after four years as recruitment was disappointing.
                32 SLE patients with lupus nephritis were recruited: 16 were randomised to intermittent pulse cyclophosphamide and 16 to continuous cyclophosphamide plus azathioprine. Mean duration of follow up was 3.7 years in the continuous group (range 0 to 5.6) and 3.3 years in the pulse group (range 0.25 to 6). Three patients were excluded from the pulse therapy group as they were later found to have pure mesangial glomerulonephritis. Two patients in the continuous therapy group developed end stage renal failure requiring dialysis, but none in the intermittent pulse therapy (p = 0.488; NS). There were similar numbers of side effects and withdrawals from treatment in both groups. There were three deaths: two in the intermittent pulse therapy group and one in the continuous therapy group.
                There was no statistically significant difference in efficacy and side effects between the two regimens. Infectious complications occurred commonly, so careful monitoring is required during treatment.
MMF is as effective as cyclophosphamide in inducing remission in lupus nephritis, but is safer with a lower risk of ovarian failure. MMF is more effective than azathioprine in maintenance therapy for preventing relapse with no increase in clinically important side effects. Adequately powered trials with long term follow-up are required to more accurately define the risks and eventual harms of specific treatment regimens.