ASPREVA LUPUS MANAGEMENT STUDY PDF

Search Menu Abstract Current treatment of lupus nephritis consists of both induction and maintenance therapy, with the latter being designed to consolidate remissions and prevent relapses. Long-term maintenance treatment with intravenous cyclophosphamide was effective but associated with considerable toxicity. A small but well-designed controlled trial found that for post-induction maintenance therapy, both oral mycophenolate mofetil MMF and oral azathioprine were superior in efficacy and had reduced toxicity than a regimen of continued every third month intravenous cyclophosphamide. Although these oral agents were rapidly accepted and utilized as maintenance medications, their usage was based on scant evidence and there were no comparisons between the two. Recently, two relatively large, randomized, well-controlled, multicenter trials dealing with maintenance therapy for severe lupus nephritis have been completed. Relapses are associated with an increase in morbidity as well as a greater risk of progressive chronic kidney disease [ 7—9 ].

Author:Vudosar Arashit
Country:Republic of Macedonia
Language:English (Spanish)
Genre:Travel
Published (Last):17 May 2009
Pages:300
PDF File Size:9.41 Mb
ePub File Size:18.8 Mb
ISBN:631-5-27399-576-6
Downloads:64556
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader:Bar



J Am Soc Nephrol. Epub Apr Mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclophosphamide for induction treatment of lupus nephritis. Comment in Nefrologia. 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. 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: Secondary end points were also similar between treatment groups. 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.

FUEGO EXTRAO JOHN MACARTHUR PDF

A Study of Mycophenolate Mofetil (CellCept) in Management of Patients With Lupus Nephritis.

J Am Soc Nephrol. Epub Apr Mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclophosphamide for induction treatment of lupus nephritis. Comment in Nefrologia. 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. Secondary end points included complete renal remission, systemic disease activity and damage, and safety.

CZAROPIS TOM 2 PDF

Mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclophosphamide for induction treatment of lupus nephritis.

Nesida Renal flares are common in patients with severe proliferative lupus nephritis treated with pulse immunosuppressive asprevz Parameters such as the duration of the induction phase and the response criteria were based on previously reported trials 12lupuss ; however, 24 wk may be too short to differentiate between the treatments, because the disease may continue to improve and AEs may continue to emerge. Neither of these was objectively addressed in this study because of the length of follow-up and limited health maangement assessments undertaken. Randomized controlled trial of pulse intravenous cyclophosphamide versus mycophenolate mofetil in the induction therapy of proliferative lupus nephritis. Statistical Analysis The primary end point analysis was performed on the intention-to-treat population. Reasons for early withdrawal and hence nonresponse included AEs leading to withdrawal, intolerance of either therapy, stduy requirement to receive prohibited treatments. 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. The institutional review boards at all participating centers approved the protocol, and all patients provided written informed consent.

ENFERMEDADES ECZEMATOSAS PDF

ASPREVA LUPUS MANAGEMENT STUDY PDF

.

DAVID KATAN TRANSLATING CULTURES PDF

.

Related Articles