Nabeel Hamzeh1, Allison Voelker2, Anna Forssén3, E Brigitte Gottschall4, Cecile Rose4, Peggy Mroz5, Lisa A Maier4. 1. Division of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, Department of Medicine, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO, USA; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Sciences, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA. Electronic address: hamzehn@njhealth.org. 2. Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO, USA. 4. Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA; Division of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, Department of Medicine, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO, USA; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Sciences, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA. 5. Division of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, Department of Medicine, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Immunosuppressive (IS) therapy is indicated to treat progressive sarcoidosis, but randomized controlled trials to guide physicians in the use of steroid sparing agents are lacking. The aim of this retrospective study was to examine the role of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) as an alternative therapy in the treatment of sarcoidosis. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all patients who had been prescribed MMF between January 2008 and October 2011 was conducted. Patients with insufficient data or who had another IS therapy initiated concomitantly with MMF, including prednisone, were excluded. Physiological data obtained at the time MMF therapy was initiated as well as six and twelve months before and after therapy was extracted. Longitudinal analyses of the effect of MMF on changes in pulmonary function at MMF start, 6 months, 12 months pre and post MMF therapy were conducted. RESULTS: 37/76 patients met our inclusion/exclusion criteria. There were no statistically significant changes in PFT measurements pre and post MMF therapy. We did find a trend (p = 0.07) towards improvement in DLCO 12 months pre and post MMF in patients who were started on MMF due to intolerance to previous IS therapy compared to those who were unresponsive to their previous IS therapy. We also noted a reduction in prednisone dose in those treated with MMF. CONCLUSION: MMF appears to offer no extra benefit to sarcoidosis patients unresponsive to previous steroid-sparing agents, but may be beneficial in patients intolerant to their previous steroid-sparing agent. Additional studies investigating the efficacy of MMF as the initial steroid-sparing agent are needed to further clarify the role of MMF in sarcoidosis.
BACKGROUND: Immunosuppressive (IS) therapy is indicated to treat progressive sarcoidosis, but randomized controlled trials to guide physicians in the use of steroid sparing agents are lacking. The aim of this retrospective study was to examine the role of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) as an alternative therapy in the treatment of sarcoidosis. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all patients who had been prescribed MMF between January 2008 and October 2011 was conducted. Patients with insufficient data or who had another IS therapy initiated concomitantly with MMF, including prednisone, were excluded. Physiological data obtained at the time MMF therapy was initiated as well as six and twelve months before and after therapy was extracted. Longitudinal analyses of the effect of MMF on changes in pulmonary function at MMF start, 6 months, 12 months pre and post MMF therapy were conducted. RESULTS: 37/76 patients met our inclusion/exclusion criteria. There were no statistically significant changes in PFT measurements pre and post MMF therapy. We did find a trend (p = 0.07) towards improvement in DLCO 12 months pre and post MMF in patients who were started on MMF due to intolerance to previous IS therapy compared to those who were unresponsive to their previous IS therapy. We also noted a reduction in prednisone dose in those treated with MMF. CONCLUSION:MMF appears to offer no extra benefit to sarcoidosispatients unresponsive to previous steroid-sparing agents, but may be beneficial in patients intolerant to their previous steroid-sparing agent. Additional studies investigating the efficacy of MMF as the initial steroid-sparing agent are needed to further clarify the role of MMF in sarcoidosis.
Authors: M R Miller; R Crapo; J Hankinson; V Brusasco; F Burgos; R Casaburi; A Coates; P Enright; C P M van der Grinten; P Gustafsson; R Jensen; D C Johnson; N MacIntyre; R McKay; D Navajas; O F Pedersen; R Pellegrino; G Viegi; J Wanger Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Jeffrey J Swigris; Amy L Olson; Aryeh Fischer; David A Lynch; Gregory P Cosgrove; Stephen K Frankel; Richard T Meehan; Kevin K Brown Journal: Chest Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Adriane D M Vorselaars; Wim A Wuyts; Veronique M M Vorselaars; Pieter Zanen; Vera H M Deneer; Marcel Veltkamp; Michiel Thomeer; Coline H M van Moorsel; Jan C Grutters Journal: Chest Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Christina L Kong; Nicole K Kelly; Miel Sundararajan; S R Rathinam; John A Gonzales; Radhika Thundikandy; Rajesh Vedhanayaki; Anuradha Kanakath; Bala Murugan; Thuy Doan; Debra Goldstein; Hassan A Al-Dhibi; Nisha R Acharya Journal: Ocul Immunol Inflamm Date: 2020-08-11 Impact factor: 3.070
Authors: Nisha A Gilotra; Jan M Griffin; Noelle Pavlovic; Brian A Houston; Jessica Chasler; Colleen Goetz; Jonathan Chrispin; Michelle Sharp; Edward K Kasper; Edward S Chen; Ron Blankstein; Leslie T Cooper; Emer Joyce; Farooq H Sheikh Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2021-07-11 Impact factor: 5.712