G G Song1, Y H Lee2,3. 1. Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea (Republic of). 2. Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea (Republic of). lyhcgh@korea.ac.kr. 3. Department of Rheumatology, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, 73, Goryeodae-ro, 02841, Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Korea (Republic of). lyhcgh@korea.ac.kr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) versus cyclophosphamide (CYC) in patients with active antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV). METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of four randomized clinical trials (RCTs; 300 patients) to examine the relative efficacy and safety of MMF compared to CYC in patients with active AAV. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in remission at 6 months between MMF and CYC (odds ratio [OR] 1.311, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.570-3.017, P = 0.524). Additionally, the relapse rate did not differ between the MMF and CYC groups (OR 1.331, 95% CI 0.497-3.568, P = 0.570). There was no significant difference in serious adverse event (SAE; OR 1.232, 95% CI 0.754-2.014, P = 0.404) and infection rates (OR 0.958, 95% CI 0.561-1.634, P = 0.873) between the MMF and CYC groups. Some heterogeneity was found in the meta-analysis of remission and relapse rates (I2 = 57.4%, 63.4%), but no between-study heterogeneity was found during the meta-analysis of SAE and infection rate. Egger's regression test showed no evidence of publication bias (Egger's regression test P-values >0.1). CONCLUSION: MMF was an equally effective alternative treatment to CYC and MMF was comparable to CYC in patients with active AAV in terms of safety, suggesting that MMF can be used as an alternative to CYC for remission induction in AAV.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) versus cyclophosphamide (CYC) in patients with active antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV). METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of four randomized clinical trials (RCTs; 300 patients) to examine the relative efficacy and safety of MMF compared to CYC in patients with active AAV. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in remission at 6 months between MMF and CYC (odds ratio [OR] 1.311, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.570-3.017, P = 0.524). Additionally, the relapse rate did not differ between the MMF and CYC groups (OR 1.331, 95% CI 0.497-3.568, P = 0.570). There was no significant difference in serious adverse event (SAE; OR 1.232, 95% CI 0.754-2.014, P = 0.404) and infection rates (OR 0.958, 95% CI 0.561-1.634, P = 0.873) between the MMF and CYC groups. Some heterogeneity was found in the meta-analysis of remission and relapse rates (I2 = 57.4%, 63.4%), but no between-study heterogeneity was found during the meta-analysis of SAE and infection rate. Egger's regression test showed no evidence of publication bias (Egger's regression test P-values >0.1). CONCLUSION: MMF was an equally effective alternative treatment to CYC and MMF was comparable to CYC in patients with active AAV in terms of safety, suggesting that MMF can be used as an alternative to CYC for remission induction in AAV.