Lorenza Maria Argolini1, Giulia Frontini2, Elena Elefante3, Francesca Saccon4, Valentina Binda2, Chiara Tani3, Isabella Scotti1,5, Linda Carli3, Mariele Gatto4, Ciro Esposito6, Maria Gerosa1,5, Roberto Caporali1,5, Andrea Doria4, Piergiorgio Messa2, Marta Mosca3, Gabriella Moroni7. 1. Division of Clinical Rheumatology, ASST Istituto Gaetano Pini - CTO, Milan, Italy. 2. Divisione di Nefrologia e Dialisi-Padiglione Croff, Fondazione Ca' Granda IRCCS Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico Milano, Via della Commenda 15, 20122, Milano, Italy. 3. Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Rheumatology Unit, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. 4. Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, DIMED, University of Padua, Padua, Italy. 5. Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, ASST Istituto Gaetano Pini - CTO, Milan, Italy. 6. Unit of Nephrology and Dialysis, University of Pavia, ICS Maugeri S.P.a., Pavia, Italia. 7. Divisione di Nefrologia e Dialisi-Padiglione Croff, Fondazione Ca' Granda IRCCS Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico Milano, Via della Commenda 15, 20122, Milano, Italy. gabriella.moroni@policlinico.mi.it.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ideal long-term maintenance therapy of Lupus Nephritis (LN) is still a matter of debate. The present study was aimed at comparing the efficacy/safety profile of cyclosporine (CsA), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and azathioprine (AZA) in long-term maintenance therapy of LN. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients with biopsy-proven active LN. After induction therapy, all patients received maintenance therapy with CsA, MMF or AZA based on medical decision. Primary endpoint was complete renal remission (CRR) after 8 years (defined as proteinuria < 0.5 g/24 h, eGFR > 60 ml/min/1.73 mq); secondary endpoints were: CRR after 1 year, renal and extrarenal flares, progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD stage 3 or above) and side-effects. RESULTS: Out of 106 patients, 34 received CsA, 36 MMF and 36 AZA. Clinical and histological characteristics at start of induction therapy were comparable among groups. At start of maintenance therapy, CsA patients had significantly higher proteinuria (P = 0.004) or nephrotic syndrome (P = 0.024) and significantly lower CRR (23.5% vs 55.5% on MMF and 41.7% on AZA, P = 0.024). At one year, CRR was similar in the three groups (79.4% on CsA, 63.8% on MMF, 58.3% on AZA, P = 0.2). At 8 years, the primary endpoint was achieved by 79.4% of CsA vs 83.3% of MMF and 77.8% of AZA patients (P = 0.83); 24 h proteinuria, serum creatinine, eGFR were similar. CKD stage 3 or above developed in 8.8% of CsA, in 8.3% of MMF and in 8.3% of AZA patients (P = 0.92). Flares-free survival curves and incidence of side-effects were not different. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study comparing CsA, MMF and AZA on long-term LN maintenance therapy. All treatments had similar efficacy in achieving and maintaining CRR, despite more severe baseline clinical features in patients treated with CsA.
BACKGROUND: The ideal long-term maintenance therapy of Lupus Nephritis (LN) is still a matter of debate. The present study was aimed at comparing the efficacy/safety profile of cyclosporine (CsA), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and azathioprine (AZA) in long-term maintenance therapy of LN. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients with biopsy-proven active LN. After induction therapy, all patients received maintenance therapy with CsA, MMF or AZA based on medical decision. Primary endpoint was complete renal remission (CRR) after 8 years (defined as proteinuria < 0.5 g/24 h, eGFR > 60 ml/min/1.73 mq); secondary endpoints were: CRR after 1 year, renal and extrarenal flares, progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD stage 3 or above) and side-effects. RESULTS: Out of 106 patients, 34 received CsA, 36 MMF and 36 AZA. Clinical and histological characteristics at start of induction therapy were comparable among groups. At start of maintenance therapy, CsApatients had significantly higher proteinuria (P = 0.004) or nephrotic syndrome (P = 0.024) and significantly lower CRR (23.5% vs 55.5% on MMF and 41.7% on AZA, P = 0.024). At one year, CRR was similar in the three groups (79.4% on CsA, 63.8% on MMF, 58.3% on AZA, P = 0.2). At 8 years, the primary endpoint was achieved by 79.4% of CsA vs 83.3% of MMF and 77.8% of AZApatients (P = 0.83); 24 h proteinuria, serum creatinine, eGFR were similar. CKD stage 3 or above developed in 8.8% of CsA, in 8.3% of MMF and in 8.3% of AZApatients (P = 0.92). Flares-free survival curves and incidence of side-effects were not different. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study comparing CsA, MMF and AZA on long-term LN maintenance therapy. All treatments had similar efficacy in achieving and maintaining CRR, despite more severe baseline clinical features in patients treated with CsA.
Authors: Mary Anne Dooley; David Jayne; Ellen M Ginzler; David Isenberg; Nancy J Olsen; David Wofsy; Frank Eitner; Gerald B Appel; Gabriel Contreras; Laura Lisk; Neil Solomons Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-11-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gerald B Appel; Gabriel Contreras; Mary Anne Dooley; Ellen M Ginzler; David Isenberg; David Jayne; Lei-Shi Li; Eduardo Mysler; Jorge Sánchez-Guerrero; Neil Solomons; David Wofsy Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2009-04-15 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Frédéric A Houssiau; David D'Cruz; Shirish Sangle; Philippe Remy; Carlos Vasconcelos; Radmila Petrovic; Christoph Fiehn; Enrique de Ramon Garrido; Inge-Magrethe Gilboe; Maria Tektonidou; Daniel Blockmans; Isabelle Ravelingien; Véronique le Guern; Geneviève Depresseux; Loïc Guillevin; Ricard Cervera Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2010-09-10 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Farah Tamirou; David D'Cruz; Shirish Sangle; Philippe Remy; Carlos Vasconcelos; Christoph Fiehn; Maria del Mar Ayala Guttierez; Inge-Magrethe Gilboe; Maria Tektonidou; Daniel Blockmans; Isabelle Ravelingien; Véronique le Guern; Geneviève Depresseux; Loïc Guillevin; Ricard Cervera; Frédéric A Houssiau Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2015-03-10 Impact factor: 19.103