Zhu Bin, Chen Nan, Lin Yi, Ren Hong, Zhang Wen, Wang Weiming, Pan XiaoXia, Yu HaiJin
Department of Nephrology, Ruijin Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai 200025, China.
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2007 Jul;22(7):1933-42. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfm066. Epub 2007 Apr 3.
The outcomes of previous trials of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in treating severe lupus nephritis (LN) are not in exact agreement. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assesses the benefits and harms of MMF in the induction and maintenance therapy of severe LN.
We searched Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Collaboration Database for RCTs that compared MMF with other immunorepressive regimens for treating lupus nephritis and extracted data for remissions, side effects and prognosis in induction therapy and prognosis and side effects in maintenance therapy, and we summarized the combined results of the data of the RCTs as relative risk (RR).
We analysed five RCTs with 307 patients-four RCTS providing the data for comparing MMF with cyclophosphamide (CYC) for induction therapy and two RCTs providing the data for comparing MMF with azathioprine (AZA) for maintenance therapy of severe LN. Overall, compared with CYC, induction therapy with MMF reduced the risk of infection significantly (RR 0.65, P<0.001). It also significantly increased the complete remission rate compared with intravenous CYC (RR 3.10, P=0.006). Compared with intravenous CYC, induction therapy with MMF reduced the incidence of leucopenia significantly (RR 0.66, P=0.04). The prognosis and other side effects were not significantly different between MMF and CYC induction therapies. There was no significant difference between the patients receiving MMF and those receiving AZA for maintenance therapy in prognosis or the risks of amenorrhoea and herpes zoster.
MMF has higher efficacy in inducing remission in severe LN than pulsed intravenous therapy with CYC. Induction therapy with MMF is also associated with fewer side effects than induction therapy with CYC. Compared with AZA, MMF also is an alternative for maintenance therapy of severe LN without significant difference in the prognosis or risks of amenorrhoea and herpes zoster.
既往霉酚酸酯(MMF)治疗重症狼疮性肾炎(LN)的试验结果并不完全一致。这项随机对照试验(RCT)的荟萃分析评估了MMF在重症LN诱导和维持治疗中的益处和危害。
我们检索了Medline、EMBASE和Cochrane协作数据库,以查找比较MMF与其他免疫抑制方案治疗狼疮性肾炎的RCT,并提取诱导治疗中缓解、副作用和预后以及维持治疗中预后和副作用的数据,我们将RCT数据的合并结果总结为相对风险(RR)。
我们分析了5项RCT,共307例患者——4项RCT提供了比较MMF与环磷酰胺(CYC)进行诱导治疗的数据,2项RCT提供了比较MMF与硫唑嘌呤(AZA)进行重症LN维持治疗的数据。总体而言,与CYC相比,MMF诱导治疗显著降低了感染风险(RR 0.65,P<0.001)。与静脉注射CYC相比,它还显著提高了完全缓解率(RR 3.10,P=0.006)。与静脉注射CYC相比,MMF诱导治疗显著降低了白细胞减少的发生率(RR 0.66,P=0.04)。MMF和CYC诱导治疗之间的预后和其他副作用没有显著差异。接受MMF维持治疗的患者与接受AZA维持治疗的患者在预后或闭经和带状疱疹风险方面没有显著差异。
MMF在诱导重症LN缓解方面比静脉注射CYC脉冲疗法具有更高的疗效。MMF诱导治疗的副作用也比CYC诱导治疗少。与AZA相比,MMF也是重症LN维持治疗的一种选择,在预后或闭经和带状疱疹风险方面没有显著差异。