Department of Rheumatology, Norfolk and Norwich University Foundation NHS Trust, Norfolk, UK.
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2011 Jun;50(6):1019-24. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/ker002. Epub 2011 Feb 3.
The ANCA-associated vasculitides (AAVs) are conventionally treated with a strategy of remission induction followed by maintenance therapy using glucocorticoids combined with CYC during induction and AZA for maintenance. Recently, several randomized controlled trials have been published that question whether these drugs should remain those of choice. B-cell depletion using rituximab is at least as effective as CYC for remission induction in newly presenting patients, but long-term efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness data are awaited, and thus rituximab should be reserved for patients at high risk of infertility. Rituximab seems to be effective at inducing remission in relapsing patients. Whether routine pre-emptive treatment with rituximab for remission maintenance is a better approach than waiting for relapse is unknown. MTX and LEF have similar efficacy to AZA, but are not significantly safer; while MMF is less effective. Thus, AZA remains the conventional maintenance drug of choice.
抗中性粒细胞胞浆抗体相关性血管炎(AAV)的常规治疗策略是诱导缓解,然后在诱导期使用糖皮质激素联合环磷酰胺(CYC)和 AZA 进行维持治疗。最近发表了几项随机对照试验,质疑这些药物是否仍应作为首选。利妥昔单抗诱导缓解新发病患者的效果至少与 CYC 一样有效,但尚需等待长期疗效、安全性和成本效益数据,因此利妥昔单抗应保留给有生育风险的患者。利妥昔单抗似乎对复发患者的缓解有效。与等待复发相比,常规进行利妥昔单抗预防性治疗以维持缓解是否是更好的方法尚不清楚。MTX 和 LEF 与 AZA 的疗效相似,但安全性无明显差异;而 MMF 效果较差。因此,AZA 仍然是常规维持治疗的首选药物。