• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

霉酚酸酯与静脉注射脉冲环磷酰胺作为增殖性狼疮性肾炎诱导治疗的疗效及安全性比较

Efficacy and Safety of Mycophenolate Mofetil Versus Intravenous Pulse Cyclophosphamide as Induction Therapy in Proliferative Lupus Nephritis.

作者信息

Gadakchi Leyla, Hajialilo Mehrzad, Nakhjavani Mohammad-Reza, Abedi Azar Sima, Kolahi Sousan, Gojazadeh Morteza, Ebrahimi Ali-Asghar, Malek Mahdavi Aida, Noshad Hamid, Khabbazi Alireza

机构信息

Connective Tissue Diseases Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.

出版信息

Iran J Kidney Dis. 2018 Oct;12(5):288-292.

PMID:30367020
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Lupus nephritis is a common and severe manifestation of systemic lupus erythematosus that can lead to end-stage renal disease and death. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and cyclophosphamide as induction therapy and subsequently as maintenance therapy for lupus nephritis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective case-control study, 67 patients with proliferative lupus nephritis who were treated with MMF (n = 45) and pulse of intravenous cyclophosphamide (n = 22) were included. Remission of the kidney disease, mortality, and adverse events were evaluated and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The 45 patients treated with MMF had a mean age of 33.8 ± 10.6 years and 17.1% of them were males. The 22 patients treated with pulse of intravenous cyclophosphamide had a mean age of  38.1 ± 11.1 years and 18.2% of them were males. Complete and partial kidney remission occurred in 40% and 42.2% of the patients treated with MMF and in 31.8% and 59.1% of the patients treated with cyclophosphamide, respectively. No significant differences were observed in complete and partial remission between the two groups. No mortality was reported in the studied patients. There were no significant differences in the frequency of adverse events between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of MMF in long-term treatment of lupus nephritis was comparable to that of cyclophosphamide, and there is no significant differences in the rate of side effects between the two regimens.

摘要

引言

狼疮性肾炎是系统性红斑狼疮常见且严重的表现形式,可导致终末期肾病和死亡。本研究旨在比较霉酚酸酯(MMF)和环磷酰胺作为狼疮性肾炎诱导治疗及后续维持治疗的疗效和安全性。

材料与方法

在这项回顾性病例对照研究中,纳入了67例接受MMF治疗(n = 45)和静脉注射环磷酰胺冲击治疗(n = 22)的增殖性狼疮性肾炎患者。评估并比较两组患者的肾病缓解情况、死亡率和不良事件。

结果

接受MMF治疗的45例患者平均年龄为33.8±10.6岁,其中17.1%为男性。接受静脉注射环磷酰胺冲击治疗的22例患者平均年龄为38.1±11.1岁,其中18.2%为男性。接受MMF治疗的患者中,完全缓解和部分缓解的比例分别为40%和42.2%;接受环磷酰胺治疗的患者中,这一比例分别为31.8%和59.1%。两组之间在完全缓解和部分缓解方面未观察到显著差异。研究患者中未报告死亡病例。两组之间不良事件的发生率无显著差异。

结论

MMF长期治疗狼疮性肾炎的疗效与环磷酰胺相当,两种治疗方案的副作用发生率无显著差异。

相似文献

1
Efficacy and Safety of Mycophenolate Mofetil Versus Intravenous Pulse Cyclophosphamide as Induction Therapy in Proliferative Lupus Nephritis.霉酚酸酯与静脉注射脉冲环磷酰胺作为增殖性狼疮性肾炎诱导治疗的疗效及安全性比较
Iran J Kidney Dis. 2018 Oct;12(5):288-292.
2
Randomized controlled trial of pulse intravenous cyclophosphamide versus mycophenolate mofetil in the induction therapy of proliferative lupus nephritis.脉冲静脉注射环磷酰胺与霉酚酸酯治疗增殖性狼疮性肾炎诱导疗法的随机对照试验
Nephrology (Carlton). 2005 Oct;10(5):504-10. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1797.2005.00444.x.
3
Comparison of low-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide with oral mycophenolate mofetil in the treatment of lupus nephritis.低剂量静脉注射环磷酰胺与口服吗替麦考酚酯治疗狼疮性肾炎的比较。
Kidney Int. 2016 Jan;89(1):235-42. doi: 10.1038/ki.2015.318. Epub 2016 Jan 4.
4
Long-term outcomes of lupus nephritis treated with regimens based on cyclophosphamide and mycophenolate mofetil.基于环磷酰胺和霉酚酸酯的方案治疗狼疮肾炎的长期结局。
Lupus. 2020 Jul;29(8):845-853. doi: 10.1177/0961203320926256. Epub 2020 May 21.
5
Mycophenolate mofetil or cyclophosphamide in indian patients with lupus nephritis: Which is better? A single-center experience.霉酚酸酯与环磷酰胺治疗印度狼疮性肾炎患者:哪种效果更佳?单中心经验
Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. 2017 Sep-Oct;28(5):1069-1077. doi: 10.4103/1319-2442.215147.
6
Low dose mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclophosphamide in the induction therapy of lupus nephritis in Nepalese population: a randomized control trial.低剂量霉酚酸酯与环磷酰胺用于尼泊尔人群狼疮性肾炎诱导治疗的对比:一项随机对照试验
BMC Nephrol. 2018 Jul 11;19(1):175. doi: 10.1186/s12882-018-0973-7.
7
Maintenance therapies for proliferative lupus nephritis: mycophenolate mofetil, azathioprine and intravenous cyclophosphamide.增殖性狼疮性肾炎的维持治疗:霉酚酸酯、硫唑嘌呤和静脉注射环磷酰胺。
Lupus. 2005;14 Suppl 1:s33-8. doi: 10.1191/0961203305lu2115oa.
8
Induction therapy with short-term high-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide followed by mycophenolate mofetil in proliferative lupus nephritis.在增殖性狼疮性肾炎中,采用短期大剂量静脉注射环磷酰胺随后使用霉酚酸酯进行诱导治疗。
Neth J Med. 2014 Nov;72(9):481-90.
9
Relative efficacy and safety of tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and cyclophosphamide as induction therapy for lupus nephritis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.他克莫司、霉酚酸酯和环磷酰胺作为狼疮性肾炎诱导治疗的相对疗效和安全性:随机对照试验的贝叶斯网络荟萃分析
Lupus. 2015 Dec;24(14):1520-8. doi: 10.1177/0961203315595131. Epub 2015 Jul 9.
10
Comparison of disease activity between tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil in lupus nephritis: a randomized controlled trial.他克莫司与霉酚酸酯治疗狼疮性肾炎疾病活动度的比较:一项随机对照试验。
Lupus. 2018 Apr;27(4):647-656. doi: 10.1177/0961203317739131. Epub 2017 Nov 6.

引用本文的文献

1
Comparison of the Effectiveness and Safety of Mycophenolate Mofetil and Cyclophosphamide in Lupus Nephritis: Evidence from a Real-World Study.霉酚酸酯与环磷酰胺治疗狼疮性肾炎的有效性和安全性比较:一项真实世界研究的证据
Rheumatol Ther. 2023 Oct;10(5):1199-1213. doi: 10.1007/s40744-023-00572-y. Epub 2023 Jul 7.
2
Rheumatology training and research in Iran.伊朗的风湿病学培训与研究。
Rheumatol Int. 2019 Aug;39(8):1307-1319. doi: 10.1007/s00296-019-04325-5. Epub 2019 May 20.
3
Clinical efficacy and safety of rituximab in lupus nephritis.
利妥昔单抗治疗狼疮性肾炎的临床疗效与安全性。
Drug Des Devel Ther. 2019 Mar 11;13:845-856. doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S195113. eCollection 2019.