• 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

霉酚酸酯与环磷酰胺治疗狼疮性肾炎的比较。

A Comparison Of Mycophenolate Mofetil And Cyclophosphamide As Lupus Nephritis Induction Therapy.

机构信息

Department of Rheumatology, Fauji Foundation Hospital Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

出版信息

J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2020 Oct-Dec;32(4):454-458.

PMID:33225643
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Lupus nephritis and its induction therapies are understudied subjects in rheumatology especially in our population. The objective of this study is to compare the renal response to Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and Cyclophosphamide (CYC) as induction therapy in the Pakistani population with lupus nephritis.

METHODS

This is a comparative retrospective study conducted at the department of rheumatology, Fauji Foundation Hospital (FFH), Rawalpindi, and the duration of the study was 1.5 years from July 2016 to December 2017. The study includes 28 patients, all females, ages between 18 to 50 years. All have biopsy proven lupus nephritis (LN). All 28 LN patients have either stage III, IV, V. They were investigated and analysed over 1.5 years. 14 patients were given MMF (2.5 gram/day) (MMF group) and 14 patients were given CYC (NIH protocol/monthly) (CYC group) for 24 weeks as induction therapy. Comparison of baseline characteristics, complete and partial renal responses to treatment was seen in the MMF and CYC groups.

RESULTS

Primary end point (complete response) is achieved in 6 (42.85%) in MMF group and 5 (35.71%) in the CYC group. The secondary end point (partial response) was achieved in 5 (35.71%) patients in the MMF group and 6(42.85%) in the CYC group. The difference in the cumulative probability of complete and partial response was not statistically significant between the two groups (P-0.470 for CR) and (p-value 0.132 for PR).

CONCLUSIONS

Mycophenolate mofetil is a new therapy for LN and it has equal efficacy as compared to CYC for LN induction.

摘要

背景

狼疮肾炎及其诱导治疗在风湿病学中研究较少,尤其是在我们的人群中。本研究的目的是比较霉酚酸酯(MMF)和环磷酰胺(CYC)作为诱导治疗在巴基斯坦狼疮肾炎患者中的肾脏反应。

方法

这是一项在拉瓦尔品第 Fauji 基金会医院(FFH)风湿病科进行的比较回顾性研究,研究时间为 2016 年 7 月至 2017 年 12 月,为期 1.5 年。研究包括 28 名女性患者,年龄在 18 至 50 岁之间。所有患者均经活检证实为狼疮肾炎(LN)。所有 28 例 LN 患者均为 III、IV、V 期。他们在 1.5 年内接受了调查和分析。14 名患者给予 MMF(2.5 克/天)(MMF 组),14 名患者给予 CYC(NIH 方案/每月)(CYC 组),作为诱导治疗 24 周。比较 MMF 和 CYC 组的基线特征、完全和部分肾脏治疗反应。

结果

主要终点(完全缓解)在 MMF 组中达到 6 例(42.85%),在 CYC 组中达到 5 例(35.71%)。次要终点(部分缓解)在 MMF 组中达到 5 例(35.71%),在 CYC 组中达到 6 例(42.85%)。两组间完全和部分缓解的累积概率差异无统计学意义(CR 组 P-0.470,PR 组 p 值 0.132)。

结论

霉酚酸酯是一种治疗 LN 的新疗法,与 CYC 相比,它在 LN 诱导治疗中具有同等疗效。

相似文献

1
A Comparison Of Mycophenolate Mofetil And Cyclophosphamide As Lupus Nephritis Induction Therapy.霉酚酸酯与环磷酰胺治疗狼疮性肾炎的比较。
J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2020 Oct-Dec;32(4):454-458.
2
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.
3
Mizoribine versus mycophenolate mofetil or intravenous cyclophosphamide for induction treatment of active lupus nephritis.霉酚酸酯或静脉注射环磷酰胺与米佐菌胺对比,用于治疗活动期狼疮性肾炎的诱导治疗。
Chin Med J (Engl). 2014;127(21):3718-23.
4
Pilot study comparing the childhood arthritis and rheumatology research alliance consensus treatment plans for induction therapy of juvenile proliferative lupus nephritis.比较儿童关节炎和风湿病研究联盟针对青少年增殖性狼疮性肾炎诱导治疗的共识治疗方案的初步研究。
Pediatr Rheumatol Online J. 2018 Oct 22;16(1):65. doi: 10.1186/s12969-018-0279-0.
5
Comparative efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil and cyclophosphamide in the induction treatment of lupus nephritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.霉酚酸酯与环磷酰胺在狼疮性肾炎诱导治疗中的疗效和安全性比较:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Sep 18;99(38):e22328. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022328.
6
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.
7
Induction therapy for pediatric onset class IV lupus nephritis: Mycophenolate Mofetil versus Cyclophosphamide.儿童发病的狼疮性肾炎 IV 型的诱导治疗:霉酚酸酯与环磷酰胺。
J Nephrol. 2023 Apr;36(3):829-839. doi: 10.1007/s40620-022-01438-2. Epub 2022 Oct 8.
8
Outcome and predictors of renal survival in patients with lupus nephritis: Comparison between cyclophosphamide and mycophenolate mofetil.狼疮性肾炎患者肾脏存活的结局及预测因素:环磷酰胺与霉酚酸酯的比较
Int J Rheum Dis. 2018 May;21(5):1031-1039. doi: 10.1111/1756-185X.13274. Epub 2018 Apr 2.
9
Mycophenolate mofetil vs. cyclophosphamide-based induction regimens for lupus nephritis: Outcomes at a tertiary care centre in Lahore, Pakistan.霉酚酸酯与基于环磷酰胺的诱导方案治疗狼疮性肾炎:巴基斯坦拉合尔一家三级护理中心的结果。
J Pak Med Assoc. 2024 May;74(5):868-873. doi: 10.47391/JPMA.8694.
10
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.

引用本文的文献

1
BCD020 rituximab bioanalog compared to standard treatment in juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus: The data of 12 months case-control study.与标准治疗相比,BCD020利妥昔单抗生物类似物治疗青少年系统性红斑狼疮:12个月病例对照研究的数据。
World J Clin Pediatr. 2024 Mar 9;13(1):89049. doi: 10.5409/wjcp.v13.i1.89049.
2
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.
3
Comparative Effectiveness of Rituximab and Common Induction Therapies for Lupus Nephritis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
利妥昔单抗与狼疮肾炎常见诱导治疗的疗效比较:系统评价和网络荟萃分析。
Front Immunol. 2022 Apr 4;13:859380. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.859380. eCollection 2022.