Place du mycophénolate mofétil dans la néphropathie lupique proliférative de l’enfant

Gargah, Tahar; Goucha-Louzir, Rim; Lakhoua, Mohamed Rachid

doi:10.1016/j.nephro.2010.07.001

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…12,13 Several reports of the use of MMF as induction or maintenance treatment for adolescent patients with LN have been published since. [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] The variability of patients and treatment regimens, lack of control groups, and generally retrospective nature of the reports have made it difficult to generalize the data. Accordingly, we analyzed data from adolescent participants in the prospective, randomized, controlled Aspreva Lupus Management Study of MMF for the treatment of LN.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of mycophenolate mofetil in adolescent patients with lupus nephritis: evidence from a two-phase, prospective randomized trial

Sundel

Solomons²,

Lisk

2012

Lupus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The safety and efficacy of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) were evaluated in adolescent patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and active or active/chronic class III–V lupus nephritis. During the 24-week induction phase, patients were randomized to oral MMF (target dose 3.0 g/day) or intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVC) (0.5–1.0 g/m2/month), plus prednisone. Response was defined as a decrease in 24-hour urine protein:creatinine ratio (P:Cr) to <3 in patients with baseline nephrotic range proteinuria, or by ≥50% if subnephrotic baseline proteinuria, and stabilization (±25%) or improvement in serum creatinine. In the 36-month maintenance phase, induction therapy responders were randomized 1:1 to MMF (1.0 g twice daily) or oral azathioprine (AZA) (2 mg/kg/day), plus prednisone. In the induction phase, 10 patients received MMF and 14 received IVC; 15 (62.5%) achieved treatment response (MMF, 7 (70%); IVC, 8/15 (57.1%); p = 0.53, odds ratio (95% confidence interval) 2.0 (0.2, 15.5)). There was a non-statistically significant difference in maintenance of response to MMF (7/8; 87.5%) versus AZA (3/8; 37.5%). Seven patients withdrew (MMF, 2; AZA, 5). During both phases, rates of serious adverse events were similar in both arms. During both phases treatment response with MMF was as effective as the comparator.

show abstract