Multicentric study comparing cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil and azathioprine in the maintenance therapy of lupus nephritis: 8 years follow up.
Azathioprine
Cyclosporine
Lupus nephritis
Maintenance therapy
Mycophenolate mofetil
Renal flares
Journal
Journal of nephrology
ISSN: 1724-6059
Titre abrégé: J Nephrol
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 9012268
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2021
04 2021
Historique:
received:
09
03
2020
accepted:
11
05
2020
pubmed:
29
5
2020
medline:
19
8
2021
entrez:
29
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The ideal long-term maintenance therapy of Lupus Nephritis (LN) is still a matter of debate. The present study was aimed at comparing the efficacy/safety profile of cyclosporine (CsA), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and azathioprine (AZA) in long-term maintenance therapy of LN. We performed a retrospective study of patients with biopsy-proven active LN. After induction therapy, all patients received maintenance therapy with CsA, MMF or AZA based on medical decision. Primary endpoint was complete renal remission (CRR) after 8 years (defined as proteinuria < 0.5 g/24 h, eGFR > 60 ml/min/1.73 mq); secondary endpoints were: CRR after 1 year, renal and extrarenal flares, progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD stage 3 or above) and side-effects. Out of 106 patients, 34 received CsA, 36 MMF and 36 AZA. Clinical and histological characteristics at start of induction therapy were comparable among groups. At start of maintenance therapy, CsA patients had significantly higher proteinuria (P = 0.004) or nephrotic syndrome (P = 0.024) and significantly lower CRR (23.5% vs 55.5% on MMF and 41.7% on AZA, P = 0.024). At one year, CRR was similar in the three groups (79.4% on CsA, 63.8% on MMF, 58.3% on AZA, P = 0.2). At 8 years, the primary endpoint was achieved by 79.4% of CsA vs 83.3% of MMF and 77.8% of AZA patients (P = 0.83); 24 h proteinuria, serum creatinine, eGFR were similar. CKD stage 3 or above developed in 8.8% of CsA, in 8.3% of MMF and in 8.3% of AZA patients (P = 0.92). Flares-free survival curves and incidence of side-effects were not different. This is the first study comparing CsA, MMF and AZA on long-term LN maintenance therapy. All treatments had similar efficacy in achieving and maintaining CRR, despite more severe baseline clinical features in patients treated with CsA.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The ideal long-term maintenance therapy of Lupus Nephritis (LN) is still a matter of debate. The present study was aimed at comparing the efficacy/safety profile of cyclosporine (CsA), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and azathioprine (AZA) in long-term maintenance therapy of LN.
METHODS
We performed a retrospective study of patients with biopsy-proven active LN. After induction therapy, all patients received maintenance therapy with CsA, MMF or AZA based on medical decision. Primary endpoint was complete renal remission (CRR) after 8 years (defined as proteinuria < 0.5 g/24 h, eGFR > 60 ml/min/1.73 mq); secondary endpoints were: CRR after 1 year, renal and extrarenal flares, progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD stage 3 or above) and side-effects.
RESULTS
Out of 106 patients, 34 received CsA, 36 MMF and 36 AZA. Clinical and histological characteristics at start of induction therapy were comparable among groups. At start of maintenance therapy, CsA patients had significantly higher proteinuria (P = 0.004) or nephrotic syndrome (P = 0.024) and significantly lower CRR (23.5% vs 55.5% on MMF and 41.7% on AZA, P = 0.024). At one year, CRR was similar in the three groups (79.4% on CsA, 63.8% on MMF, 58.3% on AZA, P = 0.2). At 8 years, the primary endpoint was achieved by 79.4% of CsA vs 83.3% of MMF and 77.8% of AZA patients (P = 0.83); 24 h proteinuria, serum creatinine, eGFR were similar. CKD stage 3 or above developed in 8.8% of CsA, in 8.3% of MMF and in 8.3% of AZA patients (P = 0.92). Flares-free survival curves and incidence of side-effects were not different.
CONCLUSIONS
This is the first study comparing CsA, MMF and AZA on long-term LN maintenance therapy. All treatments had similar efficacy in achieving and maintaining CRR, despite more severe baseline clinical features in patients treated with CsA.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32462476
doi: 10.1007/s40620-020-00753-w
pii: 10.1007/s40620-020-00753-w
doi:
Substances chimiques
Immunosuppressive Agents
0
Cyclosporine
83HN0GTJ6D
Mycophenolic Acid
HU9DX48N0T
Azathioprine
MRK240IY2L
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
389-398Références
Hanly JG, Okeeffe AG, Su L et al (2016) The frequency and outcome of lupus nephritis: results from an international inception cohort study. Rheumatology (Oxford) 55(2):252–262. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kev311
doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kev311
Zimmerman R, Radhakrishnan J, Valeri A et al (2001) Advances in the treatment of lupus nephritis. Annu Rev Med 52:63–78. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.med.52.1.63
doi: 10.1146/annurev.med.52.1.63
pubmed: 11160768
Ponticelli C, Glassock RJ, Moroni G (2010) Induction and maintenance therapy in proliferative lupus nephritis. J Nephrol 23:9–16
pubmed: 20091481
Moroni G, Quaglini S, Maccario M et al (1996) “Nephritic flares” are predictors of bad long-term renal outcome in lupus nephritis. Kidney Int 50:2047–2053. https://doi.org/10.1038/ki.1996.528
doi: 10.1038/ki.1996.528
pubmed: 8943489
Dooley MA, Hogan S, Jennette C et al (1997) Cyclophosphamide therapy for lupus nephritis: poor renal survival in black Americans. Glomerular disease collaborative network. Kidney Int 51:1188–1195. https://doi.org/10.1038/ki.1997.162
doi: 10.1038/ki.1997.162
pubmed: 9083285
Mok CC, Wong RWS, Lau CS (1999) Lupus nephritis in southern Chinese patients: clinicopathological findings and long term outcome. Am J Kidney Dis 34:315–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-6386(99)70361-6
doi: 10.1016/s0272-6386(99)70361-6
pubmed: 10430980
Appel GB, Contreras G, Dooley MA et al (2009) Aspreva Lupus Management Study Group: mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclophosphamide for induction treatment of lupus nephritis. J Am Soc Nephrol 20:1103–1112. https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2008101028
doi: 10.1681/ASN.2008101028
pubmed: 19369404
pmcid: 2678035
Dooley MA, Jayne D, Ginzler EM et al (2011) ALMS Group, Mycophenolate versus azathioprine as maintenance therapy for lupus nephritis. N Engl J Med 365:1886–1895. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1014460
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1014460
pubmed: 22087680
Houssiau FA, D'Cruz D, Sangle S et al (2010) MAINTAIN Nephritis Trial Group, Azathioprine versus mycophenolate mofetil for long-term immunosuppression in lupus nephritis: results from the MAINTAIN Nephritis Trial. Ann Rheum Dis 69:2083–2089. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2010.131995
doi: 10.1136/ard.2010.131995
pubmed: 20833738
pmcid: 3002764
Tamirou F, D'Cruz D, Sangle S et al (2016) MAINTAIN Nephritis Trial Group, Long-term follow-up of the MAINTAIN Nephritis Trial, comparing azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil as maintenance therapy of lupus nephritis. Ann Rheum Dis 75:526–531. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-206897
doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-206897
pubmed: 25757867
Moroni G, Doria A, Mosca M et al (2006) A randomized pilot trial comparing cyclosporine and azathioprine for maintenance therapy in diffuse lupus nephritis over four years. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 1:925–932. https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.02271205
doi: 10.2215/CJN.02271205
pubmed: 17699309
Chen W, Liu Q, Chen W et al (2012) Outcomes of maintenance therapy with tacrolimus versus azathioprine for active lupus nephritis: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Lupus 21:944–952. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961203312442259
doi: 10.1177/0961203312442259
pubmed: 22438027
Sahin GM, Sahin S, Kiziltas S et al (2008) Mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine in the maintenance therapy of lupus nephritis. Ren Fail 30:865–869. https://doi.org/10.1080/08860220802353843
doi: 10.1080/08860220802353843
pubmed: 18925525
Kaballo BG, Ahmed AE, Nur MM et al (2016) Mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine for maintenance treatment of lupus nephritis. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 27:717–725. https://doi.org/10.4103/1319-2442.185233
doi: 10.4103/1319-2442.185233
pubmed: 27424688
Rihova Z, Vankova Z, Maixnerova D et al (2007) Treatment of lupus nephritis with cyclosporine—an outcome analysis. Kidney Blood Press Res 30:124–128. https://doi.org/10.1159/000101448
doi: 10.1159/000101448
pubmed: 17396037
Tunnicliffe DJ, Palmer SC (2018) Immunosuppressive treatment for proliferative lupus nephritis: summary of a cochrane review. AJKD 72:756–757. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2018.07.008
doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2018.07.008
pubmed: 30343732
Hochberg MC (1997) Updating the American College of Rheumatology revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 40:1725. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.1780400928
doi: 10.1002/art.1780400928
pubmed: 9324032
Aringer M, Costenbader K, Daikh D et al (2019) 2019 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis 78:1151–1159. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.40930
doi: 10.1002/art.40930
pubmed: 31383717
Markowitz GS, D'Agati VD (2007) The ISN/RPS 2003 classification of lupus nephritis: an assessment at 3 years. Kidney Int 71:491–495. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ki.5002118
doi: 10.1038/sj.ki.5002118
pubmed: 17264872
Bertsias GK, Tektonidou M, Amoura Z et al (2012) European League Against Rheumatism and European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association. Joint European League Against Rheumatism and European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (EULAR/ERA-EDTA) recommendations for the management of adult and paediatric lupus nephritis. Ann Rheum Dis 71:1771–1782. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-201940
doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-201940
pubmed: 22851469
pmcid: 3465859
Contreras G, Pardo V, Leclercq B et al (2004) Sequential therapies for proliferative lupus nephritis. N Engl J Med 350:971–980. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa031855
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa031855
pubmed: 14999109
Binda V, Trezzi B, Del Papa N et al (2020) Belimumab may decrease flare rate and allow glucocorticoid withdrawal in lupus nephritis (including dialysis and transplanted patient). J Nephrol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40620-020-00706-3
doi: 10.1007/s40620-020-00706-3
pubmed: 32462476
Moroni G, Doria A, Ponticelli C (2009) Cyclosporine (CsA) in lupus nephritis: assessing the evidence. Nephrol Dial Transplant 24:15–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfn565
doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfn565
pubmed: 18852191
Liao R, Liu Q, Zheng Z et al (2015) Tacrolimus protects podocytes from injury in lupus nephritis partly by stabilizing the cytoskeleton and inhibiting podocyte apoptosis. PLoS ONE 10:e0132724. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132724
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132724
pubmed: 26161538
pmcid: 4498640
Suzuki K, Saito K, Tsujimura S et al (2010) Tacrolimus, a calcineurin inhibitor, overcomes treatment unresponsiveness mediated by P-glycoprotein on lymphocytes in refractory rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 37:512–520. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.090048
doi: 10.3899/jrheum.090048
pubmed: 20080907
Hannah J, Casian A, D’Cruz D (2016) Tacrolimus use in lupus nephritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Autoimmun Rev 15:93–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autrev.2015.09.006
doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2015.09.006
pubmed: 26427983
Závada J, Sinikka Pesicková S, Rysavá R et al (2014) Extended follow-up of the CYCLOFA-LUNE trial comparing two sequential induction and maintenance treatment regimens for proliferative lupus nephritis based either on cyclophosphamide or on cyclosporine A. Lupus 23:69–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961203313511555
doi: 10.1177/0961203313511555
pubmed: 24213308
Kasitanon N, Boripatkosol P, Louthrenoo W (2018) Response to combination of mycophenolate mofetil, cyclosporin A and corticosteroid treatment in lupus nephritis patients with persistent proteinuria. Int J Rheum Dis 21:200–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/1756-185X.13152
doi: 10.1111/1756-185X.13152
pubmed: 28901731
Yang TH, Wu TH, Chang YL et al (2018) Cyclosporine for the treatment of lupus nephritis in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Clin Nephrol 89:277–285. https://doi.org/10.5414/CN109325
doi: 10.5414/CN109325
pubmed: 29319493
Heerspink HJL, Greene T, Tighiouart H et al (2019) Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration. Change in albuminuria as a surrogate endpoint for progression of kidney disease: a meta-analysis of treatment effects in randomised clinical trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 7:128–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(18)30314-0
doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(18)30314-0
pubmed: 30635226
Colla L, Diena D, Rossetti M et al (2018) Immunosuppression in pregnant women with renal disease: review of the latest evidence in the biologics era. J Nephrol 31:361–383
doi: 10.1007/s40620-018-0477-3