Journal List > J Rheum Dis > v.26(1) > 1122090

Choi, Park, Kang, Lee, Xu, Lee, Choi, and Lee: Comparison of Renal Responses to Cyclophosphamide and Mycophenolate Mofetil used as Induction Therapies in Korean Patients with Lupus Nephritis

Abstract

Objective

Although intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVC) is generally accepted as the standard therapy for induction treatment of active proliferative lupus nephritis (LN), several clinical trials have suggested that mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is at least as effective as IVC. Because few Asian studies have compared the two treatment modalities, we compared the efficacies of MMF and IVC as LN remission induction treatments in Korean patients.

Methods

We enrolled 39 patients with class III and IV LN who received MMF or IVC as LN induction therapy. The renal outcomes (i.e., complete response [CR], partial response [PR], and no response [NR]) at 6 and 12 months were defined using the ACR 2006 response criteria.

Results

Of 39 patients, 23 (59.0%) were treated with IVC, and 16 (41.0%) were treated with MMF. Demographics, clinical characteristics, laboratory data, and adverse events did not significantly differ between the two groups. However, C3 levels were lower and activity scores in renal biopsy were higher in IVC-treated patients. CRs were achieved by 11 (47.8%) of the patients receiving IVC and 7 (43.8%) of the patients receiving MMF after 6 months of treatment (p=0.961) and by 11 (47.8%) of those who received IVC and 9 (56.2%) of those who received MMF at 12 months of treatment (p=0.713). Neither the PR rate nor the NR rate differed significantly at 6 or 12 months between the two groups.

Conclusion

The efficacy of MMF does not differ from that of IVC in terms of induction of LN remission in Korean patients.

REFERENCES

1. Tsokos GC. Systemic lupus erythematosus. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365:2110–21.
crossref
2. Illei GG, Austin HA, Crane M, Collins L, Gourley MF, Yarboro CH, et al. Combination therapy with pulse cyclophosphamide plus pulse methylprednisolone improves long-term renal outcome without adding toxicity in patients with lupus nephritis. Ann Intern Med. 2001; 135:248–57.
crossref
3. Mok CC, Chan PT, To CH. Anti-müllerian hormone and ovarian reserve in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum. 2013; 65:206–10.
crossref
4. Ginzler EM, Dooley MA, Aranow C, Kim MY, Buyon J, Merrill JT, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil or intravenous cyclophosphamide for lupus nephritis. N Engl J Med. 2005; 353:2219–28.
crossref
5. Kamanamool N, McEvoy M, Attia J, Ingsathit A, Ngamjanyaporn P, Thakkinstian A. Efficacy and adverse events of mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclophosphamide for induction therapy of lupus nephritis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2010; 89:227–35.
6. Touma Z, Gladman DD, Urowitz MB, Beyene J, Uleryk EM, Shah PS. Mycophenolate mofetil for induction treatment of lupus nephritis: a systematic review and metaanalysis. J Rheumatol. 2011; 38:69–78.
crossref
7. Appel GB, Contreras G, Dooley MA, Ginzler EM, Isenberg D, Jayne D, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclophosphamide for induction treatment of lupus nephritis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009; 20:1103–12.
crossref
8. Isenberg D, Appel GB, Contreras G, Dooley MA, Ginzler EM, Jayne D, et al. Influence of race/ethnicity on response to lupus nephritis treatment: the ALMS study. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2010; 49:128–40.
crossref
9. Chan TM, Li FK, Tang CS, Wong RW, Fang GX, Ji YL, et al. Efficacy of mycophenolate mofetil in patients with diffuse proliferative lupus nephritis. Hong Kong-Guangzhou nephrology study group. N Engl J Med. 2000; 343:1156–62.
10. Chan TM, Tse KC, Tang CS, Mok MY, Li FK; Group HKNS. Long-term study of mycophenolate mofetil as continuous induction and maintenance treatment for diffuse proliferative lupus nephritis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2005; 16:1076–84.
crossref
11. Ong LM, Hooi LS, Lim TO, Goh BL, Ahmad G, Ghazalli R, et al. Randomized controlled trial of pulse intravenous cyclophosphamide versus mycophenolate mofetil in the induction therapy of proliferative lupus nephritis. Nephrology (Carlton). 2005; 10:504–10.
crossref
12. Hu W, Liu Z, Chen H, Tang Z, Wang Q, Shen K, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil vs cyclophosphamide therapy for patients with diffuse proliferative lupus nephritis. Chin Med J (Engl). 2002; 115:705–9.
13. Li X, Ren H, Zhang Q, Zhang W, Wu X, Xu Y, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil or tacrolimus compared with intravenous cyclophosphamide in the induction treatment for active lupus nephritis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012; 27:1467–72.
crossref
14. Hanaoka H, Kiyokawa T, Iida H, Ishimori K, Takakuwa Y, Okazaki T, et al. Comparison of renal response to four different induction therapies in Japanese patients with lupus nephritis class III or IV: a single-centre retrospective study. PLoS One. 2017; 12:e0175152.
crossref
15. Rathi M, Goyal A, Jaryal A, Sharma A, Gupta PK, Ramachandran R, et al. Comparison of low-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide with oral mycophenolate mofetil in the treatment of lupus nephritis. Kidney Int. 2016; 89:235–42.
crossref
16. Sahay M, Saivani Y, Ismal K, Vali PS. Mycophenolate versus cyclophosphamide for lupus nephritis. Indian J Nephrol. 2018; 28:35–40.
crossref
17. Hochberg MC. Updating the American College of Rheumatology revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum. 1997; 40:1725.
crossref
18. Weening JJ, D'Agati VD, Schwartz MM, Seshan SV, Alpers CE, Appel GB, et al. The classification of glomerulonephritis in systemic lupus erythematosus revisited. Kidney Int. 2004; 65:521–30.
crossref
19. Gladman DD, Ibañez D, Urowitz MB. Systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity index 2000. J Rheumatol. 2002; 29:288–91.
20. Austin HA 3rd, Muenz LR, Joyce KM, Antonovych TA, Kullick ME, Klippel JH, et al. Prognostic factors in lupus nephritis. Contribution of renal histologic data. Am J Med. 1983; 75:382–91.
21. Bertsias GK, Tektonidou M, Amoura Z, Aringer M, Bajema I, Berden JH, et al. 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. 2012; 71:1771–82.
crossref
22. Hahn BH, McMahon MA, Wilkinson A, Wallace WD, Daikh DI, Fitzgerald JD, et al. American College of Rheumatology guidelines for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012; 64:797–808.
crossref
23. Renal Disease Subcommittee of the American College of Rheumatology Ad Hoc Committee on Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Response C. The American College of Rheumatology response criteria for proliferative and membranous renal disease in systemic lupus erythematosus clinical trials. Arthritis Rheum. 2006; 54:421–32.
crossref
24. Radhakrishnan J, Cattran DC. The KDIGO practice guideline on glomerulonephritis: reading between the (guide) lines–application to the individual patient. Kidney Int. 2012; 82:840–56.
25. Mahieu MA, Strand V, Simon LS, Lipsky PE, Ramsey-Goldman R. A critical review of clinical trials in systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus. 2016; 25:1122–40.
crossref
26. Moore RA, Derry S. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials and cohort studies of mycophenolate mofetil in lupus nephritis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2006; 8:R182.
27. Walsh M, James M, Jayne D, Tonelli M, Manns BJ, Hemmelgarn BR. Mycophenolate mofetil for induction therapy of lupus nephritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007; 2:968–75.
crossref
28. Zhu B, Chen N, Lin Y, Ren H, Zhang W, Wang W, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil in induction and maintenance therapy of severe lupus nephritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2007; 22:1933–42.
crossref

Table 1.
Demographic and laboratory characteristics of the two different treatment groups at the time of renal biopsy
Variables IVC group (n=23) MMF group (n=16) p-value
Age at onset of LN (yr) 31.7±8.86 32.3±14.33 0.832
Female, sex 20/23 (87.0) 15/16 (93.8) 0.452
Disease duration at onset of LN (mo) 4.87±4.25 7.44±5.50 0.143
Education (yr) 12.78±3.75 13.25±3.24 0.789
Hypertension at onset of LN 3/23 (13.0) 4/16 (25.0) 0.294
Diabetes mellitus at onset of LN 1/23 (4.0) 0/16 (0) 0.590
SLEDAI-2000 12.13±4.79 11.12±4.25 0.437
Laboratory findings      
White blood cells (/mm3) 5,634.8±2,913.7 8,468.8±4,962.9 0.050
Lymphocytes (/mm3) 1,143.0±523.1 1,474.4±992.6 0.251
Hemoglobin (g/dL) 10.2±2.00 11.3±1.46 0.074
Platelets (×103/mm3) 196.3±74.5 214.3±74.5 0.471
ESR (mm/h) 38.5±28.8 46.3±40.1 0.662
CRP (mg/dL) 0.53±0.44 0.75±0.84 0.976
Albumin (mg/dL) 2.86±0.77 3.26±0.74 0.168
Total cholesterol (mg/dL) 198.8±48.1 212.9±59.5 0.582
HDL cholesterol (mg/dL) 48.9±17.3 57.8±20.7 0.128
LDL cholesterol (mg/dL) 123.1±43.4 133.1±49.8 0.329
Triglycerides (mg/dL) 159.4±57.2 154.6±56.6 0.899
Serum creatinine (mg/dL) 0.92±0.80 0.85±0.39 0.810
eGFR (mL/min/1.72 m2) 104.7±37.8 103.4±43.8 0.582
Proteinuria (g/24 h) 3.34±3.12 4.24±3.34 0.315
Autoantibodies      
Antinuclear 23/23 (100) 15/16 (93.8) 0.410
Anti-dsDNA 521.9±1,303.7 267.0±763.7 0.065
Anti-Sm 9/23 (39.1) 7/16 (43.8) 0.515
Anti-RNP 8/23 (34.8) 8/16 (50.0) 0.267
Anti-Ro/SS-A 14/23 (60.9) 11/16 (68.8) 0.437
Anti-La/SS-B 6/23 (26.1) 3/16 (18.8) 0.446
Anti-nucleosome 14/20 (70.0) 10/15 (66.7) 0.560
Anti-ribosomal-P 5/20 (25.0) 4/15 (26.7) 0.606
Lupus anticoagulant 0/21 (0.0) 1/15 (6.7) 0.417
IgG-aCL 2/21 (9.5) 3/15 (20.0) 0.337
IgM-aCL 0/20 (0.0) 0/14 (0) 1.000
IgG anti-β2 GP1 6/19 (31.6) 8/14 (57.1) 0.133
Complement levels      
C3 47.2±24.0 67.9±22.8 0.011
C4 9.6±5.0 19.3±24.9 0.207
CH50 21.4±15.4 29.2±14.9 0.107

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%). IVC: intravenous cyclophosphamide, MMF: mycophenolate mofetil, LN: lupus nephritis, SLEDAI: systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity index, ESR: erythrocyte sedimentation rate, CRP: C-reactive protein, HDL: high-density lipoprotein, LDL: low-density lipoprotein, eGFR: estimated glomerular filtration rate, aCL: anti-cardiolipin, β2 GPI: beta2-glycoprotein I.

Table 2.
Renal biopsy findings in the two different treatment groups
Variable IVC group (n=23) MMF group (n=16) p-value
Activity index
Endo-capillary hypercellularity 22 (95.7) 12 (75.0) 0.080
Leukocyte infiltration 19 (82.6) 12 (75.0) 0.425
Sub-endothelial hyaline deposits 22 (95.7) 14 (87.5) 0.363
Fibrinoid necrosis/Karyorrhexis 19 (82.6) 7 (43.8) 0.014
Cellular crescents 9 (39.1) 4 (25.0) 0.285
Interstitial inflammation 22 (95.7) 15 (93.8) 0.659
Chronicity index
Glomerular sclerosis 7 (30.4) 9 (56.2) 0.100
Tubular atrophy 13 (56.5) 12 (75.0) 0.200
Interstitial fibrosis 17 (73.9) 13 (81.2) 0.446
Fibrous crescents 2 (8.7) 2 (12.5) 0.548
Activity score 9.65±3.10 6.25±3.72 0.007
Active score (≥12) 9 (39.1) 2 (12.5) 0.070
Chronicity score 1.87±1.33 2.50±1.55 0.159
Chronic score (≤4) 3 (13.0) 6 (37.5) 0.082

Values are presented as number (%) or mean±standard deviation. IVC: intravenous cyclophosphamide, MMF: mycophenolate mofetil.

Table 3.
Medications used by LN patients in the two different treatment groups
Variable IVC group (n=23) MMF group (n=16) p-value
Treatment before diagnosis of LN
Prednisolone (>5 mg/day) 12 (52.1) 12 (75.0) 0.134
Hydroxychloroquine 12 (52.1) 10 (62.5) 0.379
ACEi or ARB 2 (8.7) 0 (0.0) 0.341
Hydroxychloroquine during follow-up 19 (82.6) 15 (93.8) 0.305
ACEi or ARB during follow-up 16 (69.6) 8 (50.0) 0.184

Values are presented as number (%). LN: lupus nephritis, IVC: intravenous cyclophosphamide, MMF: mycophenolate mofetil, ACEi: angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, ARB: angiotensin receptor blocker.

Table 4.
Renal responses in the two different treatment groups at 6 and 12 months
Variable IVC group (n=23) MMF group (n=16) p-value
6-month outcome     0.961
CR 11 (47.8) 7 (43.8)  
PR 5 (21.7) 4 (25.0)  
NR 7 (30.4) 5 (31.2)  
12-month outcome     0.713
CR 11 (47.8) 9 (56.2)  
PR 7 (30.4) 3 (18.8)  
NR 5 (21.7) 4 (25.0)  
Reduction of 24 h proteinuria, >50% 18 (78.3) 12 (75.0) 0.554
Time to reduction, >50%, days 145.3±170.8 198.9±231.7 0.917
Reduction of proteinuria, <500 mg/day 16 (69.6) 257.7±341.8 0.500
Time to reduction, <500 mg/day, days 12 (75.0) 318.3±288.7 0.537
Reduction of proteinuria, <200 mg/day 14 (60.9) 10 (62.5) 0.593
Time to reduction, <200 mg/day, days 486.0±515.6 609.2±433.7 0.335

Values are presented as number (%) or mean±standard deviation. IVC: intravenous cyclophosphamide, MMF: mycophenolate mofetil, CR: complete response, PR: partial response, NR: no response.

Table 5.
Adverse events in the two different treatment groups over 12 months
Variable IVC group (n=23) MMF group (n=16) p-value
Any adverse event 15 (65.2) 11 (68.8) 0.548
Death 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) -
Major infection requiring hospitalization Pneumonia 0 (0.0) 3 (18.8) 0.061
Minor infection
Cellulitis 1 (4.3) 0 (0.0) 0.590
Herpes zoster 1 (4.3) 1 (6.2) 0.659
Upper respiratory tract infection 2 (8.6) 2 (12.5) 0.548
Amenorrhea 0 (0.0) 1 (6.2) 0.410
Menstrual irregularities 2 (8.6) 0 (0.0) 0.341
Leukopenia, WBC count <1,500/μ L 2 (8.6) 0 (0.0) 0.341

Values are presented as number (%). IVC: intravenous cyclophosphamide, MMF: mycophenolate mofetil, WBC: white blood cell.

TOOLS
Similar articles