For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.
For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.
Mycophenolate as Induction Therapy in Lupus Nephritis with Renal Function ImpairmentRivera F.a · Fulladosa X.b · Poveda R.b · Frutos M.A.c · García-Frías P.c · Ara J.d · Illescas L.e · López-Rubio E.e · Mérida E.f · Carreño A.a · Ballarín J.g · Fernández-Juárez G.h · Baltar J.i · Ramos C.j · Pons S.j · Oliet A.k · Vigil A.k · Praga M.f · Segarra A.l · Spanish Group for the Study of Glomerular Disease (GLOSEN)
aHospital General de Ciudad Real, Ciudad Real, bHospital Universitari de Bellvitge, Bellvitge, cHospital Universitario Carlos Haya, Malaga, dHospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, eHospital General Universitario de Albacete, Albacete, fHospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, gFundació Puigvert, Barcelona, hFundación Hospital Alcorcón, Alcorcón, iHospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, jHospital Clinic Universitari de Valencia, Valencia, kHospital Severo Ochoa, Madrid, y lHospital Vall d’Hebron, Vall d’Hebron, España
Background: Mycophenolate (MF) is effective as induction therapy for lupus nephritis (LN) in patients with normal renal function; however, little is known about its role in patients with impaired renal failure. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the response to MF in LN and its association with baseline renal function. Methods: Data were obtained for 90 patients from 12 Spanish renal units who were receiving MF as induction therapy for LN. Patients were classified into 2 groups: group 1 (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2) and group 2 (eGFR <60 ml/min/ 1.73 m2). The primary outcome measure was the percentage of patients who achieved any response and its relationship with initial eGFR. The secondary outcome measures were the percentage of patients who achieved a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) and the appearance of relapses during treatment and side effects. Results: At initiation of MF treatment, there were no differences in the main parameters between group 1 (n = 63; eGFR 87 ± 23 ml/min/ 1.73 m2) and group 2 (n = 27; eGFR 44 ± 12 ml/min/1.73 m2). Exposure to prednisone and MF was similar. The percentages of patients who achieved a response in groups 1 and 2 were, respectively, 69.2 and 43.8% at 6 months and 81.3 and 73.7% at 12 months. CR was more frequent in group 1, whereas PR was similar in both groups. Four patients relapsed and side effects were unremarkable. Conclusions: MF is effective and safe as induction therapy for LN, and response is even achieved in patients with baseline renal impairment.
© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel