Treatment of lupus nephritis by mycophenolate mofetil

Lupus nephritis: review of the literature

Physicians in practice should be knowledgeable regarding several aspects of autoimmune disorders, especially systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis. These disorders can present to the clinician's clinic and private office regardless of their specialty. This review will discuss various aspects of SLE, its mechanisms of disease, role of accelerated atherosclerosis, proinflammatory cytokines, and therapeutic approaches. The role of vascular endothelial growth factor in which and plasma levels have been associated with disease activity, classification of severity, and diagnosis of lupus nephritis is addressed. Current treatment options, prognosis, and future therapeutic approaches and common side effects are also discussed.

Mycophenolate as maintenance therapy for lupus nephritis with impaired renal function

BACKGROUND

Mycophenolate (MF) is effective as a maintenance therapy after induction therapy in patients with lupus nephritis (LN). However, little is known about its role in patients with impaired renal function. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MF as a maintenance therapy for LN and its association with renal function.

METHODS

Data were obtained for 56 Spanish patients who were receiving MF as a maintenance therapy for LN. Patients were classified into two groups according to renal function at the initiation of MF treatment: group 1 [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m(2)] and group 2 (eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m(2)). The primary endpoints of the study were the rates of renal relapse and responses, and their relationship with baseline renal function. Secondary outcomes were the appearance of side effects during treatment.

RESULTS

At initiation of MF treatment, the only differences between the groups were for age, hemoglobin levels, anti-DNA antibody titer, proteinuria, and renal function. In group 1 (n = 38), the eGFR was 98 ± 34 ml/min/1.73 m(2) and in group 2 (n = 18) the eGFR was 43 ± 14 ml/min/1.73 m(2). Only 3 cases had an eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m(2). No significant differences were observed in the rate of relapse at 6 months (group 1: 20%; group 2: 23%) or at 12 months (group 1: 25%; group 2: 17%). Response rates were also similar in both groups. Side effects were unremarkable.

CONCLUSIONS

MF is effective and safe as a maintenance therapy for LN both in patients with normal renal function and in those with renal impairment.