Azathioprine versus mycophenolate mofetil for long-term immunosuppression in lupus nephritis: results from the MAINTAIN Nephritis Trial. Is mycophenolate mofetil superior to pulse intravenous cyclophosphamide for induction therapy of proliferative lupus nephritis in Egyptian patients? Cyclosporine A or intravenous cyclophosphamide for lupus nephritis: the Cyclofa-Lune study. Immunosuppressive therapy in lupus nephritis: the Euro-Lupus Nephritis Trial, a randomized trial of low-dose versus high-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide. Mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclophosphamide for induction treatment of lupus nephritis. Randomized controlled trial of pulse intravenous cyclophosphamide versus mycophenolate mofetil in the induction therapy of proliferative lupus nephritis. Azathioprine/methylprednisolone versus cyclophosphamide in proliferative lupus nephritis. A randomized controlled trial. A randomized trial of maintenance therapy for vasculitis associated with antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibodies. EULAR randomised controlled trial of pulse cyclophosphamide and methylprednisolone versus continuous cyclophosphamide and prednisolone followed by azathioprine and prednisolone in lupus nephritis. A new six-drug antiblastic regimen (R 14) at low doses (micropolychemotherapy) compared to CMF in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer: phase III study. Therapy of lupus nephritis. Controlled trial of prednisone and cytotoxic drugs. Mycophenolate mofetil or intravenous cyclophosphamide for lupus nephritis. Is combination rituximab with cyclophosphamide better than rituximab alone in the treatment of lupus nephritis? Efficacy of mycophenolate mofetil in patients with diffuse proliferative lupus nephritis. Hong Kong-Guangzhou Nephrology Study Group. Prednisone and azathioprine compared to prednisone plus low-dose azathioprine and cyclophosphamide in the treatment of diffuse lupus nephritis. Intravenous dexamethasone-cyclophosphamide pulse therapy in comparison with oral methylprednisolone-azathioprine therapy in patients with pemphigus: results of a multicenter prospectively randomized study. Randomized adjuvant trial of tamoxifen and goserelin versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil: evidence for the superiority of treatment with endocrine blockade in premenopausal patients with hormone-responsive breast cancer--Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group Trial 5. Pulse cyclophosphamide therapy in steroid-dependent nephrotic syndrome. Intravenous immunoglobulin compared with cyclophosphamide for proliferative lupus nephritis. Cyclophosphamide, adriamycin and platinum (CAP) combination chemotherapy, a new effective approach in the treatment of disseminated breast cancer. Preliminary report. Treatment of diffuse proliferative lupus nephritis with prednisone and combined prednisone and cyclophosphamide. Short-term outcomes of induction therapy with tacrolimus versus cyclophosphamide for active lupus nephritis: A multicenter randomized clinical trial. Methylprednisolone and cyclophosphamide, alone or in combination, in patients with lupus nephritis. A randomized, controlled trial. Comparative effects of plasmapheresis and intravenous cyclophosphamide on urinary podocyte excretion in patients with proliferative Lupus nephritis. Randomized clinical trial of CFP versus CMFP in women with metastatic breast cancer. Cyclosporin versus cyclophosphamide for patients with steroid-dependent and frequently relapsing idiopathic nephrotic syndrome: a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Combination chemotherapy with cmf (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-Fluorouracil) versus cnf (mitoxantrone, 5-Fluorouracil, cyclophosphamide) in advanced breast-cancer - a multicenter randomized study. Comparison of melphalan with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil in patients with ovarian cancer. Cyclophosphamide versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil in advanced prostatic cancer: a randomized trial. Azathioprine versus sulfasalazine in maintenance of remission in severe ulcerative colitis. Azathioprine plus prednisone compared with prednisone alone in the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus. Report of a prospective controlled trial in 24 patients. Low dose chemotherapy of metastatic breast cancer with cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil (CAMF) versus sequential cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil (CMF) and adriamycin.
Long-term immunosuppressive treatment does not efficiently prevent relapses of lupus nephritis (LN). This investigator-initiated randomised trial tested whether mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) was superior to azathioprine (AZA) as maintenance treatment.
                A total of 105 patients with lupus with proliferative LN were included. All received three daily intravenous pulses of 750 mg methylprednisolone, followed by oral glucocorticoids and six fortnightly cyclophosphamide intravenous pulses of 500 mg. Based on randomisation performed at baseline, AZA (target dose: 2 mg/kg/day) or MMF (target dose: 2 g/day) was given at week 12. Analyses were by intent to treat. Time to renal flare was the primary end point. Mean (SD) follow-up of the intent-to-treat population was 48 (14) months.
                The baseline clinical, biological and pathological characteristics of patients allocated to AZA or MMF did not differ. Renal flares were observed in 13 (25%) AZA-treated and 10 (19%) MMF-treated patients. Time to renal flare, to severe systemic flare, to benign flare and to renal remission did not statistically differ. Over a 3-year period, 24 h proteinuria, serum creatinine, serum albumin, serum C3, haemoglobin and global disease activity scores improved similarly in both groups. Doubling of serum creatinine occurred in four AZA-treated and three MMF-treated patients. Adverse events did not differ between the groups except for haematological cytopenias, which were statistically more frequent in the AZA group (p=0.03) but led only one patient to drop out.
                Fewer renal flares were observed in patients receiving MMF but the difference did not reach statistical significance. Recent studies have suggested that mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) may offer advantages over intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVC) for the treatment of lupus nephritis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of MMF compared with IVC in the induction therapy of proliferative lupus nephritis.
                We randomly assigned 47 patients with newly diagnosed active proliferative lupus nephritis class III or IV to open-label oral MMF 2 g/day for 6 months or intravenous cyclophosphamide 0.5-1 g/m(2) monthly for 6 months in addition to corticosteroids.
                In the intention-to-treat analysis, 14 of the 24 patients (58.33%) receiving MMF and 12 of the 23 patients receiving cyclophosphamide (52.17%) had remission (P = 0.48); complete remission occurred in 6 of the 24 patients (25%) and 5 of the 23 patients (21.74%), respectively (P = 0.53). Improvements in packed cell volume, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate, anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies titer (anti-dsDNA), serum complement, proteinuria, urinary activity, renal function, serum soluble interleukin-2 receptor alpha concentration and the systemic lupus activity measure score were similar in both groups. Two patients assigned to MMF and another patient assigned to IVC developed end-stage renal failure with commencement of dialysis. Adverse events were similar. Major infections occurred in two patients in each group. There was no difference in gastrointestinal side effects, but more diarrhea occurred in those receiving MMF.
                In this 24-week trial, MMF or IVC combined with corticosteroids demonstrated equal efficacy in inducing remission of proliferative lupus nephritis. Intravenous cyclophosphamide is considered to be the standard of care for the treatment of proliferative lupus nephritis. However, its use is limited by potentially severe toxic effects. Cyclosporine A has been suggested to be an efficient and safe treatment alternative to cyclophosphamide. Forty patients with clinically active proliferative lupus nephritis were randomly assigned to one of two sequential induction and maintenance treatment regimens based either on cyclophosphamide or Cyclosporine A. The primary outcomes were remission (defined as normal urinary sediment, proteinuria <0.3 g/24 h, and stable s-creatinine) and response to therapy (defined as stable s-creatinine, 50% reduction in proteinuria, and either normalization of urinary sediment or significant improvement in C3) at the end of induction and maintenance phase. Secondary outcomes were incidence of adverse events, and relapse-free survival. At the end of the induction phase, 24% of the 21 patients treated by cyclophosphamide achieved remission, and 52% achieved response, as compared with 26% and 43%, respectively of the 19 patients treated by the Cyclosporine A. At the end of the maintenance phase, 14% of patients in cyclophosphamide group, and 37% in Cyclosporine A group had remission, and 38% and 58% respectively response. Treatment with Cyclosporine A was associated with transient increase in blood pressure and reversible decrease in glomerular filtration rate. There was no significant difference in median relapse-free survival. In conclusion, Cyclosporine A was as effective as cyclophosphamide in the trial of sequential induction and maintenance treatment in patients with proliferative lupus nephritis and preserved renal function.(ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00976300) Glomerulonephritis is a severe manifestation of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) that is usually treated with an extended course of intravenous (IV) cyclophosphamide (CYC). Given the side effects of this regimen, we evaluated the efficacy and the toxicity of a course of low-dose IV CYC prescribed as a remission-inducing treatment, followed by azathioprine (AZA) as a remission-maintaining treatment.
                In this multicenter, prospective clinical trial (the Euro-Lupus Nephritis Trial [ELNT]), we randomly assigned 90 SLE patients with proliferative glomerulonephritis to a high-dose IV CYC regimen (6 monthly pulses and 2 quarterly pulses; doses increased according to the white blood cell count nadir) or a low-dose IV CYC regimen (6 fortnightly pulses at a fixed dose of 500 mg), each of which was followed by AZA. Intent-to-treat analyses were performed.
                Followup continued for a median of 41.3 months in the low-dose group and 41 months in the high-dose group. Sixteen percent of those in the low-dose group and 20% of those in the high-dose group experienced treatment failure (not statistically significant by Kaplan-Meier analysis). Levels of serum creatinine, albumin, C3, 24-hour urinary protein, and the disease activity scores significantly improved in both groups during the first year of followup. Renal remission was achieved in 71% of the low-dose group and 54% of the high-dose group (not statistically significant). Renal flares were noted in 27% of the low-dose group and 29% of the high-dose group. Although episodes of severe infection were more than twice as frequent in the high-dose group, the difference was not statistically significant.
                The data from the ELNT indicate that in European SLE patients with proliferative lupus nephritis, a remission-inducing regimen of low-dose IV CYC (cumulative dose 3 gm) followed by AZA achieves clinical results comparable to those obtained with a high-dose regimen. Recent studies have suggested that mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) may offer advantages over intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVC) for the treatment of lupus nephritis, but these therapies have not been compared in an international randomized, controlled trial. Here, we report the comparison of MMF and IVC as induction treatment for active lupus nephritis in a multinational, two-phase (induction and maintenance) study. We randomly assigned 370 patients with classes III through V lupus nephritis to open-label MMF (target dosage 3 g/d) or IVC (0.5 to 1.0 g/m(2) in monthly pulses) in a 24-wk induction study. Both groups received prednisone, tapered from a maximum starting dosage of 60 mg/d. The primary end point was a prespecified decrease in urine protein/creatinine ratio and stabilization or improvement in serum creatinine. Secondary end points included complete renal remission, systemic disease activity and damage, and safety. Overall, we did not detect a significantly different response rate between the two groups: 104 (56.2%) of 185 patients responded to MMF compared with 98 (53.0%) of 185 to IVC. Secondary end points were also similar between treatment groups. There were nine deaths in the MMF group and five in the IVC group. We did not detect significant differences between the MMF and IVC groups with regard to rates of adverse events, serious adverse events, or infections. Although most patients in both treatment groups experienced clinical improvement, the study did not meet its primary objective of showing that MMF was superior to IVC as induction treatment for lupus nephritis. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of mycophenolate mofetil in the induction therapy of proliferative lupus nephritis.
                Forty-four patients from eight centres with newly diagnosed lupus nephritis World Health Organization class III or IV were randomly assigned to either mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) 2 g/day for 6 months or intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVC) 0.75-1 g/m(2) monthly for 6 months in addition to corticosteroids.
                Remission occurred in 13 out of 25 patients (52%) in the IVC group and 11 out of 19 patients (58%) in the MMF group (P = 0.70). There were 12% in the IVC group and 26% in the MMF group that achieved complete remission (P = 0.22). Improvements in haemoglobin, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate, serum albumin, serum complement, proteinuria, urinary activity, renal function and the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index score were similar in both groups. Twenty-four follow-up renal biopsies at the end of therapy showed a significant reduction in the activity score in both groups. The chronicity index increased in both groups but was only significant in the IVC group. Adverse events were similar. Major infections occurred in three patients in each group. There was no difference in gastrointestinal side-effects.
                MMF in combination with corticosteroids is an effective induction therapy for moderately severe proliferative lupus nephritis. Until recently, intravenous cyclophosphamide pulses with oral corticosteroids were regarded standard therapy for proliferative lupus nephritis (LN). Azathioprine, a less toxic alternative, was never proven to be inferior. In the first Dutch lupus nephritis study (enrollment between 1995 and 2001), we randomized 87 proliferative LN patients to either cyclophosphamide pulses (750 mg/m(2), 13 pulses in 2 years) combined with oral prednisone (CY) or to azathioprine (2 mg/kg/day in 2 years) combined with intravenous pulses of methylprednisolone (3 x 3 pulses of 1000 mg) and oral prednisone (AZA). After a median follow-up of 5.7 years (interquartile range 4.1-7.2 years), doubling of serum creatinine was more frequent in the AZA group, although not statistically significant (relative risk (RR): 4.1, with 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.8-20.4). Relapses occurred more often in the AZA group (RR: 8.8, 95% CI: 1.5-31.8). Creatinine and proteinuria at last visit did not differ between the two treatment arms. Moreover, 88.4% of the patients in the AZA arm were still free of cyclophosphamide treatment. During the first 2 years, the frequency of remission was not different, but infections, especially herpes zoster virus infections (HZV) were more frequent in the AZA group. Parameters for ovarian function did not differ between the two groups. In conclusion, in this open-label randomized controlled trial, cyclophosphamide was superior to azathioprine with regard to renal relapses and HZV. At last follow-up, there were no differences in serum creatinine or proteinuria between the two groups. However, since our study lacked sufficient power, longer follow-up is needed to reveal putative differences. The primary systemic vasculitides usually associated with autoantibodies to neutrophil cytoplasmic antigens include Wegener's granulomatosis and microscopic polyangiitis. We investigated whether exposure to cyclophosphamide in patients with generalized vasculitis could be reduced by substitution of azathioprine at remission.
                We studied patients with a new diagnosis of generalized vasculitis and a serum creatinine concentration of 5.7 mg per deciliter (500 micromol per liter) or less. All patients received at least three months of therapy with oral cyclophosphamide and prednisolone. After remission, patients were randomly assigned to continued cyclophosphamide therapy (1.5 mg per kilogram of body weight per day) or a substitute regimen of azathioprine (2 mg per kilogram per day). Both groups continued to receive prednisolone and were followed for 18 months from study entry. Relapse was the primary end point.
                Of 155 patients studied, 144 (93 percent) entered remission and were randomly assigned to azathioprine (71 patients) or continued cyclophosphamide (73 patients). There were eight deaths (5 percent), seven of them during the first three months. Eleven relapses occurred in the azathioprine group (15.5 percent), and 10 occurred in the cyclophosphamide group (13.7 percent, P=0.65). Severe adverse events occurred in 15 patients during the induction phase (10 percent), in 8 patients in the azathioprine group during the remission phase (11 percent), and in 7 patients in the cyclophosphamide group during the remission phase (10 percent, P=0.94 for the comparison between groups during the remission phase). The relapse rate was lower among the patients with microscopic polyangiitis than among those with Wegener's granulomatosis (P=0.03).
                In patients with generalized vasculitis, the withdrawal of cyclophosphamide and the substitution of azathioprine after remission did not increase the rate of relapse. Thus, the duration of exposure to cyclophosphamide may be safely reduced.
                Copyright 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society To compare the efficacy and side effects of intermittent pulse cyclophosphamide plus methylprednisolone with continuous oral cyclophosphamide plus prednisolone, followed by azathioprine, in patients with proliferative glomerulonephritis caused by systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).
                A multicentre randomised controlled trial was conducted between June 1992 and May 1996 involving eight European centres. All patients satisfied the American College of Rheumatology criteria for SLE and had biopsy proven proliferative lupus nephritis. All received corticosteroids in addition to cytotoxic drugs, as defined in the protocol, for two years. The trial was terminated after four years as recruitment was disappointing.
                32 SLE patients with lupus nephritis were recruited: 16 were randomised to intermittent pulse cyclophosphamide and 16 to continuous cyclophosphamide plus azathioprine. Mean duration of follow up was 3.7 years in the continuous group (range 0 to 5.6) and 3.3 years in the pulse group (range 0.25 to 6). Three patients were excluded from the pulse therapy group as they were later found to have pure mesangial glomerulonephritis. Two patients in the continuous therapy group developed end stage renal failure requiring dialysis, but none in the intermittent pulse therapy (p = 0.488; NS). There were similar numbers of side effects and withdrawals from treatment in both groups. There were three deaths: two in the intermittent pulse therapy group and one in the continuous therapy group.
                There was no statistically significant difference in efficacy and side effects between the two regimens. Infectious complications occurred commonly, so careful monitoring is required during treatment. Two groups of 23 patients each, having advanced breast cancer, entered this prospective and randomized study. One group was treated with the conventional schedule of CMF (cyclophosphamide 100 mg/m2/po from the first to the 14th day, methotrexate 40 mg/m2/iv the first and the 8th day, 5-fluorouracil 600 mg/m2/iv the first and the 8th day), and the other was treated with a new six-drug regimen, administered at low doses (R 14: cyclophosphamide 2 mg/kg/iv, vincristine 0.01 mg/kg/iv, vinblastine 0.1 mg/kg/iv, the first day and 5-fluorouracil 5 mg/kg/iv, methotrexate 0.7 mg/kg/iv, adriamycin 0.5 mg/kg/iv the 2nd day every 21 days). The remission rate was 35% (8/23) and 39% (9/23) for CMF and R 14 respectively. The median duration of objective remission was 6 months for CMF and 5 months for R 14 regimen. The median survival time of responding patients was 18 months for CMF and 14 months for R 14. This study shows that the new six-drug regimen at low doses is effective (regarding subjective, objective response and survival rate), and its toxicity is no higher than that of CMF (the incidence of leukopenia was significantly lower during the first course). Therefore, R 14 should be considered an alternative regimen to CMF in the treatment of advanced and, possibly, early breast cancer. The advantages for using R 14 are: 1) it is less toxic (a single dose is a very small amount of medicine compared to what is usually administered), 2) an iv administration always follows a therapeutic program (while in a CMF schedule cyclophosphamide is self-administered by the patient). We evaluated renal function in 107 patients with active lupus nephritis who participated in long-term randomized therapeutic trials (median follow-up, seven years). For patients taking oral prednisone alone, the probability of renal failure began to increase substantially after five years of observation. Renal function was better preserved in patients who received various cytotoxic-drug therapies, but the difference was statistically significant only for intravenous cyclophosphamide plus low-dose prednisone as compared with high-dose prednisone alone (P = 0.027). The advantage of treatment with intravenous cyclophosphamide over oral prednisone alone was particularly apparent in the high-risk subgroup of patients who had chronic histologic changes on renal biopsy at study entry. Patients treated with intravenous cyclophosphamide have not experienced hemorrhagic cystitis, cancer, or a disproportionate number of major infections. We conclude that, as compared with high-dose oral prednisone alone, treatment of lupus glomerulonephritis with intravenous cyclophosphamide reduces the risk of end-stage renal failure with few serious complications. Since anecdotal series and small, prospective, controlled trials suggest that mycophenolate mofetil may be effective for treating lupus nephritis, larger trials are desirable.
                We conducted a 24-week randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial comparing oral mycophenolate mofetil (initial dose, 1000 mg per day, increased to 3000 mg per day) with monthly intravenous cyclophosphamide (0.5 g per square meter of body-surface area, increased to 1.0 g per square meter) as induction therapy for active lupus nephritis. A change to the alternative regimen was allowed at 12 weeks in patients who did not have an early response. The study protocol specified adjunctive care and the use and tapering of corticosteroids. The primary end point was complete remission at 24 weeks (normalization of abnormal renal measurements and maintenance of baseline normal measurements). A secondary end point was partial remission at 24 weeks.
                Of 140 patients recruited, 71 were randomly assigned to receive mycophenolate mofetil and 69 were randomly assigned to receive cyclophosphamide. At 12 weeks, 56 patients receiving mycophenolate mofetil and 42 receiving cyclophosphamide had satisfactory early responses. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 16 of the 71 patients (22.5 percent) receiving mycophenolate mofetil and 4 of the 69 patients receiving cyclophosphamide (5.8 percent) had complete remission, for an absolute difference of 16.7 percentage points (95 percent confidence interval, 5.6 to 27.9 percentage points; P=0.005), meeting the prespecified criteria for noninferiority and demonstrating the superiority of mycophenolate mofetil to cyclophosphamide. Partial remission occurred in 21 of the 71 patients (29.6 percent) and 17 of the 69 patients (24.6 percent), respectively (P=0.51). Three patients assigned to cyclophosphamide died, two during protocol therapy. Fewer severe infections and hospitalizations but more diarrhea occurred among those receiving mycophenolate.
                In this 24-week trial, mycophenolate mofetil was more effective than intravenous cyclophosphamide in inducing remission of lupus nephritis and had a more favorable safety profile.
                Copyright 2005 Massachusetts Medical Society. To assess if combination rituximab and cyclophosphamide is more effective than rituximab monotherapy as an induction therapy for proliferative lupus nephritis.
                A randomized open-label pilot study in which 9 patients received rituximab alone and 10 patients received two doses rituximab + intravenous cyclophosphamide. The clinical, laboratory and renal histological changes were assessed after 48 weeks of treatment.
                At week 48, four patients had a complete response, 11 patients achieved partial response, 2 patients remained the same or stable and 2 worsened. There were no statistical differences in the proportion of patients with complete or partial response between the two groups. None of the variables was an independent predictor of response at week 48. Nine patients had significant improvement in activity indices in renal biopsies, but there were no significant differences between the two groups. Overall, 18 out of 19 patients were found to have effective B-cell depletion. The median duration of complete B-cell depletion in all patients was 22 weeks. There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of patients with complete depletion at weeks 4, 8, 24 and 48 between the two groups except at week 2.
                Rituximab monotherapy appears to be effective as induction therapy in lupus nephritis. The addition of cyclophosphamide offers no additional improvement in clinical, laboratory and renal histological assessment or the duration of B-cell depletion at 48 weeks. Large-scale studies with longer duration are needed to confirm these findings. The combination of cyclophosphamide and prednisolone is effective for the treatment of severe lupus nephritis but has serious adverse effects. Whether mycophenolate mofetil can be substituted for cyclophosphamide is not known.
                In 42 patients with diffuse proliferative lupus nephritis we compared the efficacy and side effects of a regimen of prednisolone and mycophenolate mofetil given for 12 months with those of a regimen of prednisolone and cyclophosphamide given for 6 months, followed by prednisolone and azathioprine for 6 months. Complete remission was defined as a value for urinary protein excretion that was less than 0.3 g per 24 hours, with normal urinary sediment, a normal serum albumin concentration, and values for serum creatinine and creatinine clearance that were no more than 15 percent above the base-line values. Partial remission was defined as a value for urinary protein excretion that was between 0.3 and 2.9 g per 24 hours, with a serum albumin concentration of at least 30 g per liter.
                Eighty-one percent of the 21 patients treated with mycophenolate mofetil and prednisolone (group 1) had a complete remission, and 14 percent had a partial remission, as compared with 76 percent and 14 percent, respectively, of the 21 patients treated with cyclophosphamide and prednisolone followed by azathioprine and prednisolone (group 2). The improvements in the degree of proteinuria and the serum albumin and creatinine concentrations were similar in the two groups. One patient in each group discontinued treatment because of side effects. Infections were noted in 19 percent of the patients in group 1 and in 33 percent of those in group 2 (P = 0.29). Other adverse effects occurred only in group 2; they included amenorrhea (in 23 percent of the patients), hair loss (19 percent), leukopenia (10 percent), and death (10 percent). The rates of relapse were 15 percent and 11 percent, respectively.
                For the treatment of diffuse proliferative lupus nephritis, the combination of mycophenolate mofetil and prednisolone is as effective as a regimen of cyclophosphamide and prednisolone followed by azathioprine and prednisolone but is less toxic. A 1-year double-blind crossover study comparing prednisone and azathioprine to prednisone plus low-dose azathioprine and cyclophosphamide was carried out in 14 patients with diffuse lupus nephritis. Low-dose triple therapy had no apparent therapeutic advantage over prednisone plus azathioprine. Cyclophosphamide-induced ovarian failure and hematuria were not avoided by its use in low dose. Pemphigus is a potentially life-threatening autoimmune blistering skin disease usually treated with high-dose corticosteroids in combination with immunosuppressive drugs. In a multicenter, prospectively randomized study we compared efficacy and side effects of a dexamethasone-cyclophosphamide (D/C) pulse therapy with a methylprednisolone-azathioprine (M/A) therapy in 22 patients with newly diagnosed pemphigus vulgaris and pemphigus foliaceus.
                The 11 patients of the M/A group were treated with daily doses of methylprednisolone (initially 2 mg/kg body weight) and azathioprine (2-2,5 mg/kg body weight) which were subsequently tapered. D/C pulse therapy in 11 patients consisted of intravenous administration of 100 mg dexamethasone/d on 3 consecutive days along with cyclophosphamide (500 mg) on day one. Pulses were initially repeated every 2-4 weeks and then at increasing intervals. In between the pulses, oral cyclophosphamide (50 mg) was given daily for 6 months.
                Within 24 months after treatment initiation, 5/11 patients of the D/C group had a remission (complete remissions after discontinuation of therapy in 3 patients) and 6/11 patients had a progression. In the M/A group, there were remissions in 9/11 patients (complete remissions after discontinuation of therapy in 3 patients) and progression in 1/11 patients. There were more relapses in M/A therapy after remission than in D/C therapy. Side effects were more common in the M/A group. These differences were not significant (p > 0,05).
                Because of the high number of progressions in patients treated with D/C therapy, we can not confirm the encouraging results of earlier reports about pulse D/C therapy. Nevertheless D/C therapy seemed to be better tolerated and, in case of primary efficacy, was associated with fewer recurrences than M/A therapy. Effective adjuvant treatment modalities in premenopausal breast cancer patients today include chemotherapy, ovariectomy, and tamoxifen administration. The purpose of Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group Trial 5 was to compare the efficacy of a combination endocrine treatment with standard chemotherapy.
                Assessable trial subjects (N = 1,034) presenting with hormone-responsive disease were randomized to receive either 3 years of goserelin plus 5 years of tamoxifen or six cycles of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF). Stratification criteria included tumor stage and grade, number of involved nodes, type of surgery, and steroid hormone receptor content. Relapse-free survival (RFS) was defined as time from randomization to first relapse, local recurrence, or contralateral incidence, and overall survival (OS) as time to date of death.
                With a 60-month median follow-up, 17.2% of patients in the endocrine group and 20.8% undergoing chemotherapy developed relapses. Local recurrences emerged in 4.7% and 8.0%, respectively. RFS and local recurrence-free survival differed significantly in favor of endocrine therapy (P =.037 and P =.015), with a similar trend observed in OS (P =.195).
                Overall, our data suggest that the goserelin-tamoxifen combination is significantly more effective than CMF in the adjuvant treatment of premenopausal patients with stage I and II breast cancer. Intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVCP) has been shown to be effective in lupus nephritis. This is a randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of IVCP with oral cyclophosphamide (OCP) in patients with steroid-dependent (SD) idiopathic nephrotic syndrome (INS). Forty-seven consecutive children who were SD were randomized to receive either OCP (2 mg/kg per dayx12 weeks) or IVCP (500 mg/m(2) per month IVx6 months) after achieving a steroid-induced remission. The response was evaluated in terms of remission, change in steroid response status, duration of remission (i.e., proteinuria-free days), side effects, and compliance. Of the 47, IVCP was given to 26 children and OCP to 21 children. The demographic data, histopathology, biochemical profile, and duration of follow-up in the two groups were similar. On Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, the median proteinura-free time was 360+/-88 days compared with 96+/-88 days in the OCP group (values median+/-SE, log rank P=0.05). The actuarial cumulative sustained remission in our study was 73% in IVCP compared with 38.1% in OCP at 6 months after therapy, but was almost identical (18.6% in IVCP vs. 19%in OCP) after 2 years. Thus in our study the overall improvement in steroid response category from SD to sustained remission, infrequent relapser, and frequent relapser (88% in IVCP vs. 57% in OCP) was significantly better in the IVCP group, although the number of children with persistent remission tended to be similar at 2 years. Furthermore, the response was observed with a 40% lower cumulative dose than OCP. Hence, we conclude that IVCP is a safe and effective therapeutic modality in children with INS who are SD. Among 14 randomised patients with proliferative lupus nephritis, monthly intravenous immunoglobulin maintained remission over 18 months, similar to standard intravenous cyclophosphamide treatment. Pulsed immunoglobulin may be a useful alternative therapy in lupus nephritis. The prospective controlled Phase III clinical trial tested the therapeutic value of the cis-platinum-adriamycin-cyclophosphamide combination (CAP), compared with the combination including cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil, vincristine and prednisolone (CMFVP), in untreated metastatic breast cancer. One hundred and twenty-three patients (greater than 2 cycles) were evaluated: 61 on the CAP, and 62 on the CMFVP schedule. An objective response (CR + PR) to CAP combination chemotherapy was achieved in 72% of patients (43/61), with a high rate (36%) of complete remissions. In terms of metastatic site, the response rate appeared to be particularly high in soft tissue and visceral organ (lung, liver) metastases. In the CMFVP group, an objective response was noted in 26 of 62 patients (42%), with 16% complete remissions. The difference in overall therapeutic response - and in the complete remission rate as well - was statistically significant to the advantage of the CAP regimen (P less than 0.01). The duration of remissions was 6-28 + months (means = 14) for the CAP, and 4-15 + months (mean = 9) for the CMFVP schedule. Toxic side effects were more pronounced in the CAP group, particularly myelosuppression, with anemia prevailing. Side effects of CMFVP treatment were moderate. In 39 CMFVP previously treated cases, CAP was administered as second-line treatment, and an objective response was observed in 51% of cases (20/39). Results of this controlled trial showed the advantage of the CAP combination chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. To evaluate the effectiveness of cyclophosphamide in the treatment of lupus nephritis, we designed a prospective study of patients with diffuse proliferative lupus nephritis. Twenty-six patients received prednisone (average dose, 40 mg per day) and 24 combined prednisone (average dose, 29 mg per day) and cyclophosphamide (average dose, 107 mg per day) for six months. Thereafter, all patients received maintenance doses of prednisone. Most of the patients improved (84 per cent) after six months of initial treatment with either program. Early progression of disease, ending mainly in end-stage renal disease, was equally frequent in the two treatment groups in patients with already advanced disease. In a four-year follow-up study there was a higher incidence (P approximately 0.04) and average rate (P approximately 0.02) of clinical recurrence of nephritis in the group initially given only steroid than in the group initially given both drugs. However, the proportion of patients alive after four years with stable or improved renal function was similar in the two treatment groups. Intravenous cyclophosphamide with prednisone is an effective treatment for lupus nephritis, but with significant toxicities. We compared the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus versus intravenous cyclophosphamide as induction therapy.
                Multicenter noninferiority randomized controlled trial.
                81 patients with biopsy-proven lupus nephritis from 9 nephrology centers in China from 2006-2008.
                Prednisone and either tacrolimus (n = 42) or intravenous cyclophosphamide (n = 39) for 6 months. Tacrolimus was started at 0.05 mg/kg/d and titrated to achieve a trough blood concentration of 5-10 ng/mL. Intravenous cyclophosphamide was initiated at 750 mg/m² of body surface area, then adjusted to 500-1,000 mg/m² every 4 weeks for a total of 6 pulse treatments.
                The primary outcome was complete remission (proteinuria with protein excretion <0.3 g/24 h, serum albumin ≥3.5 g/dL, normal urinary sediment, and normal or stable serum creatinine level) at 6 months. Response (complete or partial remission), clinical parameters, and adverse effects were secondary end points.
                After the 6-month induction therapy, the tacrolimus group achieved higher cumulative probabilities of complete remission and response (52.4% vs 38.5% and 90.5% vs 82.1%, respectively) than the intravenous cyclophosphamide group, but differences were not statistically significant (log-rank test, P = 0.2 and P = 0.7, respectively). Proteinuria [corrected] was significantly decreased in tacrolimus- versus intravenous cyclophosphamide-treated patients after the first month of treatment, even with adjustment for baseline proteinuria (protein excretion, 1.76 vs 2.40 g/d; P = 0.02 for the log-transformed analysis). [corrected] After treatment, serum creatinine levels and estimated glomerular filtration rates were not significantly different between treatment groups. Adverse effects, such as leukopenia and gastrointestinal symptoms, were less frequent in the tacrolimus group.
                Nonblinded, small sample size, and short duration of follow-up.
                In conjunction with prednisone, induction therapy with tacrolimus is at least as efficacious as intravenous cyclophosphamide and prednisone in producing complete remission of lupus nephritis and has a more favorable safety profile.
                Copyright Â© 2011 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Uncertainty exists about the efficacy and toxicity of bolus therapy with methylprednisolone or of the combination of methylprednisolone and cyclophosphamide in the treatment of lupus nephritis.
                To determine 1) whether intensive bolus therapy with methylprednisolone is an adequate substitute for bolus therapy with cyclophosphamide and 2) whether the combination of methylprednisolone and cyclophosphamide is superior to bolus therapy with methylprednisolone or cyclophosphamide alone.
                Randomized, controlled trial with at least 5 years of follow-up.
                Government referral-based research hospital.
                82 patients with lupus nephritis who had 10 or more erythrocytes per high-power field, cellular casts, proteinuria (> 1 g of protein per day), and a renal biopsy specimen that showed proliferative nephritis.
                Bolus therapy with methylprednisolone (1 g/m2 body surface area), given monthly for at least 1 year; bolus therapy with cyclophosphamide (0.5 to 1.0 g/m2 body surface area), given monthly for 6 months and then quarterly; or bolus therapy with both methylprednisolone and cyclophosphamide.
                1) Renal remission (defined as < 10 dysmorphic erythrocytes per high-power field, the absence of cellular casts, and excretion of < 1 g of protein per day without doubling of the serum creatinine level), 2) prevention of doubling of the serum creatinine level, and 3) prevention of renal failure requiring dialysis.
                Renal remission occurred in 17 of 20 patients in the combination therapy group (85%), 13 of 21 patients in the cyclophosphamide group (62%), and 7 of 24 patients in the methylprednisolone group (29%) (P < 0.001). Twenty-eight patients (43%) did not achieve renal remission. By life-table analysis, the likelihood of remission during the study period was greater in the combination therapy group than in the methylprednisolone group (P = 0.028). Combination therapy and cyclophosphamide therapy were not statistically different. Adverse events were amenorrhea (seen in 41% of the cyclophosphamide group, 43% of the combination therapy group, and 7.4% of the methylprednisolone group), cervical dysplasia (seen in 11% of the cyclophosphamide group. 7.1% of the combination therapy group, and 0% of the methylprednisolone group), avascular necrosis (seen in 11% of the cyclophosphamide group, 18% of the combination therapy group, and 22% of the methylprednisolone group), herpes zoster (seen in 15% of the cyclophosphamide group, 21% of the combination therapy group, and 3.7% of the methylprednisolone group) and at least one infection (seen in 26% of the cyclophosphamide group. 32% of the combination therapy group, and 7.4% of the methylprednisolone group).
                Monthly bolus therapy with methylprednisolone was less effective than monthly bolus therapy with cyclophosphamide. A trend toward greater efficacy with combination therapy was seen. Intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVC) in combination with steroids is standard therapy for Lupus nephritis. Reduction of autoantibodies and circulating immune complexes can be used in the treatment of autoimmune diseases. The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of IVC pulse therapy and double-filtration plasmapheresis (DFPP) on proteinuria and urinary excretion of podocytes in adult patients with diffuse proliferative Lupus nephritis (DPLN). Twenty patients were randomly assigned to two groups. Group A (n = 10) was treated with IVC (0.75 - 1.0 g/m2 body surface area) pulse therapy, given as boluses once a month for 6 consecutive months, combined with oral corticosteroid (up to 1 mg/kg/day) administration. Group B (n = 10) was treated with a combination of DFPP (performed 1-2 times weekly) and corticosteroid (up to I mg/kg/ day). The total average number of treatments was 8.4 and the therapeutic efficacies were evaluated after 6 months. Twenty healthy individuals participated as a control group. Urinary podocytes were examined by immunofluorescence with monoclonal antibodies against podocalyxin. Both Group A and Group B reduced proteinuria (p < 0.001) as well as the number of urinary podocytes (p < 0.001). Differences between the 2 treatment outcomes were not statistically significant. Cyclophosphamide pulse therapy and DFPP may be similarly effective in the treatment of podocyte injury in patients with DPLN. A randomized trial was performed to determine relative efficacy and toxicity of two first-line combination chemotherapy regimens in women with metastatic breast cancer: CFP (cyclophosphamide, 5-fluorouracil, prednisone) and CMFP (cyclophosphamide, 5-fluorouracil, methotrexate, prednisone). Both regimens have reported efficacy in this setting but differ in dosages and scheduling of the agents they have in common. Three hundred thirty-six women with no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease were eligible and evaluable, and 309 had either measurable or evaluable disease and were assessable for objective response. Responses were seen in 65 of 153 (42%) on CFP and 83 of 156 (53%) on CMFP (two-sided P = 0.06). Median durations of response were 7.1 months for CFP and 8.5 months for CMFP (log-rank, two-sided P = 0.67). Considering all 336 patients, the median times to disease progression were 4.7 months for CFP and 6.2 months for CMFP (log-rank P = 0.31) and median survivals were 15.2 and 14.9 months, respectively (log-rank P = 0.88). Covariate analysis did not alter these findings. Median leukocyte nadirs were 1800 for CFP and 1500 for CMFP, with 22% and 21%, respectively, having nadirs less than 1000/microliters. Emesis was more frequent on CFP (49%) than on CMFP (26%) but was severe in only 7% and 5%, respectively. It is concluded that despite a higher response rate on CMFP and some differences in toxicities including a higher reported incidence of emesis on CFP, there was no substantial difference in efficacy or tolerability between the two regimens. To compare the efficacy (maintenance of remission), safety and tolerability of cyclosporin (CsA) with those of cyclophosphamide in patients with steroid-dependent or frequently relapsing nephrotic syndrome (NS).
                Open, prospective, randomized, multicentre, controlled study for parallel groups, stratified for adults and children. The setting was in nephrological departments in Italy.
                Seventy-three patients with steroid-sensitive idiopathic NS admitted to the study were randomly assigned to cyclophosphamide (2.5 mg/kg/day) for 8 weeks or CsA (5 mg/kg/day in adults, 6 mg/kg/day in children) for 9 months, tapered off by 25% every month until complete discontinuation at month 12. Seven patients lost to follow up were not considered in the analysis. The remaining 66 patients were followed up for 3-24 months after randomization.
                Relapse-free survival; number of N.S. relapses/patient/year; cumulative dose of prednisone/patient; laboratory investigations (kidney and liver functions, haematological parameters); incidence of adverse events.
                At month 9, 26 of 35 CsA-treated patients were still in complete remission and a further five patients were in partial remission; 18 of 28 cyclophosphamide-treated patients were in complete remission, and one in partial remission (P = NS). No difference between adults and children was seen with either treatment. The risk of relapse was similar between frequent relapsers (19 of 22) and steroid-dependent patients (8 of 14) given CsA, and those given cyclophosphamide (5 of 15 and 6 of 15). The mean number of relapses per year and the mean dose of prednisone per year were significantly less (P < 0.001) in both groups for the experimental year than for the year before randomization. At 2 years, 25% of the patients given CsA (50% adults and 20% children) and 63% of those given cyclophosphamide (40% adults and 68% children) had not had any relapse of NS. Tolerance to the two drugs was generally good. The CsA-related side-effects were mild and disappeared after drug discontinuation.
                This study shows that both treatments are effective and well tolerated; more patients given cyclophosphamide had stable remissions. A multicentric randomized study was conducted to compare the CNF regimen (cyclophosphamide at 600 mg/m2/iv, mitoxantrone at 10 mg/m2/iv, 5-fluorouracil at 600 mg/m2/iv) with the CMF regimen (methotrexate at 40 mg/m2/iv instead of mitoxantrone) administered every 3 weeks to previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer patients. In 119 patients evaluable for therapeutic response, complete plus partial response rate was 44% for CNF and 29% for CMF (p>0.05; 95% C.I.: CNF=32%-56%, CMF=18%-40%). No statistically significant difference regarding time to progression, over survival or response to second-line chemotherapy with Epidoxorubicin was observed between the two regimens. Both regimens were well tolerated, but the percent of alopecia and leucopenia was significantly higher in the CNF patient group (31% versus 5% and 18% versus 0%, respectively; p<0.01). In conclusion, CNF was demonstrated to be slightly more toxic but more effective as compared to CMF (global response: 44% versus 29%, respectively). These findings should be taken into consideration when planning future studies of adjuvant chemotherapy. Melphalan (L-PAM) was compared to (C) cyclophosphamide, (M) methotrexate, and (F) 5-fluorouracil (CMF) in 413 patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma. L-PAM was given 3.5 mg/m2 twice daily for 5 days every 5 weeks. CMF doses were: C, 400 mg/m2; M, 15 mg/m2; and F, 400 mg/m2 IV on days 1 and 8 every 28 days. Three hundred seventy-five patients have been analyzed (L-PAM, 190; CMF, 185). One hundred fifty-three patients (41%) had measurable disease, 109 (29%) had evaluable disease, and 113 (30%) had nonmeasurable, nonevaluable disease. Response rates for patients with measurable and evaluable disease combined were similar: L-PAM, 32/130 (24%) (15% complete response); CMF, 47/132 (35%) (18% complete response). Patients with Stage IV measurable disease had a greater response rate to CMF, 22/52 (42%) versus L-PAM, 6/39 (15%). Survival and time to treatment failure were similar for both treatment regimens. Survival was improved in responders. Medians are: complete response, 28.1 months; partial response, 12.3 months; and no response, 6.7 months. Disease stage, performance status and age were identified as important prognostic variables for both survival and time to treatment failure. Thirty-two evaluable patients with metastatic carcinoma of the prostate were entered into a prospective randomized trial comparing cyclophosphamide (CYC) with a combination of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF). Progressive disease after endocrine manipulation was noted in 97% (31/32) of patients before entry. Stable disease (S) was observed in 9 of 17 patients treated with CYC. One partial response (PR) and seven stable responses occurred in the 15 CMF patients. Median duration of stable response was 4.5 months for CYC and 4.5 months on CMF. Median survival of patients with PR and S receiving CYC was 10.1 and for CMF 8.8 months. Patients with progressive disease survived a median 1.7 and 2.6 months with CYC and CMF, respectively. Toxicity was moderate, and no deaths were attributable to sepsis or bleeding. Almost all patients in this study had bone lesions as the dominant site of disease; this made objective assessment of response difficult. There was no significant improvement in response conferred by the combination regimen. Although patients with metastatic prostatic cancer may benefit from chemotherapy, impressive clinical responses are uncommon. Azathioprine is useful as a steroid-sparing drug in patients with ulcerative colitis. Its role as monotherapy in the maintenance of disease remission has not been evaluated.
                In this prospective, randomized, open-label study, 25 patients with severe ulcerative colitis received either azathioprine (2.5 mg/Kg/day; Group A, n = 12) or sulfasalazine (6 g/day; Group B, n = 13). All patients received oral corticosteroids in a tapering dosage schedule initially. Treatment failure was defined as either disease relapse or drug withdrawal because of adverse effects.
                Five of 12 patients in Group A and 8 of 13 patients in Group B had sustained remission during the stipulated study period of 18 months (p = ns). Two patients in Group A had to stop azathioprine because of adverse effects (bone marrow suppression and acute pancreatitis). In Group A, all patients who had treatment failure developed it in the first half of the study while in Group B treatment failure occurred in both halves.
                The relapse rate of ulcerative colitis on maintenance therapy with azathioprine or sulfasalazine is comparable; there was a trend towards earlier treatment failure with azathioprine. A prospective, randomized drug trial compared prednisone (60 mg per day initially) to azathioprine (3 to 4 mg/kg of body weight - day initially) plus prednisone in 24 patients with life-threatening systemic lupus erythematosus. Each group contained patients matched for age, sex, disease duration, previous therapy, and clinical and laboratory features of lupus erythematosus. During a mean follow-up period of 18 to 24 months, there were no significant differences between the two groups in number of deaths, renal or extrarenal manifestations of disease, serum complement levels, DNA antibodies, antinuclear antibody titers, lupus erythematosus cells, or Coombs' antibodies. There was no convincing evidence of a steroid-sparing effect of azathioprine. Side effects attributable to steroids were equally common in both groups; infections were not increased in the combination therapy group. Azathioprine was hepatotoxic in doses of 200 mg daily or more. Azathioprine was not a useful adjunct to corticosterolds in short-term therapy of a small number of patients with severe systemic lupus. Seventy-eight advanced breast cancer patients with hormone-resistant disease or visceral metastases were randomized to receive either of two low dose regimens consisting of cyclophosphamide (C), methotrexate (M), 5-fluorouracil (F), and Adriamycin (A) as their initial chemotherapy. One group was treated with CAMF, and the other with CMF until progression, followed by A (CMF leads to A). C was given at 50 mg/m2, po, days 1-14; M at 20 mg/m2, F at 300 mg/m2, and A at 20 mg/m2, iv, days 1 and 8 of each 28-day cycle. The response rates for CAMF vs. CMF did not differ significantly (complete and partial responses-62% vs. 49%; stabilizations-23% vs. 31%). Responses by site of metasis, median times to progression and median survivals were similar for both groups. Poor and good risk partial responders had similar survivals. Twelve percent of CMF patients treated with Adriamycin at the time of progression had partial responses with an associated improved survival. Since CMF is as effective as CAMF, but has less toxicity, low dose therapy with CMF is more acceptable than CAMF as an initial chemotherapy regimen for metastatic breast cancer. Adriamycin may be reserved for subsequent regression induction.
MMF is as effective as cyclophosphamide in inducing remission in lupus nephritis, but is safer with a lower risk of ovarian failure. MMF is more effective than azathioprine in maintenance therapy for preventing relapse with no increase in clinically important side effects. Adequately powered trials with long term follow-up are required to more accurately define the risks and eventual harms of specific treatment regimens.