Gabriel Contreras

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.

BACKGROUND: In adults with active lupus nephritis, the efficacy and safety of intravenous belimumab as compared with placebo, when added to standard therapy (mycophenolate mofetil or cyclophosphamide-azathioprine), are unknown. METHODS: , and no use of rescue therapy). The time to a renal-related event or death was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 448 patients underwent randomization (224 to the belimumab group and 224 to the placebo group). At week 104, significantly more patients in the belimumab group than in the placebo group had a primary efficacy renal response (43% vs. 32%; odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0 to 2.3; P = 0.03) and a complete renal response (30% vs. 20%; odds ratio, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.7; P = 0.02). The risk of a renal-related event or death was lower among patients who received belimumab than among those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.77; P = 0.001). The safety profile of belimumab was consistent with that in previous trials. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with active lupus nephritis, more patients who received belimumab plus standard therapy had a primary efficacy renal response than those who received standard therapy alone. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; BLISS-LN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01639339.).

BACKGROUND: Long-term therapy with cyclophosphamide enhances renal survival in patients with proliferative lupus nephritis; however, the beneficial effect of cyclophosphamide must be weighed against its considerable toxic effects. METHODS: Fifty-nine patients with lupus nephritis (12 in World Health Organization class III, 46 in class IV, and 1 in class Vb) received induction therapy consisting of a maximum of seven monthly boluses of intravenous cyclophosphamide (0.5 to 1.0 g per square meter of body-surface area) plus corticosteroids. Subsequently, the patients were randomly assigned to one of three maintenance therapies: quarterly intravenous injections of cyclophosphamide, oral azathioprine (1 to 3 mg per kilogram of body weight per day), or oral mycophenolate mofetil (500 to 3000 mg per day) for one to three years. The base-line characteristics of the three groups were similar, with the exception that the chronicity index was 1.9 points lower in the cyclophosphamide group than in the mycophenolate mofetil group (P=0.009). RESULTS: During maintenance therapy, five patients died (four in the cyclophosphamide group and one in the mycophenolate mofetil group), and chronic renal failure developed in five (three in the cyclophosphamide group and one each in the azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil groups). The 72-month event-free survival rate for the composite end point of death or chronic renal failure was higher in the mycophenolate mofetil and azathioprine groups than in the cyclophosphamide group (P=0.05 and P=0.009, respectively). The rate of relapse-free survival was higher in the mycophenolate mofetil group than in the cyclophosphamide group (P=0.02). The incidence of hospitalization, amenorrhea, infections, nausea, and vomiting was significantly lower in the mycophenolate mofetil and azathioprine groups than in the cyclophosphamide group. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with proliferative lupus nephritis, short-term therapy with intravenous cyclophosphamide followed by maintenance therapy with mycophenolate mofetil or azathioprine appears to be more efficacious and safer than long-term therapy with intravenous cyclophosphamide.

BACKGROUND: In observational studies, the relationship between blood pressure and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is direct and progressive. The burden of hypertension-related chronic kidney disease and ESRD is especially high among black patients. Yet few trials have tested whether intensive blood-pressure control retards the progression of chronic kidney disease among black patients. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1094 black patients with hypertensive chronic kidney disease to receive either intensive or standard blood-pressure control. After completing the trial phase, patients were invited to enroll in a cohort phase in which the blood-pressure target was less than 130/80 mm Hg. The primary clinical outcome in the cohort phase was the progression of chronic kidney disease, which was defined as a doubling of the serum creatinine level, a diagnosis of ESRD, or death. Follow-up ranged from 8.8 to 12.2 years. RESULTS: During the trial phase, the mean blood pressure was 130/78 mm Hg in the intensive-control group and 141/86 mm Hg in the standard-control group. During the cohort phase, corresponding mean blood pressures were 131/78 mm Hg and 134/78 mm Hg. In both phases, there was no significant between-group difference in the risk of the primary outcome (hazard ratio in the intensive-control group, 0.91; P=0.27). However, the effects differed according to the baseline level of proteinuria (P=0.02 for interaction), with a potential benefit in patients with a protein-to-creatinine ratio of more than 0.22 (hazard ratio, 0.73; P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In overall analyses, intensive blood-pressure control had no effect on kidney disease progression. However, there may be differential effects of intensive blood-pressure control in patients with and those without baseline proteinuria. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities, and others.)

BACKGROUND: Maintenance therapy, often with azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil, is required to consolidate remission and prevent relapse after the initial control of lupus nephritis. METHODS: We carried out a 36-month, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3 study comparing oral mycophenolate mofetil (2 g per day) and oral azathioprine (2 mg per kilogram of body weight per day), plus placebo in each group, in patients who met response criteria during a 6-month induction trial. The study group underwent repeat randomization in a 1:1 ratio. Up to 10 mg of prednisone per day or its equivalent was permitted. The primary efficacy end point was the time to treatment failure, which was defined as death, end-stage renal disease, doubling of the serum creatinine level, renal flare, or rescue therapy for lupus nephritis. Secondary assessments included the time to the individual components of treatment failure and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 227 patients were randomly assigned to maintenance treatment (116 to mycophenolate mofetil and 111 to azathioprine). Mycophenolate mofetil was superior to azathioprine with respect to the primary end point, time to treatment failure (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 0.77; P = 0.003), and with respect to time to renal flare and time to rescue therapy (hazard ratio, <1.00; P < 0.05). Observed rates of treatment failure were 16.4% (19 of 116 patients) in the mycophenolate mofetil group and 32.4% (36 of 111) in the azathioprine group. Adverse events, most commonly minor infections and gastrointestinal disorders, occurred in more than 95% of the patients in both groups (P = 0.68). Serious adverse events occurred in 33.3% of patients in the azathioprine group and in 23.5% of those in the mycophenolate mofetil group (P = 0.11), and the rate of withdrawal due to adverse events was higher with azathioprine than with mycophenolate mofetil (39.6% vs. 25.2%, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Mycophenolate mofetil was superior to azathioprine in maintaining a renal response to treatment and in preventing relapse in patients with lupus nephritis who had a response to induction therapy. (Funded by Vifor Pharma [formerly Aspreva]; ALMS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00377637.).