High‐dose cyclophosphamide versus monthly intravenous cyclophosphamide for systemic lupus erythematosus: A prospective randomized trial
Open Access
- 29 April 2010
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Arthritis & Rheumatism
- Vol. 62 (5), 1487-1493
- https://doi.org/10.1002/art.27371
Abstract
Objective Monthly intravenous (IV) cyclophosphamide for 6 months has been the standard induction regimen for lupus nephritis, followed by a maintenance regimen of quarterly infusions for 2 years. We undertook this study to compare the efficacy and safety of the standard regimen versus a high‐dose IV cyclophosphamide regimen. Methods We performed a prospective randomized trial comparing monthly IV cyclophosphamide at 750 mg/m2 body surface area for 6 months followed by quarterly IV cyclophosphamide for 2 years (traditional treatment) against high‐dose IV cyclophosphamide (50 mg/kg daily for 4 days) (high‐dose treatment). Entry criteria included renal lupus, neurologic lupus, or other organ system involvement with moderate‐to‐severe activity. Results Fifty‐one patients were randomized; 3 withdrew before treatment and 1 committed suicide after 2 months of high‐dose treatment. Twenty‐two had renal lupus, 14 had neurologic lupus, and 11 had other organ involvement. The outcome measure was the Responder Index for Lupus Erythematosus (complete response, partial response, no change, or worsening). At 6 months (the end of induction), 11 of 21 patients (52%) in the high‐dose treatment group had a complete response compared with 9 of 26 patients (35%) in the traditional treatment group (P = 0.13). At the final visit (30 months), 10 of 21 patients (48%) in the high‐dose treatment group had a complete response compared with 13 of 20 patients (65%) who continued with traditional treatment (P = 0.13). Six patients crossed over from traditional treatment to high‐dose treatment because of lack of response, and 3 of those patients became complete responders. Conclusion There was not strong evidence that monthly IV cyclophosphamide and high‐dose IV cyclophosphamide differed in complete or in any (complete or partial) response to induction or maintenance therapy. However, nonresponders to monthly IV cyclophosphamide can sometimes be rescued with high‐dose IV cyclophosphamide.Keywords
This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- Mycophenolate Mofetil versus Cyclophosphamide for Induction Treatment of Lupus NephritisJournal of the American Society of Nephrology, 2009
- Use of a gonadotropin‐releasing hormone analog for protection against premature ovarian failure during cyclophosphamide therapy in women with severe lupusArthritis & Rheumatism, 2005
- BILAG 2004. Development and initial validation of an updated version of the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group's disease activity index for patients with systemic lupus erythematosusRheumatology, 2005
- High‐dose cyclophosphamide without stem cell transplantation in systemic lupus erythematosusArthritis & Rheumatism, 2003
- Efficacy of Mycophenolate Mofetil in Patients with Diffuse Proliferative Lupus NephritisNew England Journal of Medicine, 2000
- Remission, relapse, and re-remission of proliferative lupus nephritis treated with cyclophosphamideKidney International, 2000
- Updating the American college of rheumatology revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosusArthritis & Rheumatism, 1997
- Clinical and Immunologic Effects of Monthly Administration of Intravenous Cyclophosphamide in Severe Systemic Lupus ErythematosusNew England Journal of Medicine, 1988
- Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis researchArthritis & Rheumatism, 1985
- The 1982 revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosusArthritis & Rheumatism, 1982