Search

Background: Cyclophosphamide, in combination with corticosteroids, has been first-line treatment for inducing disease remission for proliferative lupus nephritis, reducing death at five years from over 50% in the 1950s and 1960s to less than 10% in recent years. Several treatment strategies designed to improve remission rates and minimise toxicity have become available. Treatments, including mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and calcineurin inhibitors, alone and in combination, may have equivalent or improved rates of remission, lower toxicity (less alopecia and ovarian failure) and uncertain effects on death, end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and infection. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004 and updated in 2012., Objectives: Our objective was to assess the evidence and evaluate the benefits and harms of different immunosuppressive treatments in people with biopsy-proven lupus nephritis. The following questions relating to management of proliferative lupus nephritis were addressed: 1) Are new immunosuppressive agents superior to or as effective as cyclophosphamide plus corticosteroids? 2) Which agents, dosages, routes of administration and duration of therapy should be used? 3) Which toxicities occur with the different treatment regimens?, Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register up to 2 March 2018 with support from the Cochrane Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Specialised Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing any immunosuppressive treatment for biopsy-proven class III, IV, V+III and V+VI lupus nephritis in adult or paediatric patients were included., Data Collection and Analysis: Data were abstracted and the risks of bias were assessed independently by two authors. Dichotomous outcomes were calculated as risk ratio (RR) and measures on continuous scales calculated as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The primary outcomes were death (all causes) and complete disease remission for induction therapy and disease relapse for maintenance therapy. Evidence certainty was determined using GRADE., Main Results: In this review update, 26 new studies were identified, to include 74 studies involving 5175 participants overall. Twenty-nine studies included children under the age of 18 years with lupus nephritis, however only two studies exclusively examined the treatment of lupus nephritis in patients less than 18 years of age.Induction therapy Sixty-seven studies (4791 participants; median 12 months duration (range 2.5 to 48 months)) reported induction therapy. The effects of all treatment strategies on death (all causes) and ESKD were uncertain (very low certainty evidence) as this outcome occurred very infrequently. Compared with intravenous (IV) cyclophosphamide, MMF may have increased complete disease remission (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.42; low certainty evidence), although the range of effects includes the possibility of little or no difference.Compared to IV cyclophosphamide, MMF is probably associated with decreased alopecia (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.46; 170 less (129 less to 194 less) per 1000 people) (moderate certainty evidence), increased diarrhoea (RR 2.42, 95% CI 1.64 to 3.58; 142 more (64 more to 257 more) per 1000 people) (moderate certainty evidence) and may have made little or no difference to major infection (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.54; 2 less (38 less to 62 more) per 1000 people) (low certainty evidence). It is uncertain if MMF decreased ovarian failure compared to IV cyclophosphamide because the certainty of the evidence was very low (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.18; 26 less (39 less to 49 more) per 1000 people). Studies were not generally designed to measure ESKD.MMF combined with tacrolimus may have increased complete disease remission (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.07 to 5.30; 336 more (17 to 1048 more) per 1000 people (low certainty evidence) compared with IV cyclophosphamide, however the effects on alopecia, diarrhoea, ovarian failure, and major infection remain uncertain. Compared to standard of care, the effects of biologics on most outcomes were uncertain because of low to very low certainty of evidence.Maintenance therapyNine studies (767 participants; median 30 months duration (range 6 to 63 months)) reported maintenance therapy. In maintenance therapy, disease relapse is probably increased with azathioprine compared with MMF (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.55; 114 more (30 to 236 more) per 1000 people (moderate certainty evidence). Multiple other interventions were compared as maintenance therapy, but patient-outcome data were sparse leading to imprecise estimates., Authors' Conclusions: In this review update, studies assessing treatment for proliferative lupus nephritis were not designed to assess death (all causes) or ESKD. MMF may lead to increased complete disease remission compared with IV cyclophosphamide, with an acceptable adverse event profile, although evidence certainty was low and included the possibility of no difference. Calcineurin combined with lower dose MMF may improve induction of disease remission compared with IV cyclophosphamide, but the comparative safety profile of these therapies is uncertain. Azathioprine may increase disease relapse as maintenance therapy compared with MMF.

Background: Most people who receive a kidney transplant die from either cardiovascular disease or cancer before their transplant fails. The most common reason for someone with a kidney transplant to lose the function of their transplanted kidney necessitating return to dialysis is chronic kidney transplant scarring. Immunosuppressant drugs have side effects that increase risks of cardiovascular disease, cancer and chronic kidney transplant scarring. Belatacept may provide sufficient immunosuppression while avoiding unwanted side effects of other immunosuppressant drugs. However, high rates of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD) have been reported when belatacept is used in particular kidney transplant recipients at high dosage., Objectives: 1) Compare the relative efficacy of belatacept versus any other primary immunosuppression regimen for preventing acute rejection, maintaining kidney transplant function, and preventing death. 2) Compare the incidence of several adverse events: PTLD; other malignancies; chronic transplant kidney scarring (IF/TA); infections; change in blood pressure, lipid and blood sugar control. 3) Assess any variation in effects by study, intervention and recipient characteristics, including: differences in pre-transplant Epstein Barr virus serostatus; belatacept dosage; and donor-category (living, standard criteria deceased, or extended criteria deceased)., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 1 September 2014 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared belatacept versus any other immunosuppression regimen in kidney transplant recipients were eligible for inclusion., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently extracted data for study quality and transplant outcomes and synthesized results using random effects meta-analysis, expressed as risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI).  Subgroup analyses and univariate meta-regression were used to investigate potential heterogeneity., Main Results: We included five studies that compared belatacept and calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) that reported data from a total of 1535 kidney transplant recipients. Of the five studies, three (478 participants) compared belatacept and cyclosporin and two (43 recipients) compared belatacept and tacrolimus. Co-interventions included basiliximab (4 studies, 1434 recipients); anti-thymocyte globulin (1 study, 89 recipients); alemtuzumab (1 study, 12 recipients); mycophenolate mofetil (MMF, 5 studies, 1509 recipients); sirolimus (1 study, 26 recipients) and prednisone (5 studies, 1535 recipients).Up to three years following transplant, belatacept and CNI-treated recipients were at similar risk of dying (4 studies, 1516 recipients: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.44), losing their kidney transplant and returning to dialysis (4 studies, 1516 recipients: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.38), and having an episode of acute rejection (4 studies, 1516 recipients: RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.86). Belatacept-treated kidney transplant recipients were 28% less likely to have chronic kidney scarring (3 studies, 1360 recipients: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.94) and also had better graft function (measured glomerular filtration rate (GFR) (3 studies 1083 recipients): 10.89 mL/min/1.73 m², 95% CI 4.01 to 17.77; estimated GFR (4 studies, 1083 recipients): MD 9.96 mL/min/1.73 m², 95% CI 3.28 to 16.64) than CNI-treated recipients. Blood pressure was lower (systolic (2 studies, 658 recipients): MD -7.51 mm Hg, 95% CI -10.57 to -4.46; diastolic (2 studies, 658 recipients): MD -3.07 mm Hg, 95% CI -4.83 to -1.31, lipid profile was better (non-HDL (3 studies 1101 recipients): MD -12.25 mg/dL, 95% CI -17.93 to -6.57; triglycerides (3 studies 1101 recipients): MD -24.09 mg/dL, 95% CI -44.55 to -3.64), and incidence of new-onset diabetes after transplant was reduced by 39% (4 studies (1049 recipients): RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.93) among belatacept-treated versus CNI-treated recipients.Risk of PTLD was similar in belatacept and CNI-treated recipients (4 studies, 1516 recipients: RR 2.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 12.66) and was no different among recipients who received different belatacept dosages (high versus low dosage: ratio of risk ratios (RRR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.80, test of difference = 0.96) or among those who were Epstein Barr virus seronegative compared with those who were seropositive before their kidney transplant (seronegative versus seropositive; RRR 1.49, 95% CI 0.15 to 14.76, test for difference = 0.73).The belatacept dose used (high versus low), type of donor kidney the recipient received (extended versus standard criteria) and whether the kidney transplant recipient received tacrolimus or cyclosporin made no difference to kidney transplant survival, incidence of acute rejection or estimated GFR. Selective outcome reporting meant that data for some key subgroup comparisons were sparse and that estimates of the effect of treatment in these groups of recipients remain imprecise., Authors' Conclusions: There is no evidence of any difference in the effectiveness of belatacept and CNI in preventing acute rejection, graft loss and death, but treatment with belatacept is associated with less chronic kidney scarring and better kidney transplant function. Treatment with belatacept is also associated with better blood pressure and lipid profile and a lower incidence of diabetes versus treatment with a CNI. Important side effects (particularly PTLD) remain poorly reported and so the relative benefits and harms of using belatacept remain unclear. Whether short-term advantages of treatment with belatacept are maintained over the medium- to long-term or translate into better cardiovascular outcomes or longer kidney transplant survival with function remains unclear. Longer-term, fully reported and published studies comparing belatacept versus tacrolimus are needed to help clinicians decide which patients might benefit most from using belatacept.

Background: Cyclophosphamide, in combination with corticosteroids has been used to induce remission in proliferative lupus nephritis, the most common kidney manifestation of the multisystem disease, systemic lupus erythematosus. Cyclophosphamide therapy has reduced mortality from over 70% in the 1950s and 1960s to less than 10% in recent years. Cyclophosphamide combined with corticosteroids preserves kidney function but is only partially effective and may cause ovarian failure, infection and bladder toxicity. Several new agents, including mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), suggest reduced toxicity with equivalent rates of remission. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004., Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of different immunosuppressive treatments in biopsy-proven proliferative lupus nephritis., Search Methods: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register (up to 15 April 2012) through contact with the Trials' Search Coordinator using search terms relevant to this review., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing any treatments for biopsy-proven lupus nephritis in both adult and paediatric patients with class III, IV, V +III and V +IV lupus nephritis were included. All immunosuppressive treatments were considered., Data Collection and Analysis: Data were abstracted and quality assessed independently by two authors, with differences resolved by discussion. Dichotomous outcomes were reported as risk ratio (RR) and measurements on continuous scales reported as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI)., Main Results: We identified 50 RCTs involving 2846 participants. Of these, 45 studies (2559 participants) investigated induction therapy, and six studies (514 participants), considered maintenance therapy.Compared with intravenous (IV) cyclophosphamide, MMF was as effective in achieving stable kidney function (5 studies, 523 participants: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.18) and complete remission of proteinuria (6 studies, 686 participants: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.58). No differences in mortality (7 studies, 710 participants: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.98) or major infection (6 studies, 683 participants: RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.68) were observed. A significant reduction in ovarian failure (2 studies, 498 participants: RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.80) and alopecia (2 studies, 522 participants: RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.86) was observed with MMF. In maintenance therapy, the risk of renal relapse (3 studies, 371 participants: RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.71) was significantly higher with azathioprine compared with MMF. Multiple other interventions were compared but outcome data were relatively sparse. Overall study quality was variable. The internal validity of the design, conduct and analysis of the included RCTs was difficult to assess in some studies because of the omission of important methodological details. No study adequately reported all domains of the risk of bias assessment so that elements of internal bias may be present., Authors' Conclusions: 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.