Efficacy and safety of voclosporin versus placebo for lupus nephritis (AURORA 1): a double-blind, randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Voclosporin, a novel calcineurin inhibitor approved for the treatment of adults with lupus nephritis, improved complete renal response rates in patients with lupus nephritis in a phase 2 trial. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of voclosporin for the treatment of lupus nephritis. METHODS: This multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial was done in 142 hospitals and clinics across 27 countries. Patients with a diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus with lupus nephritis according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria, and a kidney biopsy within 2 years that showed class III, IV, or V (alone or in combination with class III or IV) were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to oral voclosporin (23·7 mg twice daily) or placebo, on a background of mycophenolate mofetil (1 g twice daily) and rapidly tapered low-dose oral steroids, by use of an interactive web response system. The primary endpoint was complete renal response at 52 weeks defined as a composite of urine protein creatinine ratio of 0·5 mg/mg or less, stable renal function (defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] ≥60 mL/min/1·73 m2 or no confirmed decrease from baseline in eGFR of >20%), no administration of rescue medication, and no more than 10 mg prednisone equivalent per day for 3 or more consecutive days or for 7 or more days during weeks 44 through 52, just before the primary endpoint assessment. Safety was also assessed. Efficacy analysis was by intention-to-treat and safety analysis by randomised patients receiving at least one dose of study treatment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03021499. FINDINGS: Between April 13, 2017, and Oct 10, 2019, 179 patients were assigned to the voclosporin group and 178 to the placebo group. The primary endpoint of complete renal response at week 52 was achieved in significantly more patients in the voclosporin group than in the placebo group (73 [41%] of 179 patients vs 40 [23%] of 178 patients; odds ratio 2·65; 95% CI 1·64-4·27; p<0·0001). The adverse event profile was balanced between the two groups; serious adverse events occurred in 37 (21%) of 178 in the voclosporin group and 38 (21%) of 178 patients in the placebo group. The most frequent serious adverse event involving infection was pneumonia, occurring in 7 (4%) patients in the voclosporin group and in 8 (4%) patients in the placebo group. A total of six patients died during the study or study follow-up period (one [<1%] patient in the voclosporin group and five [3%] patients in the placebo group). None of the events leading to death were considered by the investigators to be related to the study treatments. INTERPRETATION: Voclosporin in combination with MMF and low-dose steroids led to a clinically and statistically superior complete renal response rate versus MMF and low-dose steroids alone, with a comparable safety profile. This finding is an important advancement in the treatment of patients with active lupus nephritis. FUNDING: Aurinia Pharmaceuticals.

Voclosporin: a novel calcineurin inhibitor with no impact on mycophenolic acid levels in patients with SLE.

BACKGROUND: An open-label phase 1 study was conducted to evaluate the effect of voclosporin following dosing with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) on blood levels of mycophenolic acid (MPA, the active moiety of MMF) and MPA glucuronide (MPAG, the pharmacologically inactive metabolite of MMF) in subjects with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and to assess the safety and tolerability of the combination. METHODS: MMF was orally administered at a dose of 1 g twice a day for at least 28 days prior to the study and continued at the same dose throughout the study. Voclosporin was orally administered at a dose of 23.7 mg twice a day for 7 consecutive days (Days 1-7), starting on the evening of Day 1 and ending with the morning dose on Day 7. Dense pharmacokinetic blood samples were collected pre-dose in the morning and from 0.25 to 12 h after the morning doses. Analyses were derived by non-compartmental methods. RESULTS: In 24 patients, MPA exposure [maximum serum concentration (Cmax) and area under the concentration curve from time 0 to 12 h (AUC0-12)] was similar in the presence and absence of voclosporin, with treatment ratios of 0.94 and 1.09, respectively [Cmax 16.5 µg/mL (Day 1) versus 15.8 (Day 7), AUC0-12 39.1 µg/h/mL (Day 1) versus 40.8 (Day 7)]. MPAG exposure showed a small increase in the presence of voclosporin (12% for Cmax and 27% for AUC0-12). Combination therapy was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: There is no clinically meaningful interaction between voclosporin and MMF. As changes in exposure to MPA may affect efficacy and safety, these data confirm that voclosporin and MMF can be administered concomitantly without the need for dose adjustment.

A randomized, controlled double-blind study comparing the efficacy and safety of dose-ranging voclosporin with placebo in achieving remission in patients with active lupus nephritis.

Calcineurin inhibitors added to standard-of-care induction therapy for lupus nephritis (LN) may increase complete renal remission (CRR) rates. The AURA-LV study tested the novel calcineurin inhibitor voclosporin for efficacy and safety in active LN. AURA-LV was a Phase 2, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of two doses of voclosporin (23.7 mg or 39.5 mg, each twice daily) versus placebo in combination with mycophenolate mofetil (2 g/d) and rapidly tapered low-dose oral corticosteroids for induction of remission in LN. The primary endpoint was CRR at 24 weeks; the secondary endpoint was CRR at 48 weeks. Two hundred sixty-five subjects from 79 centers in 20 countries were recruited and randomized to treatment for 48 weeks. CRR at week 24 was achieved by 29 (32.6%) subjects in the low-dose voclosporin group, 24 (27.3%) subjects in the high-dose voclosporin group, and 17 (19.3%) subjects in the placebo group (OR=2.03 for low-dose voclosporin versus placebo). The significantly greater CRR rate in the low-dose voclosporin group persisted at 48 weeks, and CRRs were also significantly more common in the high-dose voclosporin group compared to placebo at 48 weeks. There were more serious adverse events in both voclosporin groups, and more deaths in the low-dose group compared to placebo and high-dose voclosporin groups (11.2%, 1.1%, and 2.3%, respectively). These results suggest that the addition of low-dose voclosporin to mycophenolate mofetil and corticosteroids for induction therapy of active LN results in a superior renal response compared to mycophenolate mofetil and corticosteroids alone, but higher rates of adverse events including death were observed.

Mycophenolate versus azathioprine as maintenance therapy for lupus nephritis.

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.).

Mycophenolate mofetil or intravenous cyclophosphamide for lupus nephritis with poor kidney function: a subgroup analysis of the Aspreva Lupus Management Study.

BACKGROUND: Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) frequently is used as an alternative to intravenous cyclophosphamide to treat lupus nephritis. Whether MMF is adequate for patients with severely decreased kidney function at the time of treatment is uncertain. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a post hoc subgroup analysis of patients with low estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs) from a large trial of MMF compared to cyclophosphamide in lupus nephritis. SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS: We included all patients with an eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m(2) from the Aspreva Lupus Management Study (ALMS). INTERVENTION: MMF (target, 3 g/d) compared to monthly intravenous cyclophosphamide (0.5-1 g/m(2)). OUTCOMES: We compared the proportion of patients that responded to therapy and change in eGFR over 24 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: Response was evaluated by a decrease in proteinuria and stabilization or improvement of serum creatinine level. RESULTS: Of 370 patients in ALMS, 32 were included in the subgroup analysis: 20 randomly assigned to MMF and 12 randomly assigned to cyclophosphamide treatment. The patients included were similar at baseline between groups. Four (20.0%) patients treated with MMF responded compared with 2 (16.7%) patients treated with cyclophosphamide (risk ratio, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.3-5.1; P = 0.9). eGFR in the MMF group improved more quickly than in the cyclophosphamide group, by 1.51 (95% CI, 0.99-2.02) mL/min/1.73 m(2) each week (P < 0.001). Serious adverse events occurred in 9 (45.0%) MMF-treated patients and 7 (63.6%) cyclophosphamide-treated patients (P = 0.5). LIMITATIONS: Small sample size and post hoc subgroup of a larger trial. CONCLUSIONS: We did not detect a difference in the primary outcome of response in patients with low eGFR treated with MMF or cyclophosphamide. However, MMF may result in quicker recovery of kidney function compared with those treated with cyclophosphamide. Larger studies including more patients with poor kidney function are warranted.

Real-world treatment utilization and economic implications of lupus nephritis disease activity in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Lupus nephritis (LN) is a common and severe complication of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), with approximately 40% of patients with SLE developing LN. Even with treatment, 10%-30% of patients will progress to end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Although many studies have assessed the clinical value of low disease activity in LN, the economic implications are less defined. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate treatment utilization and health care costs associated with active disease, low disease activity, and ESRD in patients with LN. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of Optum pharmacy and medical claims data from 2015 to 2019 was performed and included patients with a diagnosis of SLE (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision or Tenth Revision codes 710.0 or M32, respectively) and additional prespecified criteria for LN. Total health care payer costs for medical and pharmacy services and treatment utilization for commonly prescribed medications were determined for periods of low disease activity, active disease, or ESRD. RESULTS: A total of 21,251 patients (mean age 60.3 years; 87% female; 55% White patients and 18% Black patients) with a mean follow-up period of 30.6 months were included; the majority of patients had active disease (67.3%), followed by low disease activity (51.3%), and ESRD (10.5%). Glucocorticoids were used 2 times more often and mycophenolate mofetil was used 4 times more often in patients with active disease vs low disease activity. Glucocorticoids, mycophenolate mofetil, and tacrolimus were more commonly used in patients with ESRD vs those with low disease activity. Mean medical costs were $4,777 per month in active disease and $18,084 per month in ESRD vs $2,523 per month in low disease activity. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment burden and costs are high for patients with active disease and ESRD in LN. Treatments that allow patients to achieve and maintain low disease activity may help improve patient outcomes and reduce medication use and overall health care costs. DISCLOSURES: Maria Dall'Era and Kenneth Kalunian are consultants of Aurinia Pharmaceuticals. Eric Turowski, Vanessa Birardi, Neil Solomons, Simrat Randhawa, and Paola Mina-Osorio are employees and stockholders of Aurinia Pharmaceuticals. Michael Eaddy is a former employee of Xcenda, LLC. Augustina Ogbonnaya and Eileen Farrelly are employees of Xcenda, LLC, which was contracted by Aurinia Pharmaceuticals to assist in the conduct of this study and the writing of this manuscript. Aurinia Pharmaceuticals provided funding for this study and the preparation of the manuscript. Aurinia Pharmaceuticals had a role in writing the report and decision to submit for publication.

Update on the Efficacy and Safety Profile of Voclosporin: An Integrated Analysis of Clinical Trials in Lupus Nephritis.

OBJECTIVE: This integrated analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of voclosporin, a novel calcineurin inhibitor, at 23.7 mg twice daily in combination with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and oral glucocorticoids in lupus nephritis (LN) using pooled data from two large phase II and phase III clinical trials. The purpose was to expand the pool of patients for safety analyses and to increase power for efficacy analyses in patient subpopulations. METHODS: Aurinia Urinary Protein Reduction in Active Lupus with Voclosporin (AURA-LV) (phase II) and Aurinia Renal Response in Active Lupus With Voclosporin (AURORA 1) (phase III) were randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials with similar designs and end points comparing voclosporin to control in combination with MMF and oral glucocorticoids for the treatment of LN. The primary efficacy outcome of the integrated analysis was complete renal response (CRR) at approximately one year (Week 48 data from AURA-LV and Week 52 from AURORA 1). Safety was assessed throughout the trials. RESULTS: Overall, 534 patients (268 voclosporin; 266 control) were included in the integrated analysis. Significantly more patients achieved a CRR at one year in the voclosporin group than in the control group (43.7% vs. 23.3%; OR 2.76; 95% CI 1.88, 4.05 P < 0.0001). The incidence of adverse events (AEs) was similar (91.4% voclosporin; 87.2% control). Most AEs were mild to moderate in severity; the most commonly reported AEs were classified as infections and infestations (62.2% voclosporin; 54.9% control) and gastrointestinal disorders (45.3% voclosporin; 35.3% placebo). No new or unexpected safety signals were detected. CONCLUSIONS: This integrated analysis demonstrates the efficacy and safety of voclosporin in the treatment of LN across the diverse racial and ethnic groups studied.

Predictors of treatment response in a lupus nephritis population: lessons from the Aspreva Lupus Management Study (ALMS) trial.

OBJECTIVES: To identify predictors of overall lupus and lupus nephritis (LN) responses in patients with LN. METHODS: Data from the Aspreva Lupus Management Study (ALMS) trial cohort was used to identify baseline predictors of response at 6 months. Endpoints were major clinical response (MCR), improvement, complete renal response (CRR) and partial renal response (PRR). Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and cross-validation in randomly split samples were utilised. Predictors were ranked by the percentage of times selected by LASSO and prediction performance was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) curve. RESULTS: We studied 370 patients in the ALMS induction trial. Improvement at 6 months was associated with older age (OR=1.03 (95% CI: 1.01 to 1.05) per year), normal haemoglobin (1.85 (1.16 to 2.95) vs low haemoglobin), active lupus (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group A or B) in haematological and mucocutaneous domains (0.61 (0.39 to 0.97) and 0.50 (0.31 to 0.81)), baseline damage (SDI>1 vs =0) (0.38 (0.16 to 0.91)) and 24-hour urine protein (0.63 (0.50 to 0.80)). LN duration 2-4 years (0.43 (0.19 to 0.97) vs <1 year) and 24-hour urine protein (0.63 (0.45 to 0.89)) were negative predictors of CRR. LN duration 2-4 years (0.45 (0.24 to 0.83) vs <1 year) negatively predicted PRR. The AUROCs of models for improvement, CRR and PRR were 0.56, 0.55 and 0.51 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline variables predicted 6-month outcomes in patients with SLE. While the modest performance of models emphasises the need for new biomarkers to advance this field, the factors identified can help identify those patients who may require novel treatment strategies.

Mycophenolate mofetil and intravenous cyclophosphamide are similar as induction therapy for class V lupus nephritis.

Class V lupus nephritis (LN) occurs in one-fifth of biopsy-proven cases of systemic lupus erythematosus. To study the effectiveness of treatments in this group of patients, we pooled analysis of two large randomized controlled multicenter trials of patients with diverse ethnic and racial background who had pure class V disease. These patients received mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVC) as induction therapy for 24 weeks, with percentage change in proteinuria and serum creatinine as end points. Weighted mean differences, pooled odds ratios, and confidence intervals were calculated by using a random-effects model. A total of 84 patients with class V disease were divided into equal groups, each group had comparable entry variables but one received MMF and one received IVC. Within these groups, 33 patients on MMF and 32 patients on IVC completed 24 weeks of treatment. There were no differences between the groups in mean values for the measured end points. Similarly, no difference was found regarding the number of patients who did not complete the study or who died. In patients with nephrotic syndrome, no difference was noted between those treated with MMF and IVC regarding partial remission or change in urine protein. Hence we found that the response to MMF as induction treatment of patients with class V LN appears to be no different from that to IVC.

Influence of race/ethnicity on response to lupus nephritis treatment: the ALMS study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVC) as induction treatment for lupus nephritis (LN), by race, ethnicity and geographical region. METHODS: A total of 370 patients with active Class III-V LN received MMF (target dose 3.0 g/day) or IVC (0.5-1.0 g/m(2)/month), plus tapered prednisone, for 24 weeks. Renal function, global disease activity, immunological complement (C3 and C4) and anti-dsDNA levels are the outcomes that were assessed in this study. RESULTS: MMF was not superior to IVC as induction treatment (primary objective). There were important pre-specified interactions between treatment and race (P = 0.047) and treatment and region (P = 0.069) (primary endpoint). MMF and IVC response rates were similar for Asians (53.2 vs 63.9%; P = 0.24) and Whites (56.0 vs 54.2%; P = 0.83), but differed in the combined Other and Black group (60.4 vs 38.5%; P = 0.03). Fewer patients in the Black (40 vs 53.9%; P = 0.39) and Hispanic (38.8 vs 60.9%; P = 0.011) groups responded to IVC. Latin American patients had lower response to IVC (32 vs 60.7%; P = 0.003). Baseline disease characteristics were not predictive of response. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) was similar across groups. Serious AEs were slightly more prevalent among Asians. CONCLUSIONS: MMF and IVC have similar efficacy overall to short-term induction therapy for LN. However, race, ethnicity and geographical region may affect treatment response; more Black and Hispanic patients responded to MMF than IVC. As these factors are inter-related, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about their importance.

Mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclophosphamide for induction treatment of lupus nephritis.

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.

Establishing Surrogate Kidney End Points for Lupus Nephritis Clinical Trials: Development and Validation of a Novel Approach to Predict Future Kidney Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: End points currently used in lupus nephritis (LN) clinical trials lack uniformity and questionably reflect long-term kidney survival. This study was undertaken to identify short-term end points that predict long-term kidney outcomes for use in clinical trials. METHODS: A database of 944 patients with LN was assembled from 3 clinical trials and 12 longitudinal cohorts. Variables from the first 12 months of treatment after diagnosis of active LN (prediction period) were assessed as potential predictors of long-term outcomes in a 36-month follow-up period. The long-term outcomes examined were new or progressive chronic kidney disease (CKD), severe kidney injury (SKI), and the need for permanent renal replacement therapy (RRT). To predict the risk for each outcome, hazard index tools (HITs) were derived using multivariable analysis with Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Among 550 eligible subjects, 54 CKD, 55 SKI, and 22 RRT events occurred. Variables in the final CKD HIT were prediction-period CKD status, 12-month proteinuria, and 12-month serum creatinine level. The SKI HIT variables included prediction-period CKD status, International Society of Nephrology (ISN)/Renal Pathology Society (RPS) class, 12-month proteinuria, 12-month serum creatinine level, race, and an interaction between ISN/RPS class and 12-month proteinuria. The RRT HIT included age at diagnosis, 12-month proteinuria, and 12-month serum creatinine level. Each HIT validated well internally (c-indices 0.84-0.92) and in an independent LN cohort (c-indices 0.89-0.92). CONCLUSION: HITs, derived from short-term kidney responses to treatment, correlate with long-term kidney outcomes, and now must be validated as surrogate end points for LN clinical trials.

Identification of clinical and serological factors during induction treatment of lupus nephritis that are associated with renal outcome.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with clinical outcome in patients with lupus nephritis. METHODS: Data from the Aspreva Lupus Management Study (ALMS) were analysed. Using multivariate analysis, we assessed the prognostic value of demographic, clinical, laboratory and histopathological features on the frequency of either complete remission (CR) or treatment failure (TF) during the maintenance phase. RESULTS: Among the 370 subjects who entered the trial (complete population), non-Hispanic ethnicity was associated with a higher likelihood of CR (OR=2.0). Several factors were independently associated with a greater likelihood of TF, including: (1) anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) at trial entry (OR=12.7), (2) failure to reduce anti-dsDNA within 8 weeks (OR=2.9) and (3) failure to reduce urine protein:creatinine ratio (UP/C) by ≥25% within 8 weeks (OR=2.6). Among the 227 subjects who entered the maintenance phase (maintenance population), baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥90 mL/min/1.73 m(2) was associated with a greater likelihood of CR (OR=2.0), and UP/C >1 at the end of induction was associated with a lower likelihood of CR (OR=0.3). Induction treatment with intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVC) was associated with a lower likelihood of TF (OR=0.5), while lack of treatment with antimalarials (OR=2.4), failure to reduce anti-dsDNA during the first 8 weeks of induction (OR=3.5), failure to reduce UP/C during the first 8 weeks of induction (OR=2.1) and anti-dsDNA positivity at the end of induction (OR=8.3) were independently associated with a greater likelihood of TF. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates that levels of anti-dsDNA and UP/C during induction treatment are independently associated with renal outcome over the ensuing 3 years in both the complete and maintenance populations. Ethnicity is associated with renal outcome in just the complete population, and eGFR, induction treatment and treatment with antimalarials are associated with renal outcome in just the maintenance population.

Lupus nephritis: induction therapy in severe lupus nephritis--should MMF be considered the drug of choice?

Severe lupus nephritis is an aggressive disease that requires an aggressive approach to treatment. Recent randomized clinical trials showed that mycophenolate mofetil compared favorably with cyclophosphamide (traditional approach) for remission induction. Consequently, mycophenolate mofetil is now commonly recommended as first-line therapy. Nevertheless, the role of mycophenolate mofetil in treating severe lupus nephritis is unclear, because such patients were excluded from these trials. With this limitation as background, this work addresses the question of mycophenolate mofetil for induction therapy for severe lupus nephritis. We performed a systematic review of the outcomes of treating severe lupus nephritis with mycophenolate mofetil or cyclophosphamide. Because no studies directly addressed this question, these data were extracted from the published literature or obtained by personal communications from investigators. There is no universally accepted definition, and therefore, severe lupus nephritis was arbitrarily defined by renal histology, resistance to therapy, or level of kidney function at presentation. For each trial analyzed, we determined the partial and complete remission rates. Long-term outcomes were compared when available. The pooled results suggest that mycophenolate mofetil and cyclophosphamide are equally effective in inducing remission of severe lupus nephritis. However, relapse rates and risk of developing ESRD were higher for mycophenolate mofetil compared with cyclophosphamide. In conclusion, in the short term, mycophenolate mofetil and cyclophosphamide are about equal in inducing remission. However, long-term outcomes suggest better preservation of kidney function and fewer relapses with cyclophosphamide therapy. Therefore, mycophenolate mofetil should not yet be considered the induction drug of choice for severe lupus nephritis.

Treating pemphigus vulgaris with prednisone and mycophenolate mofetil: a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

Non-blinded trials of pemphigus vulgaris suggest that mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) may be beneficial. In a prospective, multicenter trial, outpatients with mild or moderate pemphigus vulgaris were randomized to MMF (2 or 3 g day(-1)) plus oral corticosteroids or placebo plus oral corticosteroids for 52 weeks. The primary end point was the proportion of patients in the placebo and combined MMF groups responding to treatment (absence of new, persistent oral or cutaneous lesions, and prednisone dose < or = 10 mg day(-1) from weeks 48 to 52). Of 96 randomized patients, 94 were given treatment and 75 completed the study. Treatment responses occurred in 40 of 58 patients (69.0%) in the combined MMF group and 23 of 36 (63.9%) in the placebo group (P=0.6558, 95% confidence interval -17.4 to 27.6). MMF-treated patients showed faster and more durable responses. In post hoc analyses, more patients taking MMF showed sustained responses for 3 or 6 months than did placebo patients. MMF was well tolerated. Although MMF did not show an advantage on the primary end point, there seemed to be a beneficial treatment effect on several secondary end points, including time to response and duration of response. Thus, MMF may be a potentially useful agent in patients with mild or moderate pemphigus vulgaris.