west china medical publishers
Keyword
  • Title
  • Author
  • Keyword
  • Abstract
Advance search
Advance search

Search

find Keyword "Mycophenolate mofetil" 5 results
  • Effectiveness and Safety of Mycophenolate Mofetil for IgA Nephropathy: A Meta-Analysis

    Objective To systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) for IgA Nephropathy (IgAN). Methods Databases including CNKI, CBM, MEDLINE, PubMed, The Cochrane Library and SCI were searched from January 1997 to January 2012, and the domestic conference data and relevant published articles were also searched manually. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on MMF in treating IgAN were independently collected and screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria by two reviewers. The data were extracted, the quality of the included studies was assessed and cross-checked, and then meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.0 software. Results A total of 8 RCTs involving 272 patients with IgAN were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that: a) There were no significant differences in the overall effective rate (RR=0.72, 95%CI 0.21 to 2.52, P=0.61) between the MMF group and the placebo group, but the overall effective rate was higher in the MMF+hormone group than the CTX+hormone group (RR=4.21, 95%CI 1.86 to 9.53, Plt;0.000 1) and other immunosuppressants +hormone groups (RR=3.03, 95%CI 1.47 to 6.25, P=0.003); and b) Adverse reaction: The overall incidence rate of adverse reaction in the MMF+hormone group was lower than the CTX+hormone group (RR=0.16, 95%CI 0.07 to 0.37, Plt;0.000 1). There were no significant differences in the elevated serum creatinine rate (RR=2.28, 95%CI 0.65 to 7.94, P=0.20) and the case number of developing end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (RR=2.37, 95%CI 0.44 to 12.83, P=0.32) between the MMF group and the control group. Conclusion MMF combined with hormone in treating IgAN can increase the overall effective rate and decrease the overall incidence rate of adverse reaction, but its effectiveness of improving long-term survival rate has to be further proved by conducting more high-quality, multi-center and large-scale clinical trials. MMF alone has the same effect as the placebo dose, and it shows no differences in elevated serum creatinine after the treatment compared with conventional therapies.

    Release date:2016-09-07 10:58 Export PDF Favorites Scan
  • Mycophenolate Mofetil versus Cyclophosphamide in Induction Therapy for Lupus Nephritis: A Systematic Review

    Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) versus cyclophosphamide (CTX) in the induction treatment for lupus nephritis (LN). Methods Such databases as MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCIE, The Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, CBM, and CNKI were searched from their establishment date to August of 2010 to retrieve the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about MMF versus CTX for LN. The methodology quality of included studies was evaluated. The efficacy indexes i.e. the clinical total remission (TR), complete remission (CR), partial remission (PR), pathological activity index, the chronicity index and complete induction therapy rate (CIR), and the safety indexes i.e. the rate of patient intolerance-to-drug, the incidence of infection, leukopenia and diarrhea, were abstracted. Finally the Meta-analyses were conducted by using Cochrane Collaboration’s RevMan 4.2. Results Eight RCTs involving 773 patients met the inclusive criteria. The results of meta-analyses showed that the total remission rate (OR=1.49, 95%CI 1.10 to 2.02) and complete remission rate (OR=1.67, 95%CI 1.08 to 2.57) were significantly higher in the MMF group than the CTX group. There was no significant difference in the rate of partial remission, the complete induction rate, the rate of patient intolerance-to-drug, the incidence of infection and leukopenia. However, the incidence of diarrhea was higher in the MMF group (OR=2.99, 95%CI 1.87 to 4.78). The results of meta-analyses for type IV LN were the same. Conclusion MMF is superior to CTX in the induction therapy to Lupus Nephritis (type III, IV, V), but the incidence of diarrhea is higher.

    Release date:2016-09-07 11:06 Export PDF Favorites Scan
  • Mycophenolate Mofetil for Proliferative Lupus Nephritis: A Systematic Review

    Objective To assess the effectiveness and safety of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in the treatment of proliferative lupus nephritis. Methods We searched CBM (November 1979 to February 2006), Chinese Cochrane Centre Database (2005), The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2005), MEDLINE (November 1966 to February 2006) and EMBASE (1975 to February 2006) for randomize controlled trials. Data were extracted and analyzed using The Cochrane Collaboration’s RevMan 4.2.7. Results Nine randomize controlled trials involving 512 patients met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed that the total clinical effective rate and complete remission rate were not significantly higher for MMF than for cyclophosphamide, azathioprine, or both. Renal survival rate and relapse rate of MMF were not significantly different from those for cyclophosphamide, azathioprine, or both. Patient survival rate and safety of MMF were significantly improved compared with cyclophosphamide, azathioprine, or both. Conclusion More large-scale multi-center randomized trials are needed to investigate the role of MMF in the treatment of proliferative lupus nephritis.

    Release date:2016-09-07 02:17 Export PDF Favorites Scan
  • Efficacy and Safety of Mycophenolate Mofetil for Henoch-Schonlein Purpura Nephritis: A Systematic Review

    ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) for Henoch-Schonlein purpura nephritis (HSPN). MethodsDatabases such as PubMed, EMbase, CENTRAL, VIP, CNKI, CBM and WanFang Data were electronically searched for comprehensively collecting the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of MMF for HSPN from inception to December, 2013. Two reviewers independently screened studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data and evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies. Then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. ResultsA total of 10 RCTs involving 426 patients (231 in the trial group and 195 in the control group) were included. The trial group was treated with MMF and corticosteroids, and the control group was treated with corticosteroids monotherapy or combined with cyclophosphamide (CTX), leflunomide (LEF), or azathioprine (AZA). The results of meta-analysis showed that, as for efficacy, no significant difference was found between the two groups after six-mouth treatment (OR=1.36, 95%CI 0.67 to 2.73, P=0.85), while after twelve-mouth treatment, MMF was superior to CTX with a significant difference (OR=6.58, 95%CI 2.45 to 17.33, P=0.002). In addition, the efficacy of MMF was still superior to the azathioprine group, but not better than either LEF or prednisone monotherapy. Lower incidence of side effects were found in the MMF group, compared with the CTX group (OR=0.25, 95%CI 0.13 to 0.45, P < 0.000 01) and the prednisone monotherapy group (OR=0.26, 95%CI, 0.09 to 0.79, P=0.02), while there was no significant difference between the MMF group and the LEF group in side effects. ConclusionBased on the current evidence, the efficacy of MMF for HSPN is better than CTX, and its side effects are less than those of CTX and prednisone.

    Release date: Export PDF Favorites Scan
  • Efficacy and Safety of Enteric-coated Mycophenolate Sodium versus Mycophenolate Mofetil in Renal Transplant Recipients: A Meta-analysis

    ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS) versus mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in kidney transplant recipients. MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMbase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library (Issue 9, 2013), CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data from their inception to November 2013, to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of EC-MPS versus MMF in kidney transplant recipients. References of included studies were also retrieved. Two reviewers independently screened studies according to the exclusion and inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. ResultsA total of 8 RCTs involving 2 400 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis indicated that there were no significant differences between the two groups at the end of 4-week, 6-month, 12-month and 48-month follow-up in the acute rejection rate (4-weeks:RR=0.33, 95%CI 0.01 to 8.05; 6 months:RR=0.94, 95%CI 0.73 to 1.22; 12 months:RR=0.88, 95%CI 0.63 to 1.24; 4 years:RR=0.93, 95%CI 0.47 to 1.84). There were no significant differences between the two groups at the end of 6-month and 12-month follow-up in the chronic rejection rate (6 month:RR=0.66, 95%CI 0.27 to 1.58; 12 month:RR=0.57, 95%CI 0.29 to 1.15). There were no significant differences between the two groups at the end of 6-month, 12-month and 48-month follow-up in the graft loss or death rate (6-month:RR=0.79, 95%CI 0.41 to 1.50; 12-month:RR=0.76, 95%CI 0.40 to 1.43; 48-month:RR=1.38, 95%CI 0.59 to 3.23). As to the side effect, EC-MPS could significantly reduce the risk of pneumonia compared with MMF (RR=0.32, 95%CI 0.13 to 0.79). ConclusionBased on current evidences, EC-MPS is comparable with MMF for renal transplant patients in short-term effectiveness, and the incidence of pneumonia in the EC-MPS group is lower than the MMF group. Due to the limited quantity and quality of the studies, the conclusions should be validated by more high quality studies.

    Release date:2016-10-02 04:54 Export PDF Favorites Scan
1 pages Previous 1 Next

Format

Content