Use of mesna prophylaxis in patients with cyclophosphamide-treated ANCA-associated vasculitis: cross-sectional survey of practitioners.

Abstract

Background: There may be some diversity in the practice of co-prescribing 2-mercaptoethane sodium sulfonate (mesna) with cyclophosphamide (CYC) for ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV).

Objectives: To assess the practice of prescribing mesna prophylaxis for CYC-treated patients with AAV.

Methods: We invited authors of publications on AAV referenced in MEDLINE over the previous 10 years to participate in an anonymous online survey. Respondents were eligible if they were involved in CYC treatments for AAV. The survey asked about the characteristics of the respondents and their practice in using CYC and mesna to treat AAV and the underlying rationale. We compared 18 variables between mesna prescribers and their counterparts to identify factors associated with mesna use.

Results: In total, 139 eligible individuals completed the survey. The participants were from 34 countries and were essentially physicians (98%). Overall, 68%, 19% and 13% of respondents prescribed mesna systematically, never, or on a selective basis. As compared with never/selective-prescribers, systematic-prescribers were more often ≤ 39 years old (P = 0.008), more often used intermittent pulse therapy as the exclusive/predominant CYC administration scheme (P < 0.001), were more frequently based in France/Germany/Italy than in England/United States (P < 0.001), and more often indicated adherence to local standards (P = 0.003) or (inter)national guidelines for AAV (P < 0.001) as a rationale for their mesna practice. Never/selective-prescribers more commonly reported that their mesna prescription pattern had changed as compared with their former practice (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Systematic co-prescription of mesna is the prevailing practice for CYC treatments for AAV. The practice seems to involve practicability considerations and differs between generations.