Long-term efficacy and safety of the Lupus-Cruces Nephritis protocol: a propensity score study of the Lupus-Cruces and Lupus-Bordeaux cohorts.

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 RHEUMATOLOGY
Guillermo Ruiz-Irastorza, Beatriz Marín-García, Luis Dueña-Bartolomé, Diana Paredes Ruiz, Amaia Osorio, Estibaliz Lazaro
{"title":"Long-term efficacy and safety of the Lupus-Cruces Nephritis protocol: a propensity score study of the Lupus-Cruces and Lupus-Bordeaux cohorts.","authors":"Guillermo Ruiz-Irastorza, Beatriz Marín-García, Luis Dueña-Bartolomé, Diana Paredes Ruiz, Amaia Osorio, Estibaliz Lazaro","doi":"10.1136/lupus-2025-001562","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the efficacy and toxicity of the Lupus-Cruces Nephritis (LCN) protocol compared with standard of care (SOC) with cyclophosphamide (CYC) or mycophenolate in patients with lupus nephritis (LN) during an extended follow-up time up to 10 years.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with biopsy-proven class III, IV or V LN treated with LCN were compared with SOC. Patients in the LCN were treated with a CYC plus repeated methylprednisolone pulse-based regimen. The achievement of complete renal response (CRR) and the progression to chronic kidney disease (CKD) were the two main outcomes. Glucocorticoid (GC)-related toxicity, major infections and damage accrual were also analysed. A propensity score (PS)-adjusted multivariate analysis was used to overcome the confounding-by-indication bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>147 patients were included in this study (47 LCN and 100 SOC). CRR at 12 months was 85% vs 44%, respectively (p<0.001). Eventually, 96% patients in the LCN group achieved CRR vs 74% patients in the SOC (p=0.002). In the multivariate PS-adjusted Cox model, LCN patients were more likely to eventually achieve CRR (PS-adjusted HR 3.5, 95% CI 2.2 to 5.5, p<0.001). The risk of progression to CKD was lower in LCN patients (PS-adjusted HR 0.3, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.82, p=0.019). The risks of GC-induced toxicity, renal or GC-related damage accrual and major infections were also lower in the LCN group: adjusted HR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.39; PS-adjusted HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.4; PS-adjusted HR 0.2, 95% CI 0.046 to 0.95; respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study confirms the LCN protocol as an effective and safe, in addition to widely available and affordable, regimen for the induction therapy of LN.</p>","PeriodicalId":18126,"journal":{"name":"Lupus Science & Medicine","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12107586/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lupus Science & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/lupus-2025-001562","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To assess the efficacy and toxicity of the Lupus-Cruces Nephritis (LCN) protocol compared with standard of care (SOC) with cyclophosphamide (CYC) or mycophenolate in patients with lupus nephritis (LN) during an extended follow-up time up to 10 years.

Methods: Patients with biopsy-proven class III, IV or V LN treated with LCN were compared with SOC. Patients in the LCN were treated with a CYC plus repeated methylprednisolone pulse-based regimen. The achievement of complete renal response (CRR) and the progression to chronic kidney disease (CKD) were the two main outcomes. Glucocorticoid (GC)-related toxicity, major infections and damage accrual were also analysed. A propensity score (PS)-adjusted multivariate analysis was used to overcome the confounding-by-indication bias.

Results: 147 patients were included in this study (47 LCN and 100 SOC). CRR at 12 months was 85% vs 44%, respectively (p<0.001). Eventually, 96% patients in the LCN group achieved CRR vs 74% patients in the SOC (p=0.002). In the multivariate PS-adjusted Cox model, LCN patients were more likely to eventually achieve CRR (PS-adjusted HR 3.5, 95% CI 2.2 to 5.5, p<0.001). The risk of progression to CKD was lower in LCN patients (PS-adjusted HR 0.3, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.82, p=0.019). The risks of GC-induced toxicity, renal or GC-related damage accrual and major infections were also lower in the LCN group: adjusted HR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.39; PS-adjusted HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.4; PS-adjusted HR 0.2, 95% CI 0.046 to 0.95; respectively.

Conclusions: This study confirms the LCN protocol as an effective and safe, in addition to widely available and affordable, regimen for the induction therapy of LN.

狼疮-克鲁斯肾炎方案的长期疗效和安全性:狼疮-克鲁斯和狼疮-波尔多队列的倾向评分研究。
目的:在长达10年的延长随访期间,评估狼疮性肾炎(LCN)方案与环磷酰胺(CYC)或霉酚酸盐标准护理(SOC)方案在狼疮性肾炎(LN)患者中的疗效和毒性。方法:将活检证实的III、IV、V级LN患者与SOC进行比较。LCN患者接受CYC +重复甲基强的松龙脉冲治疗方案。实现完全肾反应(CRR)和进展为慢性肾脏疾病(CKD)是两个主要结局。分析了糖皮质激素(GC)相关毒性、主要感染和损害发生情况。采用倾向评分(PS)校正的多变量分析来克服指征混杂偏倚。结果:147例患者纳入本研究,其中LCN 47例,SOC 100例。12个月时的CRR分别为85%和44%(结论:本研究证实LCN方案是一种有效和安全的方案,除了广泛可用和负担得起的LN诱导治疗方案之外。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Lupus Science & Medicine
Lupus Science & Medicine RHEUMATOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
88
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Lupus Science & Medicine is a global, peer reviewed, open access online journal that provides a central point for publication of basic, clinical, translational, and epidemiological studies of all aspects of lupus and related diseases. It is the first lupus-specific open access journal in the world and was developed in response to the need for a barrier-free forum for publication of groundbreaking studies in lupus. The journal publishes research on lupus from fields including, but not limited to: rheumatology, dermatology, nephrology, immunology, pediatrics, cardiology, hepatology, pulmonology, obstetrics and gynecology, and psychiatry.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信