Single-center experience of induction therapy in non-systemic vasculitic neuropathy.

Christian Schneider, Meike K Wassermann, Gereon R Fink, Helmar C Lehmann
{"title":"Single-center experience of induction therapy in non-systemic vasculitic neuropathy.","authors":"Christian Schneider,&nbsp;Meike K Wassermann,&nbsp;Gereon R Fink,&nbsp;Helmar C Lehmann","doi":"10.1186/s42466-022-00198-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>No controlled studies for non-systemic vasculitic neuropathy treatment exist (NSVN). We compared the treatment response to induction therapy commonly used in clinical practice in NSVN.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective single-center study, 43 patients with biopsy-proven NSVN were analyzed. Patients were subdivided into groups depending on their initial treatment. Relapse rates, changes of motor and sensory symptoms, adverse events, predictors of relapses, and second-line treatment were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Initial treatment regimens were corticosteroid monotherapy, cyclophosphamide monotherapy, pulsed corticosteroid therapy, and combination therapy. Discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 6 of 43 patients. Clinical data did not differ between treatment groups. Within 12 months, 24.3% of patients relapsed. The median time to relapse was 4 (1.5, 6) months. No relapse occurred in the combination therapy group. However, there was no statistically significant difference in relapse-free survival between treatment groups (p = 0.58). Neither clinical data nor biopsy analysis predicted relapses sufficiently. As a second-line treatment, cyclophosphamide as mono- or combination therapy was used (7 of 9 patients) most frequently. One patient was treated with methotrexate, and one with IVIG.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Induction therapy used in clinical practice is effective and mainly well-tolerated in NSVN. Our data do not support an overall advantage of cyclophosphamide over corticosteroid monotherapy. Controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of induction and maintenance therapy in NSVN are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":19169,"journal":{"name":"Neurological Research and Practice","volume":" ","pages":"32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9377119/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurological Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42466-022-00198-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: No controlled studies for non-systemic vasculitic neuropathy treatment exist (NSVN). We compared the treatment response to induction therapy commonly used in clinical practice in NSVN.

Methods: In this retrospective single-center study, 43 patients with biopsy-proven NSVN were analyzed. Patients were subdivided into groups depending on their initial treatment. Relapse rates, changes of motor and sensory symptoms, adverse events, predictors of relapses, and second-line treatment were compared.

Results: Initial treatment regimens were corticosteroid monotherapy, cyclophosphamide monotherapy, pulsed corticosteroid therapy, and combination therapy. Discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 6 of 43 patients. Clinical data did not differ between treatment groups. Within 12 months, 24.3% of patients relapsed. The median time to relapse was 4 (1.5, 6) months. No relapse occurred in the combination therapy group. However, there was no statistically significant difference in relapse-free survival between treatment groups (p = 0.58). Neither clinical data nor biopsy analysis predicted relapses sufficiently. As a second-line treatment, cyclophosphamide as mono- or combination therapy was used (7 of 9 patients) most frequently. One patient was treated with methotrexate, and one with IVIG.

Conclusions: Induction therapy used in clinical practice is effective and mainly well-tolerated in NSVN. Our data do not support an overall advantage of cyclophosphamide over corticosteroid monotherapy. Controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of induction and maintenance therapy in NSVN are warranted.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

非全身性血管性神经病变诱导治疗的单中心经验。
背景:没有非全身性血管性神经病变治疗的对照研究(NSVN)。我们比较了NSVN临床中常用的诱导疗法的治疗反应。方法:在这项回顾性单中心研究中,对43例活检证实的NSVN患者进行了分析。根据患者的初始治疗情况,将患者细分为不同的组。复发率、运动和感觉症状的变化、不良事件、复发预测因素和二线治疗进行比较。结果:初始治疗方案为皮质类固醇单药治疗、环磷酰胺单药治疗、脉冲皮质类固醇治疗和联合治疗。43例患者中有6例因不良事件停药。治疗组间临床数据无差异。在12个月内,24.3%的患者复发。复发的中位时间为4(1.5,6)个月。联合治疗组无复发。治疗组间无复发生存率差异无统计学意义(p = 0.58)。临床资料和活检分析都不能充分预测复发。作为二线治疗,环磷酰胺作为单一或联合治疗(9例患者中有7例)使用最频繁。1例患者接受甲氨蝶呤治疗,1例接受IVIG治疗。结论:临床应用诱导治疗NSVN有效,且主要耐受良好。我们的数据不支持环磷酰胺优于皮质类固醇单药治疗的总体优势。有必要进行对照试验,比较NSVN诱导和维持治疗的有效性。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信