-
Zeitschrift Fur Rheumatologie Nov 2023The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) as induction therapy and low-dose tacrolimus as treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) as induction therapy and low-dose tacrolimus as treatment for lupus nephritis (LN).
METHODS
Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus and MMF as induction therapy for LN. We systematically reviewed RCTs and prospective cohort studies with a tacrolimus dose of 3 mg daily and performed a meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus as an induction treatment for LN in comparison to MMF.
RESULTS
The inclusion criteria were satisfied by eight studies (five RCTs and three prospective cohort studies) with a total of 408 individuals (289 for tacrolimus vs. MMF and 119 for low-dose tacrolimus). Tacrolimus and MMF had similar complete remission rates (odds ratio [OR] 1.028; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.589-1.796; p = 0.922). The partial remission rate did not differ between the tacrolimus and MMF groups (OR 1.400; 95% CI 0.741-2.646; p = 0.300). Tacrolimus and MMF showed no differences in proteinuria, serum albumin, serum creatinine, creatinine clearance, renal Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI), or extra-renal SLEDAI. The incidence of infection, severe infection, leukopenia, and hyperglycemia did not differ between the tacrolimus and MMF groups. However, herpes zoster infection was significantly less common in the tacrolimus group (OR 0.137; 95% CI 0.034-0.546; p = 0.005), whereas serum creatinine elevation was significantly higher in the tacrolimus group than in the MMF group (OR 8.148; 95% CI 1.369-48.50; p = 0.021). At 3 mg/d, tacrolimus was shown to be safe, well tolerated, and offered therapeutic benefits in all investigations.
CONCLUSION
Tacrolimus was comparable to MMF in terms of effectiveness and safety as an induction therapy for LN, with the exception of a reduced risk of herpes zoster infection and a rise in serum creatinine. In individuals with LN, 3 mg/d tacrolimus was proven to be efficacious and safe.
Topics: Humans; Tacrolimus; Lupus Nephritis; Mycophenolic Acid; Immunosuppressive Agents; Cyclophosphamide; Creatinine; Treatment Outcome; Herpes Zoster
PubMed: 36607421
DOI: 10.1007/s00393-022-01313-2 -
Transplant Infectious Disease : An... Feb 2023Leukopenia and neutropenia (L/N) may affect treatment decisions, potentially resulting in poor clinical and economic outcomes among kidney transplant recipients (KTRs)....
BACKGROUND
Leukopenia and neutropenia (L/N) may affect treatment decisions, potentially resulting in poor clinical and economic outcomes among kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). The burden of L/N is poorly quantified systematically. This systematic literature review aimed to summarize the incidence of, risk factors for, and clinical and economic outcomes associated with L/N post-KT.
METHODS
We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (from database inception-June 14, 2021) and conferences (past 3 years) to identify observational studies examining epidemiology, risk factors, or outcomes associated with L/N among adult KTRs.
RESULTS
Of 2081 records, 82 studies met inclusion criteria. Seventy-three studies reported the epidemiology of L/N post-KT. Pooled incidence of neutropenia, defined as absolute neutrophil counts (ANC) <1000/μl, ranged from 13% to 48% within 1-year post-transplant; ANC <500/μl ranged from 15% to 20%. Leukopenia, defined as white blood cell counts <3500/μl, was 19% to 83%. Eleven studies reported independent risk factors associated with L/N post-KT. D+/R- cytomegalovirus status, mycophenolic acid (MPA), and tacrolimus use were the most consistent risk factors across studies. Fourteen studies reported L/N-associated clinical outcomes. We noted a trend toward a positive association between neutropenia and acute rejection/opportunistic infections. Mixed findings were noted on the association between L/N and graft failure or mortality. Dosage modifications of valganciclovir, MPA, cotrimoxazole, and anti-thymoglobulin and the need for granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) use were common with L/N.
CONCLUSION
Findings suggest post-transplant L/N were common and associated with frequent modifications of immunosuppressive agents, requiring G-CSF use, and rejection or opportunistic infections. Findings highlight the need for interventions to reduce risk of L/N post-KT.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Kidney Transplantation; Neutropenia; Leukopenia; Valganciclovir; Immunosuppressive Agents; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Mycophenolic Acid; Anemia; Opportunistic Infections; Transplant Recipients; Graft Rejection
PubMed: 36508475
DOI: 10.1111/tid.14000 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2022Non-infectious intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis (NIIPPU) represent a heterogenous collection of autoimmune and inflammatory disorders isolated to or concentrated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Non-infectious intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis (NIIPPU) represent a heterogenous collection of autoimmune and inflammatory disorders isolated to or concentrated in the posterior structures of the eye. Because NIIPPU is typically a chronic condition, people with NIIPPU frequently require treatment with steroid-sparing immunosuppressive therapy. Methotrexate, mycophenolate, cyclosporine, azathioprine, and tacrolimus are non-biologic, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) which have been used to treat people with NIIPPU.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness and safety of selected DMARDs (methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, and azathioprine) in the treatment of NIIPPU in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE, Embase, the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, most recently on 16 April 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing selected DMARDs (methotrexate, mycophenolate, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, and azathioprine) with placebo, standard of care (topical steroids, with or without oral steroids), or with each other.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 RCTs with a total of 601 participants in this review. DMARDs versus control Two studies compared an experimental DMARD (cyclosporine A or enteric-coated mycophenolate [EC-MPS]) plus oral steroid with steroid monotherapy. We did not pool these results into a meta-analysis because the dose of cyclosporine used was much higher than that used in current clinical practice. The evidence is very uncertain about whether EC-MPS plus low-dose oral steroid results in a higher proportion of participants achieving control of inflammation over steroid monotherapy (risk ratio [RR] 2.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10 to 7.17; 1 study, 41 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was reported separately for right and left eyes. The evidence for improvement (lower logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) indicates better vision) between the groups is very uncertain (mean difference [MD] -0.03 and -0.10, 95% CI -0.96 to 0.90 and -0.27 to 0.07 for right and left, respectively; 1 study, 82 eyes; very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for the following outcomes: proportion of participants achieving a 2-line improvement in visual acuity, with confirmed macular edema, or achieving steroid-sparing control. The evidence for the proportion of participants requiring cessation of medication in the DMARD versus control group is very uncertain (RR 2.61, 95% CI 0.11 to 60.51; 1 study, 41 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Methotrexate versus mycophenolate We were able to combine two studies into a meta-analysis comparing methotrexate versus mycophenolate mofetil. Methotrexate probably results in a slight increase in the proportion of participants achieving control of inflammation, including steroid-sparing control, compared to mycophenolate at six months (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.50; 2 studies, 261 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Change in BCVA was reported per eye and the treatments likely result in little to no difference in change in vision (MD 0.01 logMAR higher [worse] for methotrexate versus mycophenolate; 2 studies, 490 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). No data were available for the proportion of participants achieving a 2-line improvement in visual acuity. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the proportion of participants with confirmed macular edema between methotrexate versus mycophenolate (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.30; 2 studies, 35 eyes; very low-certainty). Methotrexate versus mycophenolate may result in little to no difference in the proportion of participants requiring cessation of medication (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.27; 2 studies, 296 participants; low-certainty evidence). Steroids with or without azathioprine versus cyclosporine A Four studies compared steroids with or without azathioprine (oral steroids, intravenous [IV] steroids, or azathioprine) to cyclosporine A. We excluded two studies from the meta-analysis because the participants were treated with 8 mg to 15 mg/kg/day of cyclosporine A, a significantly higher dose than is utilized today because of concerns for nephrotoxicity. The remaining two studies were conducted in all Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada disease (VKH) populations and compared cyclosporine A to azathioprine or IV pulse-dose steroids. The evidence is very uncertain for whether the steroids with or without azathioprine or cyclosporine A influenced the proportion of participants achieving control of inflammation (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; 2 studies, 112 participants; very low-certainty evidence), achieving steroid-sparing control (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.25; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or requiring cessation of medication (RR 0.85, 95% 0.21 to 3.45; 2 studies, 91 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain for improvement in BCVA (MD 0.04 logMAR lower [better] with the steroids with or without azathioprine versus cyclosporine A; 2 studies, 91 eyes; very low-certainty evidence). There were no data available (with current cyclosporine A dosing) for the proportion of participants achieving a 2-line improvement in visual acuity or with confirmed macular edema. Studies not included in synthesis We were unable to include three studies in any of the comparisons (in addition to the aforementioned studies excluded based on historic doses of cyclosporine A). One was a dose-response study comparing cyclosporine A to cyclosporine G, a formulation which was never licensed and is not clinically available. We excluded another study from meta-analysis because it compared cyclosporine A and tacrolimus, considered to be of the same class (calcineurin inhibitors). We were unable to combine the third study, which examined tacrolimus monotherapy versus tacrolimus plus oral steroid, with any group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a paucity of data regarding which DMARD is most effective or safe in NIIPPU. Studies in general were small, heterogenous in terms of their design and outcome measures, and often did not compare different classes of DMARD with each other. Methotrexate is probably slightly more efficacious than mycophenolate in achieving control of inflammation, including steroid-sparing control (moderate-certainty evidence), although there was insufficient evidence to prefer one medication over the other in the VKH subgroup (very low-certainty evidence). Methotrexate may result in little to no difference in safety outcomes compared to mycophenolate.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Macular Edema; Cyclosporine; Mycophenolic Acid; Tacrolimus; Azathioprine; Methotrexate; Steroids; Immunosuppressive Agents; Panuveitis; Inflammation; Antirheumatic Agents
PubMed: 36315029
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014831.pub2 -
Pediatric Rheumatology Online Journal Aug 2022Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) is a rare form of vasculitis in children. SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 infection,...
BACKGROUND
Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) is a rare form of vasculitis in children. SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 infection, seems to trigger autoimmunity and new-onset autoimmune disease in pediatric and adult patients. We present a case of new-onset AAV following COVID-19 infection in an adolescent patient, and we review the literature of AAV following COVID-19 infection.
CASE PRESENTATION
An adolescent female with a history of asthma was diagnosed with mild COVID-19 infection and subsequently developed persistent cough, wheezing, hearing loss, arthralgias, and rash. Her imaging and laboratory workup showed pulmonary nodules and cavitary lesions, elevated inflammatory markers, negative infectious testing, and positive ANCA. She was treated with glucocorticoids, rituximab, and mycophenolate mofetil. At six-month follow-up, she had improvement in her symptoms, pulmonary function tests, imaging findings, and laboratory markers.
CONCLUSIONS
We report the second case of new-onset anti-PR3, C-ANCA vasculitis and the fourth case of pediatric-onset AAV following COVID-19 infection. A systematic review of the literature found 6 cases of new-onset AAV in adults after COVID-19 infection. Pediatric and adult patients who develop AAV post COVID-19 infection have few, if any, comorbidities, and show marked radiographic and symptomatic improvement after treatment. There is increasing evidence for COVID-19-induced autoimmunity in children and our case highlights the importance of considering AAV in a child following a recent COVID-19 infection because timely treatment may improve clinical outcomes.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Neutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody-Associated Vasculitis; Antibodies, Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic; COVID-19; Child; Exanthema; Female; Humans; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 35964067
DOI: 10.1186/s12969-022-00727-1 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Immunosuppressants have been applied in the remedy of idiopathic membranous nephropathy (IMN) extensively. Nevertheless, the efficacy and safety of immunosuppressants...
Immunosuppressants have been applied in the remedy of idiopathic membranous nephropathy (IMN) extensively. Nevertheless, the efficacy and safety of immunosuppressants do not have final conclusion. Thus, a pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) was carried out to seek the most recommended therapeutic schedule for patients with IMN. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including cyclophosphamide (CTX), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), tacrolimus-combined mycophenolate mofetil (TAC + MMF), cyclosporine (CsA), tacrolimus (TAC), leflunomide (LEF), chlorambucil (CH), azathioprine (AZA), adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), non-immunosuppressive therapies (CON), steroids (STE), mizoribine (MZB), and rituximab (RIT) for patients with IMN were checked. Risk ratios (RRs) and standard mean difference (SMD) were reckoned to assess dichotomous variable quantities and continuous variable quantities, respectively. Total remission (TR) and 24-h urine total protein (24-h UTP) were compared using pairwise and NMA. Then interventions were ranked on the basis of the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Our study finally included 51 RCTs and 12 different immunosuppressants. Compared with the CON group, most regimens demonstrated better therapeutic effect in TR, with RR of 2.1 (95% CI) (1.5-2.9) for TAC, 1.9 (1.3-2.8) for RIT, 2.5 (1.2-5.2) for TAC + MMF, 1.9 (1.4-2.7) for CH, 1.8 (1.4-2.4) for CTX, 2.2 (1.0-4.7) for ACTH, 1.6 (1.2-2.1) for CsA, 1.6 (1.0-2.5) for LEF, and 1.6 (1.1-2.2) for MMF. In terms of 24-h UTP, TAC (SMD, -2.3 (95% CI -3.5 to -1.1)), CTX (SMD, -1.7 (95% CI -2.8 to -0.59)), RIT (SMD, -1.8 (95% CI -3.5 to -0.11)), CH (SMD, -2.4 (95% CI -4.3 to -0.49)), AZA (SMD, --4.2 (95% CI -7.7 to -0.68)), and CsA (SMD, -1.7 (95% CI -3 to -0.49)) were significantly superior than the CON group. As for adverse effects (AEs), infections, nausea, emesia, myelosuppression, and glucose intolerance were the collective adverse events for most immunosuppressants. This study indicates that TAC + MMF performed the best in terms of TR, and TAC shows the best effectiveness on 24-h UTP compared with other regimens. On the contrary, there seems to be little advantage on STE alone, LEF, AZA, and MZB in treating patients with IMN compared with CON. [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42021287013].
PubMed: 35959430
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.917532 -
Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience 2022Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) is a neurological condition consisting of relapse-related disability. Treatment options are limited. This systematic... (Review)
Review
Comparative Analysis of Treatment Outcomes in Patients with Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder Treated with Rituximab, Azathioprine, and Mycophenolate Mofetil: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) is a neurological condition consisting of relapse-related disability. Treatment options are limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of rituximab (RTX) in comparison to azathioprine (AZT) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) for the treatment of NMOSD.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted among electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, EBSCO, and Cochrane, for relevant studies. We included randomized, controlled trials and prospective and retrospective studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of RTX compared to AZT and/or MMF in adult and pediatric patients with NMOSD. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Cochrane Collaboration tool were used to determine the risk of bias.
RESULTS
Eleven studies involving 1,086 patients were included in our study. Treatment with RTX generally yielded favorable annualized relapse rate (ARR) and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) results in comparison to AZT and MMF, despite its variable statistical significance. RTX treatment reduced the relapse rate and hazard risk for relapse (HRR). Patients in the RTX group experienced significantly fewer adverse events, among which the most common were allergies, infections, and leukopenia.
CONCLUSION
In this study, RTX appeared to be superior to AZT and MMF in improving disability and reducing relapse in patients with NMOSD. RTX is also associated with fewer adverse events based on pooled analysis. Future randomized clinical trials are needed to establish the efficacy and safety of RTX in patients with NMOSD.
PubMed: 35958974
DOI: No ID Found -
Frontiers in Immunology 2022Immunotherapy has been shown to reduce relapses in patients with myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-associated disorder (MOG-AD); however, the superiority of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Immunotherapy has been shown to reduce relapses in patients with myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-associated disorder (MOG-AD); however, the superiority of specific treatments remains unclear.
AIM
To identify the efficacy and tolerability of different treatments for MOG-AD.
METHODS
Systematic search in Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to March 1, 2021, were performed. Published articles including patients with MOG-AD and reporting the efficacy or tolerability of two or more types of treatment in preventing relapses were included. Reported outcomes including incidence of relapse, annualized relapse rate (ARR), and side effects were extracted. Network meta-analysis with a random-effect model within a Bayesian framework was conducted. Between group comparisons were estimated using Odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% credible intervals (CrI).
RESULTS
Twelve studies that compared the efficacy of 10 different treatments in preventing MOG-AD relapse, including 735 patients, were analyzed. In terms of incidence of relapse, intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), oral corticosteroids (OC), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), azathioprine (AZA), and rituximab (RTX) were all significantly more effective than no treatment (ORs ranged from 0.075 to 0.34). On the contrary, disease-modifying therapy (DMT) (OR=1.3, 95% CrI: 0.31 to 5.0) and tacrolimus (TAC) (OR=5.9, 95% CrI: 0.19 to 310) would increase the incidence of relapse. Compared with DMT, IVIG significantly reduced the ARR (MD=-0.85, 95% CrI: -1.7 to -0.098). AZA, MMF, OC and RTX showed a trend to decrease ARR, but those results did not reach significant differences. The combined results for relapse rate and adverse events, as well as ARR and adverse events showed that IVIG and OC were the most effective and tolerable therapies.
CONCLUSIONS
Whilst DMT should be avoided, IVIG and OC may be suited as first-line therapies for patients with MOG-AD. RTX, MMF, and AZA present suitable alternatives.
Topics: Azathioprine; Bayes Theorem; Demyelinating Autoimmune Diseases, CNS; Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Mycophenolic Acid; Network Meta-Analysis; Recurrence; Rituximab
PubMed: 35958613
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.953993 -
Transplant Infectious Disease : An... Dec 2022We aimed to analyze the humoral and cellular response to standard and booster (additional doses) COVID-19 vaccination in solid organ transplantation (SOT) and the risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
We aimed to analyze the humoral and cellular response to standard and booster (additional doses) COVID-19 vaccination in solid organ transplantation (SOT) and the risk factors involved for an impaired response.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published up until January 11, 2022, that reported immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccine among SOT. The study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42022300547.
RESULTS
Of the 1527 studies, 112 studies, which involved 15391 SOT and 2844 healthy controls, were included. SOT showed a low humoral response (effect size [ES]: 0.44 [0.40-0.48]) in overall and in control studies (log-Odds-ratio [OR]: -4.46 [-8.10 to -2.35]). The humoral response was highest in liver (ES: 0.67 [0.61-0.74]) followed by heart (ES: 0.45 [0.32-0.59]), kidney (ES: 0.40 [0.36-0.45]), kidney-pancreas (ES: 0.33 [0.13-0.53]), and lung (0.27 [0.17-0.37]). The meta-analysis for standard and booster dose (ES: 0.43 [0.39-0.47] vs. 0.51 [0.43-0.54]) showed a marginal increase of 18% efficacy. SOT with prior infection had higher response (ES: 0.94 [0.92-0.96] vs. ES: 0.40 [0.39-0.41]; p-value < .01). The seroresponse with mRNA-12723 mRNA was highest 0.52 (0.40-0.64). Mycophenolic acid (OR: 1.42 [1.21-1.63]) and Belatacept (OR: 1.89 [1.3-2.49]) had highest risk for nonresponse. SOT had a parallelly decreased cellular response (ES: 0.42 [0.32-0.52]) in overall and control studies (OR: -3.12 [-0.4.12 to -2.13]).
INTERPRETATION
Overall, SOT develops a suboptimal response compared to the general population. Immunosuppression including mycophenolic acid, belatacept, and tacrolimus is associated with decreased response. Booster doses increase the immune response, but further upgradation in vaccination strategy for SOT is required.
Topics: Humans; Abatacept; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Mycophenolic Acid; Organ Transplantation; Transplant Recipients
PubMed: 35924679
DOI: 10.1111/tid.13926 -
Computational Intelligence and... 2022Mizoribine (MZR) is widely used in Asia due to its high safety and low cost, and comparative studies of its safety and efficacy with the first-line drug mycophenolate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Mizoribine (MZR) is widely used in Asia due to its high safety and low cost, and comparative studies of its safety and efficacy with the first-line drug mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) have been carried out. This paper aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of MZR and MMF in immunosuppressive therapy of renal transplantation by meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MZR versus MMF for renal transplantation in PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Cochrane Library, Web of Science, WanFang Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM). Articles were assessed for their risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration. Forest plots and funnel plots were also performed on the included articles.
RESULTS
A total of twelve studies with 1103 patients were selected in the analysis. No significant difference were observed between the MZR group and the MMF group for the rate of acute rejection (RR = 1.50, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.01, = 0.008), patient survival (RR = 1.01, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.03, = 0.56), graft survival (RR = 1.02, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.04, = 0.12), leucopenia (RR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10, = 0.12), and liver damage (RR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.13, = 0.15). The MZR group was associated with a lower risk of gastrointestinal disorder (RR = 0.28, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.62, = 0.002) and cytomegalovirus infection (RR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.84, = 0.003) but had a higher risk of hyperuricemia (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.75, = 0.007). No significant publication bias was observed among included studies. . MZR is similar to MMF in efficacy, and in terms of safety, MZR has a lower risk of gastrointestinal disorder and cytomegalovirus infection but a higher risk of hyperuricemia.
Topics: Cytomegalovirus Infections; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Hyperuricemia; Immunosuppressive Agents; Kidney Transplantation; Mycophenolic Acid; Ribonucleosides
PubMed: 35909831
DOI: 10.1155/2022/5717068 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2022Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a chronic autoimmune disease characterized by systemic inflammation, fibrosis, vascular injury, reduced quality of life, and limited... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a chronic autoimmune disease characterized by systemic inflammation, fibrosis, vascular injury, reduced quality of life, and limited treatment options. Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) has emerged as a potential intervention for severe SSc refractory to conventional treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for the treatment of systemic sclerosis (specifically, non-selective myeloablative HSCT versus cyclophosphamide; selective myeloablative HSCT versus cyclophosphamide; non-selective non-myeloablative HSCT versus cyclophosphamide).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries from database insertion to 4 February 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs that compared HSCT to immunomodulators in the treatment of SSc.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted study data, and performed risk of bias and GRADE assessments to assess the certainty of evidence using standard Cochrane methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three RCTs evaluating: non-myeloablative non-selective HSCT (10 participants), non-myeloablative selective HSCT (79 participants), and myeloablative selective HSCT (36 participants). The comparator in all studies was cyclophosphamide (123 participants). The study examining non-myeloablative non-selective HSCT had a high risk of bias given the differences in baseline characteristics between the two arms. The other studies had a high risk of detection bias for participant-reported outcomes. The studies had follow-up periods of one to 4.5 years. Most participants had severe disease, mean age 40 years, and the duration of disease was less than three years. Efficacy No study demonstrated an overall mortality benefit of HSCT when compared to cyclophosphamide. However, non-myeloablative selective HSCT showed overall survival benefits using Kaplan-Meier curves at 10 years and myeloablative selective HSCT at six years. We graded our certainty of evidence as moderate for non-myeloablative selective HSCT and myeloablative selective HSCT. Certainty of evidence was low for non-myeloablative non-selective HSCT. Event-free survival was improved compared to cyclophosphamide with non-myeloablative selective HSCT at 48 months (hazard ratio (HR) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.74; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no improvement with myeloablative selective HSCT at 54 months (HR 0.54 95% CI 0.23 to 1.27; moderate-certainty evidence). The non-myeloablative non-selective HSCT trial did not report event-free survival. There was improvement in functional ability measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI, scale from 0 to 3 with 3 being very severe functional impairment) with non-myeloablative selective HSCT after two years with a mean difference (MD) of -0.39 (95% CI -0.72 to -0.06; absolute treatment benefit (ATB) -13%, 95% CI -24% to -2%; relative percent change (RPC) -27%, 95% CI -50% to -4%; low-certainty evidence). Myeloablative selective HSCT demonstrated a risk ratio (RR) for improvement of 3.4 at 54 months (95% CI 1.5 to 7.6; ATB -37%, 95% CI -18% to -57%; RPC -243%, 95% CI -54% to -662%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 2 to 9; low-certainty evidence). The non-myeloablative non-selective HSCT trial did not report HAQ-DI results. All transplant modalities showed improvement of modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) (scale from 0 to 51 with the higher number being more severe skin thickness) favoring HSCT over cyclophosphamide. At two years, non-myeloablative selective HSCT showed an MD in mRSS of -11.1 (95% CI -14.9 to -7.3; ATB -22%, 95% CI -29% to -14%; RPC -43%, 95% CI -58% to -28%; moderate-certainty evidence). At 54 months, myeloablative selective HSCT at showed a greater improvement in skin scores than the cyclophosphamide group (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.13; ATB -27%, 95% CI -6% to -47%; RPC -51%, 95% CI -6% to -113%; moderate-certainty evidence). The NNTB was 4 (95% CI 3 to 18). At one year, for non-myeloablative non-selective HSCT the MD was -16.00 (95% CI -26.5 to -5.5; ATB -31%, 95% CI -52% to -11%; RPC -84%, 95% CI -139% to -29%; low-certainty evidence). No studies reported data on pulmonary arterial hypertension. Adverse events In the non-myeloablative selective HSCT study, there were 51/79 serious adverse events with HSCT and 30/77 with cyclophosphamide (RR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.3), with an absolute risk increase of 26% (95% CI 10% to 41%), and a relative percent increase of 66% (95% CI 20% to 129%). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome was 4 (95% CI 3 to 11) (moderate-certainty evidence). In the myeloablative selective HSCT study, there were similar rates of serious adverse events between groups (25/34 with HSCT and 19/37 with cyclophosphamide; RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.08; moderate-certainty evidence). The non-myeloablative non-selective HSCT trial did not clearly report serious adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Non-myeloablative selective and myeloablative selective HSCT had moderate-certainty evidence for improvement in event-free survival, and skin thicknesscompared to cyclophosphamide. There is also low-certainty evidence that these modalities of HSCT improve physical function. However, non-myeloablative selective HSCT and myeloablative selective HSCT resulted in more serious adverse events than cyclophosphamide; highlighting the need for careful risk-benefit considerations for people considering these HSCTs. Evidence for the efficacy and adverse effects of non-myeloablative non-selective HSCT is limited at this time. Due to evidence provided from one study with high risk of bias, we have low-certainty evidence that non-myeloablative non-selective HSCT improves outcomes in skin scores, forced vital capacity, and safety. Two modalities of HSCT appeared to be a promising treatment option for SSc though there is a high risk of early treatment-related mortality and other adverse events. Additional research is needed to determine the effectiveness and adverse effects of non-myeloablative non-selective HSCT in the treatment of SSc. Also, more studies will be needed to determine how HSCT compares to other treatment options such as mycophenolate mofetil, as cyclophosphamide is no longer the first-line treatment for SSc. Finally, there is a need for a greater understanding of the role of HSCT for people with SSc with significant comorbidities or complications from SSc that were excluded from the trial criteria.
Topics: Adult; Cyclophosphamide; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Scleroderma, Systemic
PubMed: 35904231
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011819.pub2