2017
DOI: 10.1007/s00296-017-3733-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Treatment for lupus nephritis: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Abstract: The aim is to systematically review the treatment for lupus nephritis (LN) by performing an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Electronic databases of OVID MEDLINE, OVID EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify published systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigating treatments for LN up to 13 July 2016. A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR) was used to assess the quality of included studies. Totally, 24 studies were included. Of the eligible studies, 3 studi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
21
1
3

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
1
21
1
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Patients with LN undergoing treatment MMF for <24 months were more prone to renal recurrence compared with patients with LN who received MMF for induction therapy and continued to use MMF for a longer duration (31). However, a longer period of maintenance treatment may result in an increased risk of side effects caused by the accumulation of drugs (32). The present study demonstrated that among routine induction treatment schemes using glucocorticoids with various immunosuppressants, the difference in renal recurrence was not significant.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 48%
“…Patients with LN undergoing treatment MMF for <24 months were more prone to renal recurrence compared with patients with LN who received MMF for induction therapy and continued to use MMF for a longer duration (31). However, a longer period of maintenance treatment may result in an increased risk of side effects caused by the accumulation of drugs (32). The present study demonstrated that among routine induction treatment schemes using glucocorticoids with various immunosuppressants, the difference in renal recurrence was not significant.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 48%
“…6 Nonetheless, approximately 5%-20% of patients with LN will progress to endstage renal disease (ESRD) within 10 years after diagnosis despite receiving aggressive immunosuppressive therapy. [7][8][9] Although the causes and prognostic predictors of renal outcomes and mortality in LN have been studied, there is only limited data on LN in Japan. The recommendations for LN management published by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) propose that a complete renal response (CR) or at least a partial renal response (PR) should be achieved preferably within 6 months and no later than 12 months after the initiation of treatment.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the TAC + GC treatment showed higher incidence rates of hyperten-sion, hyperglycemia, herpes zoster or varicella, and blood creatinine level increase when compared with the CYC + GC treatment. In a previous study, Chen et al 28 included six studies into the meta-analysis and reported that TAC was superior to CYC in terms of CR rate, TR rate, and anti-dsDNA negative conversion rate. TAC was also associated with less adverse events of gastrointestinal syndrome and amenorrhea than CYC.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the incidence rate of blood creatinine increase in TAC + GC group was higher than that in MMF + GC group. In a previous study, Chen et al 28 included six studies into the meta-analysis and reported that, in the induction therapy of LN, TAC and MMF were more effective and safer when compared with CYC, but there were no differences of efficacy (CR, TR, proteinuria levels) or safety (major infection, serious infection) between the two treatments. Our meta-analysis included more studies and assessed more indicators than the previous meta-analyses.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%