Induction treatment of lupus nephritis: to pulse or not to pulse? Whether 'tis nobler to universally or selectively prescribe

狼疮性肾炎的诱导治疗:脉冲疗法还是非脉冲疗法?普遍应用还是选择性应用更为高尚?

阅读:1

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Although treatment guidelines recommend pulse steroids, induction treatment of lupus nephritis (LN) varies significantly among providers. This paper aims to explore evidence that intravenous pulse provides pharmacological benefits along with improved clinical efficacy without greater toxicity compared with high-dose oral glucocorticoids justifying inclusion for all active LN. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) using the term 'pulse glucocorticoids in LN' in order to identify studies that summarise the pharmacologic mechanisms of glucocorticoids, reviewed the historical use of glucocorticoids in SLE, and compared pulse therapy with high-dose oral treatment related to their efficacy and toxicities. RESULTS: SLR demonstrated that non-genomic mechanisms of action are more associated with pulse than oral steroids. Some observational studies reported improved renal responses with pulse steroids but in exchange for more adverse metabolic bone disease effects (eg, osteoporosis and avascular necrosis) as well as infections and, importantly, mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Current guidelines promoting pulse therapy for all forms of proliferative LN (and in the case of American College of Rheumatology 2024 treatment guidelines, even isolated class V membranous LN) rely on structured evidence grading processes, including expert consensus and observational data, but are not based on head-to-head randomised controlled trial comparisons. Therefore, there can be an ongoing debate regarding the best approach. The SLR identifies a distinct pharmacological benefit unique to pulse treatment, though without direct evidence necessary for the treatment of LN; includes observational studies with evidence of superior efficacy, but not consistently; and identifies a higher risk of adverse effects. In our opinion, the data advocates for a more selective approach to treatment, foregoing universal treatment with pulse steroids, based on a toxicity versus benefit assessment that patients with mild disease do not require the additional risks.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。