收稿日期: 2022-08-15
网络出版日期: 2022-12-19
基金资助
国家自然科学基金(32000639);国家自然科学基金(82171772);国家自然科学基金(81871281);北京大学人民医院研究与发展基金(RS2020-01)
A multicenter study on the tolerance of intravenous low-dose cyclophosphamide in systemic lupus erythematosus
Received date: 2022-08-15
Online published: 2022-12-19
Supported by
the National Natural Science Foundation of China(32000639);the National Natural Science Foundation of China(82171772);the National Natural Science Foundation of China(81871281);Peking University People's Hospital Research and Development Funds(RS2020-01)
目的: 比较大剂量环磷酰胺及短间期小剂量环磷酰胺两种方案治疗系统性红斑狼疮(systemic lupus erythematosus，SLE)患者的耐受性。方法: 收集2017年3月至2018年7月期间在全国17个省份24家医院就诊的1 022例SLE患者的基本信息、临床表现、实验室检查结果、不良反应及伴随疾病等。根据静脉输注环磷酰胺的治疗方案分为短间期小剂量环磷酰胺组(short-interval low-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide therapy，SILD IV-CYC，每次400 mg，每2周1次)和大剂量环磷酰胺组(high-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide therapy，HD IV-CYC，每次500 mg/m2体表面积，每月1次)，有256例接受大剂量环磷酰胺治疗，506例接受短间期小剂量环磷酰胺治疗，比较两组患者停药原因及治疗过程中的不良反应发生率，另有260例患者因没有规律应用环磷酰胺未纳入两组治疗方案不良反应的比较。此外，377例接受短间期小剂量环磷酰胺治疗和214例接受大剂量环磷酰胺治疗的SLE患者随访到停用环磷酰胺，对其停药原因进行分析。结果: 在所有591例停环磷酰胺的患者中，有199例(33.67%)SLE患者因发生药物相关不良反应停药，238例(40.27%)SLE患者因为病情改善而停用环磷酰胺。大剂量环磷酰胺治疗组的SLE患者中因不良反应停用环磷酰胺的比例为38.79%(83/214)，明显高于短间期小剂量环磷酰胺治疗组的30.77%(116/377，P=0.048)。进一步比较506例接受短间期小剂量环磷酰胺治疗和256例接受大剂量环磷酰胺治疗患者的不良反应提示，短间期小剂量环磷酰胺治疗组感染(13.04% vs. 22.27%，P=0.001)、胃肠道反应(17.39% vs. 31.25%，P < 0.001)、骨髓抑制(9.68% vs. 19.92%，P < 0.001)、月经异常(25.18% vs. 39.72%，P=0.001)、脱发(13.44% vs. 19.14%，P=0.039)等不良反应发生率明显低于大剂量环磷酰胺治疗组。结论: 短间期小剂量环磷酰胺方案(SILD方案)治疗SLE的耐受性明显优于大剂量环磷酰胺治疗，患者不良反应的发生率较低。
邵苗 , 郭惠芳 , 雷玲彦 , 赵清 , 丁艳杰 , 林进 , 吴锐 , 于峰 , 李玉翠 , 苗华丽 , 张莉芸 , 杜燕 , 焦瑞英 , 庞丽霞 , 龙丽 , 栗占国 , 李茹 . 短间期小剂量环磷酰胺治疗系统性红斑狼疮耐受性的多中心对照研究[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2022 , 54(6) : 1112 -1116 . DOI: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2022.06.009
Objective: To compare the safety of low-dose cyclophosphamide and high-dose cyclophosphamide in the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Methods: A total of 1 022 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus from 24 hospitals in China between March 2017 to July 2018 were enrolled. Their clinical manifestations, laboratory tests, adverse events, reasons for stopping receiving intravenous cyclophosphamide and comorbidities were collected. Among them, 506 SLE patients received short-interval low-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide therapy (SILD IV-CYC, 400 mg every two weeks), and 256 patients underwent high-dose cyclophosphamide therapy (HD IV-CYC, 500 mg/m2 of body surface area every month), the side effects between the two groups were compared, the remaining 260 SLE patients were treated with IV-CYC irregularly. Moreover, a total of 377 patients in SILD IV-CYC group and 214 patients in HD IV-CYC group had medical records of the reasons for stopping recei-ving IV-CYC. The reasons for stopping receiving IV-CYC in these two groups were analyzed. Results: In this study, only 40.27%(238/591)of the SLE patients stopped receiving intravenous cyclophosphamide for the causes of disease improvement, however, up to 33.67% (199/591) of the patients for the reason of drug-related side effects. There were 83 patients out of 214 (38.79%) with high-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide treatment who stopped receiving IV-CYC for the drug-related side effects, which was significantly higher than that in the low-dose cyclophosphamide group (30.77%, 116/337, P=0.048). Of theses 506 patients in SILD IV-CYC group, 88 (17.39%) patients experienced gastrointestinal reactions, 66 (13.04%) suffered from infections, 49 (9.68%) had myelosuppression and 68 (13.44%) had alopecia, respectively. Among the 256 patients in the HD IV-CYC group, 80 (31.25%) experienced gastrointestinal reactions, 57 (22.27%) suffered from infections, 51 (19.92%) had myelosuppression and 49 (19.14%) had alopecia. Moreover, 71 (25.18%) of 282 female patients with age between 16 to 45 years in SILD IV-CYC group had abnormal menstruation, while menstrual disorder occurred in 39.72% (56/141) patients of HD IV-CYC group. There was no difference of drug-induced hepatic injury, hemorrhagic cystitis and fatigue between the two groups. Conclusion: Low-dose cyclophosphamide showed a lower prevalence of adverse events than high-dose cyclophosphamide in systemic lupus erythematosus patients.
Key words： Systemic lupus erythematosus; Cyclophosphamide; Adverse events
| 1 | Fanouriakis A , Kostopoulou M , Alunno A , et al. 2019 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus[J]. Ann Rheum Dis, 2019, 78 (6): 736- 745. |
| 2 | Donadio JV , Holley KE , Ferguson RH , et al. Treatment of diffuse proliferative lupus nephritis with prednisone and combined prednisone and cyclophosphamide[J]. N Engl J Med, 1978, 299 (21): 1151- 1155. |
| 3 | Boumpas DT , Austin HA , Vaughn EM , et al. Controlled trial of pulse methylprednisolone versus two regimens of pulse cyclophosphamide in sever lupus nephritis[J]. Lancet, 1992, 340 (8822): 741- 745. |
| 4 | Austin HA , Klippel JH , Balow JE , et al. Therapy of lupus nephritis. Controlled trial of prednisone and cytotoxic drugs[J]. N Engl J Med, 1986, 314 (10): 614- 619. |
| 5 | Houssiau FA , Vasconcelos C , D'Cruz D , et al. Immunosuppressive therapy in lupus nephritis: The Euro-Lupus Nephritis Trial, a randomized trial of low-dose versus high-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide[J]. Arthritis Rheum, 2002, 46 (8): 2121- 2131. |
| 6 | Hussenbocus YA , Jin ZY , Pan WY , et al. Low dosage use of cyclophosphamide improves the survival of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus[J]. Clin Rheumatol, 2022, 41 (7): 2043- 2052. |
| 7 | Durcan L , O'Dwyer T , Petri M . Management strategies and future directions for systemic lupus erythematosus in adults[J]. Lancet, 2019, 393 (10188): 2332- 2343. |
| 8 | Zhang XW , Li C , Ma XX , et al. Short-interval lower-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide as induction and maintenance therapy for lupus nephritis: A prospective observational study[J]. Clinical Rheumatol, 2014, 33 (7): 939- 945. |
| 9 | Hanaoka H , Kiyokawa T , Iida H , et al. Comparison of renal response to four different induction therapies in Japanese patients with lupus nephritis class Ⅲ or Ⅳ: A single-centre retrospective study[J]. PLoS One, 2017, 12 (4): e0175152. |
| 10 | Thomas G , Mancini J , Jourde-Chiche N , et al. Mortality associa-ted with systemic lupus erythematosus in France assessed by multiple-cause-of-death analysis[J]. Arthritis Rheumatol, 2014, 66 (9): 2503- 2511. |
| 11 | Wang Z , Wang Y , Zhu R , et al. Long-term survival and death causes of systemic lupus erythematosus in China: A systemic review of observational studies[J]. Medicine(Baltimore), 2015, 94 (17): e794. |
| 12 | Wang H , Zhou Y , Yu L , et al. Major infection in newly diagnosed systemic lupus erythematosus: An inception cohort study[J]. Lupus Sci Med, 2022, 9 (1): e000725. |
| 13 | Ghobadi MZ , Izadi S , Teymoori-RM , et al. Potential role of viral infection and B cells as a linker between innate and adaptive immune response in systemic lupus erythematosus[J]. Immunol Res, 2021, 69 (2): 196- 204. |
| 14 | Mok CC , Tse SM , Chan KL , et al. Effect of immunosuppressive therapies on survival of systemic lupus erythematosus: A propensity score analysis of a longitudinal cohort[J]. Lupus, 2018, 27 (5): 722- 727. |
| 15 | Tian M , Song XH , Dong LP , et al. Systematic evaluation of different doses of cyclophosphamide induction therapy for lupus nephritis[J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2017, 96 (51): e9408. |
| 16 | Giambalvo S , Garaffoni C , Silvagni E , et al. Factors associated with fertility abnormalities in women with systemic lupus erythematosus: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Autoimmun Rev, 2022, 21 (4): 103038. |
| 17 | Katsifis GE , Tzioufas AG . Ovarian failure in systemic lupus erythematosus patients treated with pulsed intravenous cyclophosphamide[J]. Lupus, 2004, 13 (9): 673- 678. |
| 18 | Ponticelli C , Escoli R , Moroni G . Does cyclophosphamide still play a role in glomerular diseases?[J]. Autoimmun Rev, 2018, 17 (10): 1022- 1027. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
