Pilot study comparing the childhood arthritis and rheumatology research alliance consensus treatment plans for induction therapy of juvenile proliferative lupus nephritis.

Published

Journal Article

BACKGROUND:To reduce treatment variability and facilitate comparative effectiveness studies, the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) published consensus treatment plans (CTPs) including one for juvenile proliferative lupus nephritis (LN). Induction immunosuppression CTPs outline treatment with either monthly intravenous (IV) cyclophosphamide (CYC) or mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in conjunction with one of three corticosteroid (steroid) CTPs: primarily oral, primarily IV or mixed oral/IV. The acceptability and in-practice use of these CTPs are unknown. Therefore, the primary aims of the pilot study were to demonstrate feasibility of adhering to the LN CTPs and delineate barriers to implementation in clinical care in the US. Further, we aimed to explore the safety and effectiveness of the treatments for induction therapy. METHODS:Forty-one patients were enrolled from 10 CARRA sites. Patients had new-onset biopsy proven ISN/RPS class III or IV proliferative LN, were starting induction therapy with MMF or IV CYC and high-dose steroids and were followed for up to 24 months. Routine clinical data were collected at each visit. Provider reasons for CTP selection were assessed at baseline. Adherence to the CTPs was evaluated by provider survey and medication logs. Complete and partial renal responses were reported at 6 months. RESULTS:The majority of patients were female (83%) with a mean age of 14.7 years, SD 2.8. CYC was used more commonly than MMF for patients with ISN/RPS class IV LN (vs. class III), those who had hematuria, and those with adherence concerns. Overall adherence to the immunosuppression induction CTPs was acceptable with a majority of patients receiving the target MMF (86%) or CYC (63%) dose. However, adherence to the steroid CTPs was poor (37%) with large variability in dosing. Renal response endpoints were exploratory and did not show a significant difference between CYC and MMF. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, the immunosuppression CTPs were followed as intended in the majority of patients however, adherence to the steroid CTPs was poor indicating revision is necessary. In addition, our pilot study revealed several sources of treatment selection bias that will need to be addressed in for future comparative effectiveness research.

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • Cooper, JC; Rouster-Stevens, K; Wright, TB; Hsu, JJ; Klein-Gitelman, MS; Ardoin, SP; Schanberg, LE; Brunner, HI; Eberhard, BA; Wagner-Weiner, L; Mehta, J; Haines, K; McCurdy, DK; Phillips, TA; Huang, Z; von Scheven, E; CARRA registry investigators,

Published Date

  • October 22, 2018

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 16 / 1

Start / End Page

  • 65 -

PubMed ID

  • 30348175

Pubmed Central ID

  • 30348175

Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)

  • 1546-0096

International Standard Serial Number (ISSN)

  • 1546-0096

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1186/s12969-018-0279-0

Language

  • eng