ReviewNephron. Clinical practice2011
Oral cyclophosphamide is on the verge of extinction as therapy for severe autoimmune diseases (especially lupus): should nephrologists care?
Review in Nephron. Clinical practice, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lupus nephritis: induction therapy in severe lupus nephritis--should MMF be considered the drug of choice?Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2013Pooled it
- Long-Term Follow-Up of Cyclical Cyclophosphamide and Steroids Versus Tacrolimus and Steroids in Primary Membranous Nephropathy.Kidney international reports · 2021Article
- Prevention of complications from use of conventional immunosuppressants: a critical review.Journal of nephrology · 2019Review
- Induction Therapy for Lupus Nephritis: the Highlights.Current rheumatology reports · 2018Review
- An approach to validating criteria for proteinuric flare in systemic lupus erythematosus glomerulonephritis.Arthritis and rheumatism · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Some day we will have powerful targeted therapies for autoimmune diseases. Remission will be induced efficiently. Side effects will be mere ripples. Unfortunately, that day is not imminent. Current therapies are powerful but with unintended targets and side effects that can be equivalent to a sea change. For SLE, the current competition to select the 'gold standard' immunosuppressant has come down to two regimens: intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVCY, standard NIH protocol or its variations) versus oral mycophenolate (MMF). Until recently, IVCY reigned as the gold standard, a title it achieved through a curious journey that did not involve rigorous head-to-head competition. Oral cyclophosphamide (POCY) has not been invited to the current competition to select the gold standard immunosuppressant despite the substantial evidence that POCY can perform at least as well as IVCY or mycophenolate, and compared to IVCY, is far less expensive, easier for the patient, and maybe more effective in African-Americans. Here, we state the case for POCY as therapy for severe autoimmune diseases. We suggest that if POCY is allowed to compete, it will not disappoint.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.