ArticleZeitschrift fur Rheumatologie2016
[Therapy of ANCA-associated vasculitis with severe renal manifestation under routine conditions].
Article in Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn the MEPEX trial the poor prognosis of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis with severe renal manifestation (AAVr) could be significantly improved in the first year by plasmapheresis. How and to what extent is this knowledge of AAVr therapy implemented into routine practice and what effectiveness and adverse events resulted?
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study in which all patients who received remission induction therapy for AAVr under routine clinical conditions (RCC) in this hospital from 2009 to 2014 after publication of the MEPEX trial (n = 22) were compared with those in the plasmapheresis arm of the MEPEX trial (n = 70). Endpoints were dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease and mortality after 3 and 12 months and severe life-threatening adverse events during the first 12 months.
resultsAll patients with AAVr were treated by plasmapheresis under RCC. The two groups showed no differences with respect to the rate of dialysis dependency (after 3 months RCC 14 % versus MEPEX 16 %, P = 1.00 and after 12 months RCC 23 % versus MEPEX 14 %, P = 0.55) or mortality (after 3 months RCC 18 % versus MEPEX 16 %, P = 0.75 and after 12 months RCC 18 % versus MEPEX 27 %, P = 0.57). The rate of severe life-threatening adverse events was similar under RCC and under controlled study conditions (64 % versus 69 %, P = 0.87).
conclusionUnder RCC there is a high quality of medical treatment for AAVr. All patients received plasmapheresis for remission induction with comparable effectiveness and safety compared to controlled study conditions.
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.