Trial reportClinical rheumatology2016
Immunosuppressive treatment for pure membranous lupus nephropathy in a Hispanic population.
Trial report in Clinical rheumatology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes and Predictors of Treatment Response in Patients With Pure Lupus Membranous Nephropathy.Kidney international reports · 2026Article
- Long-term kidney and patient outcomes in pure versus mixed lupus membranous nephritis.Clinical kidney journal · 2026Article
- The Evolution of Lupus Nephritis Therapy from the 1960s to the Present.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Not So Benign: Revisiting Pure Membranous Lupus Nephritis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Role of antimalarials in lupus nephritis: a narrative review.Clinical rheumatology · 2025Review
- Risk of chronic kidney disease in 260 patients with lupus nephritis: analysis of a nationwide multicentre cohort with up to 35 years of follow-up.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2025Observational
- Lupus nephritis: management challenges during pregnancy.Frontiers in nephrology · 2024Review
- Hydroxychloroquine in nephrology: current status and future directions.Journal of nephrology · 2023Review
- Steroids in Lupus: Enemies or Allies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- New Insights Into an Overlooked Entity: Long-Term Outcomes of Membranous Lupus Nephritis From a Single Institution Inception Cohort.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- The Use of Glucocorticoids in Lupus Nephritis: New Pathways for an Old Drug.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
- Outcomes of membranous and proliferative lupus nephritis - analysis of a single-centre cohort with more than 30 years of follow-up.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Optimal treatment for pure membranous lupus nephritis (MLN) remains unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the response to immunosuppressive treatment of Hispanics with pure MLN. This was a retrospective cohort analysis from a tertiary care center. Pure MLN patients were segregated into three groups according to the received induction treatment. All patients received adjunctive steroids. Outcomes included complete remission (CR), partial remission (PR), flare incidence, adverse events, and renal and patient survival. All outcomes were analyzed by Cox regression analysis. A total of 60 patients diagnosed with pure MLN between 2004 and 2014 were segregated into mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (n = 18), intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVC) (n = 16), or azathioprine (AZA) (n = 26) groups. Complete remission rates at 6, 12, and 24 months were 33.3, 52.9, and 76.4 %, respectively, for MMF; 26.9, 42.3, and 54.6 %, respectively, for AZA; and 6.2, 14.8, and 26.9 %, respectively, for IVC. Based on Cox-adjusted analysis, treatment with MMF was associated with higher CR rates (hazard ratio (HR) 4.43, 1.19-16.4, p = 0.026) compared to IVC. There were no differences in CR rates between MMF and AZA groups. Patients treated with adjunctive antimalarial drugs were more likely to achieve CR (HR 2.46, 1.08-5.64, p = 0.032) and had a non-significant trend to lower incidence of thrombotic events (odds ratio (OR) 0.10, 0.010-1.14, p = 0.064). There were no differences in adverse events, renal flares, and renal or patient survival between groups. MMF might be superior to IVC as induction treatment for pure MLN in Hispanics, while AZA might remain as a valid alternative for treatment. Adjunctive treatment with an antimalarial drug may enhance renal response to therapy.
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.