SynthesisZeitschrift fur Rheumatologie2021
Comparative efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclophosphamide in patients with active antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Synthesis in Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- The Role of Mycophenolate Mofetil for the Induction of Remission in ANCA-Associated Vasculitis: A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Slo-Mo anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated renal vasculitis.Clinical kidney journal · 2021Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) versus cyclophosphamide (CYC) in patients with active antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV).
methodsWe performed a meta-analysis of four randomized clinical trials (RCTs; 300 patients) to examine the relative efficacy and safety of MMF compared to CYC in patients with active AAV.
resultsThere was no significant difference in remission at 6 months between MMF and CYC (odds ratio [OR] 1.311, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.570-3.017, P = 0.524). Additionally, the relapse rate did not differ between the MMF and CYC groups (OR 1.331, 95% CI 0.497-3.568, P = 0.570). There was no significant difference in serious adverse event (SAE; OR 1.232, 95% CI 0.754-2.014, P = 0.404) and infection rates (OR 0.958, 95% CI 0.561-1.634, P = 0.873) between the MMF and CYC groups. Some heterogeneity was found in the meta-analysis of remission and relapse rates (I
conclusionMMF was an equally effective alternative treatment to CYC and MMF was comparable to CYC in patients with active AAV in terms of safety, suggesting that MMF can be used as an alternative to CYC for remission induction in AAV.
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.