ArticleRheumatology international2024
Use of mesna prophylaxis in patients with cyclophosphamide-treated ANCA-associated vasculitis: cross-sectional survey of practitioners.
Article in Rheumatology international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pathophysiology and multi-target prevention strategies for cyclophosphamide-induced bladder injury.iScience · 2026Review
- Evolving Therapeutic Strategies in ANCA-Associated Vasculitis: Current Standards and Emerging Targets for GPA and MPA.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere may be some diversity in the practice of co-prescribing 2-mercaptoethane sodium sulfonate (mesna) with cyclophosphamide (CYC) for ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV).
objectivesTo assess the practice of prescribing mesna prophylaxis for CYC-treated patients with AAV.
methodsWe invited authors of publications on AAV referenced in MEDLINE over the previous 10 years to participate in an anonymous online survey. Respondents were eligible if they were involved in CYC treatments for AAV. The survey asked about the characteristics of the respondents and their practice in using CYC and mesna to treat AAV and the underlying rationale. We compared 18 variables between mesna prescribers and their counterparts to identify factors associated with mesna use.
resultsIn total, 139 eligible individuals completed the survey. The participants were from 34 countries and were essentially physicians (98%). Overall, 68%, 19% and 13% of respondents prescribed mesna systematically, never, or on a selective basis. As compared with never/selective-prescribers, systematic-prescribers were more often ≤ 39 years old (P = 0.008), more often used intermittent pulse therapy as the exclusive/predominant CYC administration scheme (P < 0.001), were more frequently based in France/Germany/Italy than in England/United States (P < 0.001), and more often indicated adherence to local standards (P = 0.003) or (inter)national guidelines for AAV (P < 0.001) as a rationale for their mesna practice. Never/selective-prescribers more commonly reported that their mesna prescription pattern had changed as compared with their former practice (P < 0.001).
conclusionsSystematic co-prescription of mesna is the prevailing practice for CYC treatments for AAV. The practice seems to involve practicability considerations and differs between generations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38935122What 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.