Immunosuppressive treatment for idiopathic nephrotic syndrome with corticosteroids and cyclophosphamide: factors associated with a favourable outcome

Interventions for minimal change disease in adults with nephrotic syndrome

BACKGROUND

Steroids have been used widely since the early 1970s for the treatment of adult-onset minimal change disease. The response rates to immunosuppressive agents in adult minimal change disease, especially steroids, are more variable than in children. The optimal agent, dose, and duration of treatment for the first episode of nephrotic syndrome, or for disease relapse(s) has not been determined.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of interventions for the nephrotic syndrome in adults caused by minimal change disease.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, reference articles and abstracts from conference proceedings, without language restriction. Search date: January 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of any intervention for minimal change disease in adults over 18 years with the nephrotic syndrome were included. Studies comparing different routes, frequencies, and duration of immunosuppressive agents were selected. Studies comparing non-immunosuppressive agents were also assessed.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and results were expressed as a relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, or mean difference (WMD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Three RCTs (68 participants) were identified. All treatment comparisons contained only one study. No significant difference was found between prednisone compared with placebo for complete (RR 1.44, CI 0.95 to 2.19) and partial remission (RR 1.00, CI 0.07 to 14.45) of the nephrotic syndrome due to minimal change disease. There was no difference between intravenous methylprednisolone plus oral prednisone compared with oral prednisone alone for complete remission (RR 0.74, CI 0.50 to 1.08). Prednisone, compared with short-course intravenous methylprednisolone, increased the number of subjects who achieved complete remission (RR 4.95, CI 1.15 to 21.26). The lack of statistical evidence of efficacy associated with prednisone therapy was based on data derived from a single study that compared 'alternate-day prednisone' to no immunosuppression' with only a small number of participants in each group. No RCTs were identified comparing regimens in adults with a steroid-dependent or relapsing disease course or comparing treatments comprising alkylating agents, cyclosporine, tacrolimus, levamisole, or mycophenolate mofetil.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Further comparative studies are required to examine the efficacy of immunosuppressive agents for achievement of sustained remission of nephrotic syndrome caused by minimal change disease. Studies are also needed to evaluate treatments for adults with steroid-dependent or relapsing disease.