Interventions for idiopathic steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome in children

BACKGROUND

The majority of children who present with their first episode of nephrotic syndrome achieve remission with corticosteroid therapy. Children who fail to respond may be treated with immunosuppressive agents including calcineurin inhibitors (cyclosporin or tacrolimus) and with non-immunosuppressive agents such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi). Optimal combinations of these agents with the least toxicity remain to be determined. This is an update of a review first published in 2004 and updated in 2006 and 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of different interventions used in children with idiopathic nephrotic syndrome, who do not achieve remission following four weeks or more of daily corticosteroid therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register (up to 2 March 2016) through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs and quasi-RCTs were included if they compared different immunosuppressive agents or non-immunosuppressive agents with placebo, prednisone or other agent given orally or parenterally in children aged three months to 18 years with SRNS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently searched the literature, determined study eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Data were pooled using the random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs (820 children enrolled; 773 evaluated) were included. Most studies were small. Eleven studies were at low risk of bias for allocation concealment and only four studies were at low risk of performance bias. Fifteen, eight and 10 studies were at low risk of detection bias, attrition bias and reporting bias respectively. Cyclosporin when compared with placebo or no treatment significantly increased the number of children who achieved complete remission. However this was based on only eight children who achieved remission with cyclosporin compared with no children who achieved remission with placebo/no treatment in three small studies (49 children: RR 7.66, 95% CI 1.06 to 55.34). Calcineurin inhibitors significantly increased the number with complete or partial remission compared with IV cyclophosphamide (2 studies, 156 children: RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.25 to 3.13; I² = 20%). There was no significant differences in the number who achieved complete remission between tacrolimus versus cyclosporin (1 study, 41 children: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.66), cyclosporin versus mycophenolate mofetil plus dexamethasone (1 study, 138 children: RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.87 to 5.24), oral cyclophosphamide with prednisone versus prednisone alone (2 studies, 91 children: RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.87), IV versus oral cyclophosphamide (1 study, 11 children: RR 3.13, 95% CI 0.81 to 12.06), IV cyclophosphamide versus oral cyclophosphamide plus IV dexamethasone (1 study, 49 children: RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.96), and azathioprine with prednisone versus prednisone alone (1 study, 31 children: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.15 to 5.84). One study found no significant differences between three agents (cyclophosphamide, mycophenolate mofetil, leflunomide) used in combination with tacrolimus and prednisone. One study found no significant difference in the percentage reduction in proteinuria (31 children: -12; 95% CI -73 to 110) between rituximab with cyclosporin/prednisolone and cyclosporin/prednisolone alone. Two studies reported ACEi significantly reduced proteinuria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

To date RCTs have demonstrated that calcineurin inhibitors increase the likelihood of complete or partial remission compared with placebo/no treatment or cyclophosphamide. For other regimens assessed, it remains uncertain whether the interventions alter outcomes because the certainty of the evidence is low. Further adequately powered, well designed RCTs are needed to evaluate other regimens for children with idiopathic SRNS. Since SRNS represents a spectrum of diseases, future studies should enrol children from better defined groups of patients with SRNS.

Mycophenolic acid versus azathioprine as primary immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Modern immunosuppressive regimens after kidney transplantation usually use a combination of two or three agents of different classes to prevent rejection and maintain graft function. Most frequently, calcineurin-inhibitors (CNI) are combined with corticosteroids and a proliferation-inhibitor, either azathioprine (AZA) or mycophenolic acid (MPA). MPA has largely replaced AZA as a first line agent in primary immunosuppression, as MPA is believed to be of stronger immunosuppressive potency than AZA. However, treatment with MPA is more costly, which calls for a comprehensive assessment of the comparative effects of the two drugs.

OBJECTIVES

This review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to look at the benefits and harms of MPA versus AZA in primary immunosuppressive regimens after kidney transplantation. Both agents were compared regarding their efficacy for maintaining graft and patient survival, prevention of acute rejection, maintaining graft function, and their safety, including infections, malignancies and other adverse events. Furthermore, we investigated potential effect modifiers, such as transplantation era and the concomitant immunosuppressive regimen in detail.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register (to 21 September 2015) through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs about MPA versus AZA in primary immunosuppression after kidney transplantation were included, without restriction on language or publication type.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently determined study eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data from each study. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model and the results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 studies (94 reports) that involved 3301 participants. All studies tested mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), an MPA, and 22 studies reported at least one outcome relevant for this review. Assessment of methodological quality indicated that important information on factors used to judge susceptibility for bias was infrequently and inconsistently reported.MMF treatment reduced the risk for graft loss including death (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.0) and for death-censored graft loss (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.99, P < 0.05). No statistically significant difference for MMF versus AZA treatment was found for all-cause mortality (16 studies, 2987 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.29). The risk for any acute rejection (22 studies, 3301 participants: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.73, P < 0.01), biopsy-proven acute rejection (12 studies, 2696 participants: RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.68) and antibody-treated acute rejection (15 studies, 2914 participants: RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.65, P < 0.01) were reduced in MMF treated patients. Meta-regression analyses suggested that the magnitude of risk reduction of acute rejection may be dependent on the control rate (relative risk reduction (RRR) 0.34, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.09, P = 0.08), AZA dose (RRR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.01, P = 0.10) and the use of cyclosporin A micro-emulsion (RRR 1.27, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.65, P = 0.07). Pooled analyses failed to show a significant and meaningful difference between MMF and AZA in kidney function measures.Data on malignancies and infections were sparse, except for cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections. The risk for CMV viraemia/syndrome (13 studies, 2880 participants: RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32) was not statistically significantly different between MMF and AZA treated patients, whereas the likelihood of tissue-invasive CMV disease was greater with MMF therapy (7 studies, 1510 participants: RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.61). Adverse event profiles varied: gastrointestinal symptoms were more likely in MMF treated patients and thrombocytopenia and elevated liver enzymes were more common in AZA treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

MMF was superior to AZA for improvement of graft survival and prevention of acute rejection after kidney transplantation. These benefits must be weighed against potential harms such as tissue-invasive CMV disease. However, assessment of the evidence on safety outcomes was limited due to rare events in the observation periods of the studies (e.g. malignancies) and inconsistent reporting and definitions (e.g. infections, adverse events). Thus, balancing benefits and harms of the two drugs remains a major task of the transplant physician to decide which agent the individual patient should be started on.

Belatacept for kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Most people who receive a kidney transplant die from either cardiovascular disease or cancer before their transplant fails. The most common reason for someone with a kidney transplant to lose the function of their transplanted kidney necessitating return to dialysis is chronic kidney transplant scarring. Immunosuppressant drugs have side effects that increase risks of cardiovascular disease, cancer and chronic kidney transplant scarring. Belatacept may provide sufficient immunosuppression while avoiding unwanted side effects of other immunosuppressant drugs. However, high rates of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD) have been reported when belatacept is used in particular kidney transplant recipients at high dosage.

OBJECTIVES

1) Compare the relative efficacy of belatacept versus any other primary immunosuppression regimen for preventing acute rejection, maintaining kidney transplant function, and preventing death. 2) Compare the incidence of several adverse events: PTLD; other malignancies; chronic transplant kidney scarring (IF/TA); infections; change in blood pressure, lipid and blood sugar control. 3) Assess any variation in effects by study, intervention and recipient characteristics, including: differences in pre-transplant Epstein Barr virus serostatus; belatacept dosage; and donor-category (living, standard criteria deceased, or extended criteria deceased).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 1 September 2014 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared belatacept versus any other immunosuppression regimen in kidney transplant recipients were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data for study quality and transplant outcomes and synthesized results using random effects meta-analysis, expressed as risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI).  Subgroup analyses and univariate meta-regression were used to investigate potential heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five studies that compared belatacept and calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) that reported data from a total of 1535 kidney transplant recipients. Of the five studies, three (478 participants) compared belatacept and cyclosporin and two (43 recipients) compared belatacept and tacrolimus. Co-interventions included basiliximab (4 studies, 1434 recipients); anti-thymocyte globulin (1 study, 89 recipients); alemtuzumab (1 study, 12 recipients); mycophenolate mofetil (MMF, 5 studies, 1509 recipients); sirolimus (1 study, 26 recipients) and prednisone (5 studies, 1535 recipients).Up to three years following transplant, belatacept and CNI-treated recipients were at similar risk of dying (4 studies, 1516 recipients: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.44), losing their kidney transplant and returning to dialysis (4 studies, 1516 recipients: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.38), and having an episode of acute rejection (4 studies, 1516 recipients: RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.86). Belatacept-treated kidney transplant recipients were 28% less likely to have chronic kidney scarring (3 studies, 1360 recipients: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.94) and also had better graft function (measured glomerular filtration rate (GFR) (3 studies 1083 recipients): 10.89 mL/min/1.73 m², 95% CI 4.01 to 17.77; estimated GFR (4 studies, 1083 recipients): MD 9.96 mL/min/1.73 m², 95% CI 3.28 to 16.64) than CNI-treated recipients. Blood pressure was lower (systolic (2 studies, 658 recipients): MD -7.51 mm Hg, 95% CI -10.57 to -4.46; diastolic (2 studies, 658 recipients): MD -3.07 mm Hg, 95% CI -4.83 to -1.31, lipid profile was better (non-HDL (3 studies 1101 recipients): MD -12.25 mg/dL, 95% CI -17.93 to -6.57; triglycerides (3 studies 1101 recipients): MD -24.09 mg/dL, 95% CI -44.55 to -3.64), and incidence of new-onset diabetes after transplant was reduced by 39% (4 studies (1049 recipients): RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.93) among belatacept-treated versus CNI-treated recipients.Risk of PTLD was similar in belatacept and CNI-treated recipients (4 studies, 1516 recipients: RR 2.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 12.66) and was no different among recipients who received different belatacept dosages (high versus low dosage: ratio of risk ratios (RRR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.80, test of difference = 0.96) or among those who were Epstein Barr virus seronegative compared with those who were seropositive before their kidney transplant (seronegative versus seropositive; RRR 1.49, 95% CI 0.15 to 14.76, test for difference = 0.73).The belatacept dose used (high versus low), type of donor kidney the recipient received (extended versus standard criteria) and whether the kidney transplant recipient received tacrolimus or cyclosporin made no difference to kidney transplant survival, incidence of acute rejection or estimated GFR. Selective outcome reporting meant that data for some key subgroup comparisons were sparse and that estimates of the effect of treatment in these groups of recipients remain imprecise.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence of any difference in the effectiveness of belatacept and CNI in preventing acute rejection, graft loss and death, but treatment with belatacept is associated with less chronic kidney scarring and better kidney transplant function. Treatment with belatacept is also associated with better blood pressure and lipid profile and a lower incidence of diabetes versus treatment with a CNI. Important side effects (particularly PTLD) remain poorly reported and so the relative benefits and harms of using belatacept remain unclear. Whether short-term advantages of treatment with belatacept are maintained over the medium- to long-term or translate into better cardiovascular outcomes or longer kidney transplant survival with function remains unclear. Longer-term, fully reported and published studies comparing belatacept versus tacrolimus are needed to help clinicians decide which patients might benefit most from using belatacept.

Mycophenolate mofetil versus methotrexate for prevention of graft-versus-host disease in people receiving allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

BACKGROUND

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is associated with improved outcomes for people with various hematologic diseases; however, the morbidity and mortality resulting from acute and subsequently chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) pose a serious challenge to wider applicability of allo-HCT. Intravenous methotrexate in combination with a calcineurin inhibitor, cyclosporine or tacrolimus, is a widely used regimen for the prophylaxis of acute GVHD, but the administration of methotrexate is associated with a number of adverse events. Mycophenolate mofetil, in combination with a calcineurin inhibitor, has been used extensively in people undergoing allo-HCT. Conflicting results regarding various clinical outcomes following allo-HCT have been observed when comparing mycophenolate mofetil-based regimens against methotrexate-based regimens for acute GVHD prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVES

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE

to assess the effect of mycophenolate mofetil versus methotrexate for prevention of acute GVHD in people undergoing allo-HCT.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVES

to evaluate the effect of mycophenolate mofetil versus methotrexate for overall survival, prevention of chronic GVHD, incidence of relapse, treatment-related harms, nonrelapse mortality, and quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and MEDLINE from inception to March 2014. We handsearched conference abstracts from the last two meetings (2011 and 2012) of relevant societies in the field. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, Novartis clinical trials database (www.novctrd.com), Roche clinical trial protocol registry (www.roche-trials.com), Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently reviewed all titles/abstracts and selected full-text articles for inclusion. We included all references that reported results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of mycophenolate mofetil versus methotrexate for the prophylaxis of GVHD among people undergoing allo-HCT in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data on outcomes from all studies and compared prior to data entry and analysis. We expressed results as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CIs for time-to-event outcomes. We pooled the individual study effects using the random-effects model. Estimates lower than one indicate that mycophenolate mofetil was favored over methotrexate.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three trials enrolling 177 participants (174 participants analyzed). All participants in the trials by Keihl et al. and Bolwell et al. received cyclosporine while all participants enrolled in the trial by Perkins et al. received tacrolimus. However, the results did not differ by the type of calcineurin inhibitor employed (cyclosporine versus tacrolimus). There was no evidence for a difference between mycophenolate mofetil versus methotrexate for the outcomes of incidence of acute GVHD (RR 1.25; 95% CI 0.75 to 2.09; P value = 0.39, very low quality evidence), overall survival (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.17; P value = 0.19, low-quality evidence), median days to neutrophil engraftment (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.17; P value = 0.23, low-quality evidence), incidence of relapse (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; P value = 0.50, low-quality evidence), non-relapse mortality (RR 1.21; 95% CI 0.62 to 2.36; P value = 0.57, low-quality evidence), and incidence of chronic GVHD (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.30; P value = 0.62, low-quality evidence). There was low-quality evidence that mycophenolate mofetil compared with methotrexate improved platelet engraftment period (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.81 to 0.93; P value < 0.0001, low-quality evidence). There was low-quality evidence that mycophenolate mofetil compared with methotrexate resulted in decreased incidence of severe mucositis (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.73; P value = 0.0006, low-quality evidence), use of parenteral nutrition (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.91; P value = 0.02, low-quality evidence), and medication for pain control (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.91; P value = 0.002, low-quality evidence). Overall heterogeneity was not detected in the analysis except for the outcome of neutrophil engraftment. None of the included studies reported any outcomes related to quality of life. Overall quality of evidence was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of mycophenolate mofetil compared with methotrexate for primary prevention of GVHD seems to be associated with a more favorable toxicity profile, without an apparent compromise on disease relapse, transplant-associated mortality, or overall survival. The effects on incidence of GVHD between people receiving mycophenolate mofetil compared with people receiving methotrexate were uncertain. There is a need for additional high-quality RCTs to determine the optimal GVHD prevention strategy. Future studies should take into account a comprehensive view of clinical benefit, including measures of morbidity, symptom burden, and healthcare resource utilization associated with interventions.

Mycophenolate mofetil for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an immune-mediated disease of the central nervous system and a leading cause of disability in young and middle-aged adults. Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is an immunosuppressive agent that has been used for the prevention of allograft rejection after renal, cardiac, or liver transplant and in patients with autoimmune diseases such as active relapsing-remitting (RRMS) and progressive MS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of MMF for preventing disease activity in patients with RRMS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group Specialised Register (January 14, 2013). We searched three Chinese databases (January 2013) and checked reference lists of identified trials. We contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies to ask for additional information. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials with a follow-up of at least 12 months that compared MMF as monotherapy or in combination with other treatments versus placebo, another drug, or the same cointervention as the treated group.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality, and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

One included study involving 26 participants with new-onset RRMS investigated the efficacy and safety of MMF (13 participants) versus placebo in interferon β-1a-treated participants. It was assessed to be at high risk of bias, and had a small numbers of participants receiving treatment with short-term duration. There was inadequate information provided by the study to determine the effect of MMF in reducing relapses, preventing disability progression, or developing new T2- or new gadolinium (Gd)-enhanced lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after a 12-month follow-up period. No data were available at 24 months. No serious adverse effects were reported. All participants in the MMF-treated group suffered from gastrointestinal upset, but none of them discontinued therapy as a result.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence we found from one small study was insufficient to determine the effects of MMF as an add-on therapy for interferon β-1a in new-onset RRMS participants.