4.4 Article

Effect and Safety of Mycophenolate Mofetil in Chronic Pulmonary Sarcoidosis: A Retrospective Study

期刊

RESPIRATION
卷 86, 期 5, 页码 376-383

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000345596

关键词

Sarcoidosis; Steroid-sparing agent; Mycophenolate; Interstitial lung disease; Pulmonary function

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Treatment of chronic pulmonary sarcoidosis (CPS) is challenging and often requires long-term therapy with systemic corticosteroids and supplementary use of steroid- sparing agents. Objective: To examine the efficiency and safety of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) as a steroidsparing agent in patients with CPS. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients with biopsy-proven pulmonary sarcoidosis, who were treated with MMF and systemic corticosteroids for > 6 months between 2004 and 2010. Corticosteroid dose, pulmonary function parameters and radiological and clinical follow-up before and after treatment with MMF were assessed. Results: Ten patients received MMF for >6 months. MMF was introduced due to side effects (5/10 patients) and due to an inadequate response to prior therapy (5/10 patients). Median duration of treatment with MMF was 31 months (range 8-66). Therapeutic MMF plasma trough levels of 1-3 mg/l were reached with daily doses of 1,722 +/- 440 mg MMF. Daily corticosteroid dose could be significantly reduced from 14.3 +/- 13.3 to 6.5 +/- 2.3 mg prednisolone during treatment. During follow-up, pulmonary function, symptoms and radiological signs improved in 4 patients, while 6 patients remained stable. Median change in FVC was +8.5 % (range -2 to 16). No severe adverse events that were related to combined immunosuppressive therapy occurred. Conclusion: This study indicates that the addition of MMF to corticosteroids is a viable and safe treatment option in CPS. MMF allows a significant reduction of maintenance corticosteroids to levels < 10 mg/day while preserving a stable or improved clinical condition. Copyright (C) 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据