SynthesisBMJ open2019
Comparative efficacy of 13 immunosuppressive agents for idiopathic membranous nephropathy in adults with nephrotic syndrome: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cyclophosphamide induced early remission and was superior to rituximab in idiopathic membranous nephropathy patients with high anti-PLA2R antibody levels.BMC nephrology · 2023Pooled it
- Immunosuppression therapy for idiopathic membranous nephropathy: systematic review with network meta-analysis.Journal of nephrology · 2022Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of 12 immunosuppressive agents for idiopathic membranous nephropathy in adults: A pairwise and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Pooled it
- Treatment of Idiopathic Membranous Nephropathy for Moderate or Severe Proteinuria: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.International journal of clinical practice · 2022Pooled it
- Comparison of efficacy and safety among four therapeutic regimens in primary membranous nephropathy with high anti-PLA2R antibody titers: a single-center retrospective cohort study.BMC nephrology · 2026Article
- Observational study of immunosuppressive treatment patterns and outcomes in primary membranous nephropathy: a multicenter retrospective analysis.BMC nephrology · 2024Observational
- Review
- The efficacy and safety of Sanqi Qushi Granule in patients with idiopathic membranous nephropathy --protocol of a multicenter, randomized control trial (SQ-AUTUMN).BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2023Article
- Immunosuppressive Agent Options for Primary Nephrotic Syndrome: A Review of Network Meta-Analyses and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- From KDIGO 2012 towards KDIGO 2021 in idiopathic membranous nephropathy guidelines: what has changed over the last 10 years?Journal of nephrology · 2023Review
- Immunosuppressive treatment for idiopathic membranous nephropathy: An updated network meta-analysis.Open life sciences · 2023Review
- Efficacy and safety of Tripterygium wilfordii multiglucoside for idiopathic membranous nephropathy: a systematic review with bayesian meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Pharmacometabonomic association of cyclophosphamide 4-hydroxylation in hematopoietic cell transplant recipients.Clinical and translational science · 2022Article
- Integrated Network Pharmacology Analysis and Experimental Validation to Investigate the Molecular Mechanism of Triptolide in the Treatment of Membranous Nephropathy.Drug design, development and therapy · 2022Article
- Real-World Effects of Chinese Herbal Medicine for Idiopathic Membranous Nephropathy (REACH-MN): Protocol of a Registry-Based Cohort Study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to compare the effectiveness of 13 types of immunosuppressive agents used to treat idiopathic membranous nephropathy (IMN) in adults with nephrotic syndrome.
designSystematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Clinical trials, SinoMed, Chinese Biomedicine, CNKI, WanFang and Chongqing VIP Information databases were comprehensively searched until February 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of different immunosuppressive treatments in adult patients with IMN and nephrotic syndrome were included, and all included RCTs had a study-duration of at least 6 months. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data and assessed study quality. Standard pairwise meta-analysis was performed using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model.
resultsThis study ultimately included 48 RCTs with 2736 patients and 13 immunosuppressive agents. The network meta-analysis results showed that most regimens, except for leflunomide (LEF), mizoribine (MZB) and steroids (STE), showed significantly higher probabilities of total remission (TR) when compared with non-immunosuppressive therapies (the control group),with risk ratios (RRs) of 2.71 (95% CI) 1.81 to 4.06)for tacrolimus+tripterygium wilfordii (TAC+TW), 2.16 (1.27 to 3.69) foradrenocorticotropic hormone, 2.02 (1.64 to 2.49) for TAC, 2.03 (1.13 to3.64) for azathioprine (AZA), 1.91 (1.46 to 2.50) for cyclosporine (CsA), 1.86 (1.44 to2.42) for mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), 1.85 (1.52 to 2.25) for cyclophosphamide (CTX),1.81 (1.10 to 2.98) for rituximab (RIT), 1.80 (1.38 to 2.33) for TW, 1.72 (1.35 to 2.19) for chlorambucil. As for 24 hours UTP, the direct andindirect comparisons showed that AZA (standard mean difference (SMD), -1.02(95% CI -1.90 to -0.15)), CsA (SMD, -0.70 (95% CI -1.33 to -0.08)),CTX (SMD, -1.01 (95% CI -1.44 to -0.58)), MMF (SMD, -0.98 (95% CI -1.64 to -0.32)), MZB (SMD, -0.97 (95% CI -1.90 to-0.04]), TAC (SMD, -1.16 (95% CI -1.72 to -0.60)) and TAC+TW(SMD, -2.03 (95% CI -2.94 to -1.12)) could significantly superior thancontrol, except for chlorambucil, LEF, RIT and STE. Thechanges of serum creatinine (Scr) was not significantly different between eachtreatments of immunosuppressive agents and the control, except for STE whichhas the possibility of increasing Scr (SMD, 1.00 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.64)).Comparisons among all treatments of immunosuppressive agents showed nostatistical significance in the outcome of relapse. A drenocorticotropichormone (85.1%) showed the lowest probability of relapse under the cumulativeranking curve values among all immunosuppressants. Infection,gastrointestinal symptoms, and bone marrow suppression were the common adverseevents associated with most of the immunosuppressive therapies.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that TAC+TW, TAC and CTX are superior to other immunosuppressive agents in terms of TR and 24 hours UTP. Moreover, they are all at risk of infection, gastrointestinal symptoms, and myelosuppression. Furthermore, TAC could increase the risk of glucose intolerance or new-onset diabetes mellitus. Conversely, STE alone, LEF and MZB seem to have little advantage in clinical treatment of IMN. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018094228.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.