SynthesisNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2026
Efficacy of low-dose versus high-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide in Lupus Nephritis: A systematic review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lupus nephritis (LN) is a severe manifestation of systemic lupus erythematosus. While high-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide (HDC) is standard induction therapy, concerns over toxicity have encouraged low-dose regimens (LDC). Uncertainty persists regarding their comparative efficacy and safety across diverse populations. Following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to August 2025. Randomized controlled trials and high-quality cohort studies comparing LDC and HDC were included. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane RoB 2 tool and certainty of evidence with the GRADE approach. Thirteen eligible studies, including both randomized controlled trials and observational cohort studies encompassing diverse global cohorts, were included. LDC demonstrated lower rates of full remission compared with HDC (RR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.70-0.94, p = 0.008), though trials reporting complete renal remission (CRR) suggested a modest benefit for LDC (RR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.03-1.25, p = 0.01). LDC significantly reduced the risk of leukopenia (RR = 0.66, p = 0.03) and amenorrhea/gonadal toxicity (RR = 0.51, p = 0.0002), with no significant differences in renal relapse, mortality, or renal failure. Low-dose cyclophosphamide offers a safer profile, particularly for women of reproductive age, whereas high-dose regimens yield higher remission rates in severe disease. Treatment choice should be individualized according to disease severity, toxicity risk, and patient demographics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41945139What 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.