Efficacy and safety of agents in IgA nephropathy: An update network meta-analysis

11Citations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background/Aims: The present network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to explore the efficacy and safety of different pharmacologic interventions in IgA nephropathy with proteinuria more than 0.75 g/d. Methods: We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed database for studies compared the rate of clinical remission and/or serious adverse events in IgA nephropathy patients with proteinuria (> 0.75 g/d) up to August 1, 2018. We ranked the comparative effects of all drugs against placebo on the surface under the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) probabilities. Results: There were 29 RCTs comprising 2517 participants included for the comparisons of 9 interventions. The rank of the most effective treatments for inducing clinical remission was renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) in combination with steroid, tonsillectomy combined with steroid pulse therapy, and azathioprine plus RASi with SUCRA of 82.9%, 80.5%, and 67.6%, respectively. RASi in combination with steroid (SUCRA 3.9%) was the most effective in prevention of end-stage renal disease or doubling serum creatinine, followed by RASi monotherapy (SUCRA 38.4%) and azathioprine combined with steroid (SUCRA 49.0%). As for the occurrence of serious adverse events, azathioprine combined with RASi (SUCRA 88.0%) and steroid plus RASi (SUCRA 74.6%) showed the first and second highest incidence of adverse events, respectively. Conclusion: RASi combined with steroid demonstrated the most effective therapeutic approach for IgA nephropathy patients in terms of reducing proteinuria and stabilizing renal function.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Yang, P., Wang, Q., Xie, C., Xu, G., & Wu, Q. (2018). Efficacy and safety of agents in IgA nephropathy: An update network meta-analysis. Kidney and Blood Pressure Research, 43(6), 1890–1897. https://doi.org/10.1159/000496000

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free