Comparison of safety, efficacy and cost between oral pulse cyclophosphamide versus intravenous cyclophosphamide pulse therapy in severe systemic lupus erythematosus. (25th May 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Padiyar, Shivraj; Arya, Suvrat; Surin, Ajit; Viswanath, Vishad; Danda, Debashish
• Is Part Of: International journal of rheumatic diseases. Volume 23:Number 6(2020)
• Page Start: 800
• Page End: 804
• Publication Date: 2020-05-25
• Subjects: oral cyclophosphamide -- pulse -- systemic lupus erythematosus; Rheumatology -- Periodicals; Rheumatology -- Asia -- Periodicals; Rheumatology -- Pacific Area -- Periodicals; Rheumatic Diseases -- Periodicals; Connective Tissue Diseases -- Periodicals; Immune System Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.723
• DOI: 10.1111/1756-185X.13823
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1756-1841

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: The aim of this study is to compare efficacy, toxicity and cost between oral and intravenous cyclophosphamide (CYC) pulse therapy in inducing remission (Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index [SLEDAI] <3) in severe SLE. Methods: We retrospectively checked the hospital records of patients between the years 2000 and 2018, who had been administered oral cyclophosphamide pulse and intravenous (IV) cyclophosphamide pulse. SLEDAI at baseline and after 6 months of therapy were noted. The statistical analysis was done using Mann‐Whitney U test. The cost was also calculated. Results: We included 45 patients in this study, 21 in the oral pulse group and 24 in the IV group. The median age of patients in the oral and IV groups were 29 (interquartile range [IQR] 22‐37) and 26 (IQR 19.25‐0.75) years respectively. Median SLEDAI at baseline was comparable between the 2 groups (oral 18.0 [IQR 15.0‐26.0]; IV 14.5 [IQR 11.0‐20.0] P = .151). At the end of 6 months of treatment, it was 0.0 (IQR 0.0‐4.0) in the oral group, as against 2.0 (IQR 0.0‐5.5) in IV group ( P = .676). There was no major adverse event in either group. Oral cyclophosphamide pulse therapy was more economical as compared to IV cyclophosphamide [630 Indian National rupees( INR)/ 8.85 US dollars(USD) in the IV arm and 50 INR/0.7 USD in the oral arm] ( P < .001). Conclusion: This study concludes that oral cyclophosphamide pulse therapy is an economical option and there was no difference in efficacy and safety between oral cyclophosphamide pulse therapy and IV pulse cyclophosphamide therapy.