A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Intravenous versus oral cyclophosphamide for lung and/or skin fibrosis in systemic sclerosis: an indirect comparison from EUSTAR and randomised controlled trials. | LitMetric

Intravenous versus oral cyclophosphamide for lung and/or skin fibrosis in systemic sclerosis: an indirect comparison from EUSTAR and randomised controlled trials.

Clin Exp Rheumatol

Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, University of Firenze, Italy, and Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, University of California Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Published: September 2020

Objectives: Both intravenous (IV) and oral (PO) cyclophosphamide (CYC) showed beneficial effects on skin and lung involvement in systemic sclerosis (SSc) in placebo-controlled randomised clinical trials and observational studies. Our goal was to compare the relative efficacy and safety of PO- versus IV-CYC for treating interstitial lung disease and/or skin involvement in SSc.

Methods: Patients were derived from the EUSTAR centres and the Scleroderma Lung Studies I and II. A minimum of 6 months of CYC treatment and 12 months follow-up were required. Serious (SAEs) and non-serious adverse events and efficacy data (change in FVC%, DLCO%, mRSS) were analysed at the end of CYC treatment (EoT) and at follow-up (FU). Analysis included descriptive statistics and linear regressions.

Results: Differences in ethnicity, previous DMARD exposure, previous and concomitant steroid exposure/dosage were observed in the PO (n=149) and IV (n=153) CYC groups. Adjusted and unadjusted changes in FVC%, DLCO% and mRSS were similar irrespective of mode of administration. PO patients had more leukopenia (p<0.001), haemorrhagic cystitis (p=0.011) and alopecia (p<0.001) at the EoT visit, while the IV group had more SAEs (p=0.025) and need for oxygen supplementation at FU (p=0.049).

Conclusions: In a comparison of PO- to IV-CYC for SSc, we found no differences in lung function or cutaneous sclerosis after one year. Some differences in side effects were seen. The results need to be considered as preliminary; however, because we needed to use a combination of RCT and registry data, with some differences in demographics and concomitant medications, well-controlled studies are warranted.

Download full-text PDF

Source

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

oral cyclophosphamide
8
and/or skin
8
systemic sclerosis
8
cyc treatment
8
fvc% dlco%
8
dlco% mrss
8
intravenous versus
4
versus oral
4
lung
4
cyclophosphamide lung
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!