Indexed in MEDLINE, SCI & KoreaMed
pISSN 1011-8934   eISSN 1598-6357
Open Access, Peer-reviewed, Weekly
    J Korean Med Sci. 2019 Jul 15;34(27):e185. English.
    Published online Jul 01, 2019.
    https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e185
    © 2019 The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences.
    Original Article

    The Effect of Mycophenolate Mofetil on Non-Renal Manifestations in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Results from Korean Lupus Network Registry

    Ui Hong Jung,1 Sang Gyu Kwak,2 Jung-Yoon Choe,1 Shin-Seok Lee,3 and Seong-Kyu Kim1
      • 1Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Catholic University of Daegu School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea.
      • 2Department of Medical Statistics, Catholic University of Daegu School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea.
      • 3Department of Rheumatology, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea.
    • Address for Correspondence: Seong-Kyu Kim, MD, PhD. Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Arthritis and Autoimmunity Research Center, Daegu Catholic University School of Medicine, 33 Duryugongwon-ro 17-gil, Nam-gu, Daegu 42472, Republic of Korea. Email: kimsk714@cu.ac.kr
    Received April 24, 2019; Accepted June 24, 2019.

    This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

    Abstract

    Background

    The objective of this study was to identify the effects of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) on non-renal manifestations in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

    Methods

    The study population comprised 439 SLE patients from the Korean Lupus Network registry who were followed up annually and completed the baseline survey and two follow-up visits from 2014 to 2018. Disease activity, laboratory markers, and clinical manifestations including mucocutaneous lesions, arthritis, serositis, neurological disorders, and hematologic/immunologic abnormalities were assessed. All variables by group (MMF and non-MMF) effects with time (baseline, 1st follow-up, and 2nd follow-up) were analyzed by generalized estimation equation.

    Results

    Seventy-two patients were treated with MMF. There was significant difference in frequencies of malar rash, arthritis, renal disorder, and hematologic disorder between MMF and non-MMF groups in total SLE patients. In subgroup analysis of hematologic abnormalities in total patients, frequency of leukopenia was significantly different between the two groups during follow-up (P = 0.001), but frequencies of hemolytic anemia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia were not. In addition, frequencies of leukopenia in patients without lupus nephritis were significantly decreased in MMF group compared to non-MMF group (P = 0.012).

    Conclusion

    This study showed that MMF might be a beneficial treatment for hematologic abnormalities, especially leukopenia, in SLE.

    Graphical Abstract

    Keywords
    Systemic Lupus Erythematosus; Mycophenolate Mofetil; Non-Renal Manifestations

    INTRODUCTION

    Enhanced understanding of the pathogenic mechanism of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) has led to more proper and challenging use of corticosteroids and other immunosuppressive agents such as mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), azathioprine, and cyclophosphamide, as well as development of novel targeted biologic therapeutics, including rituximab and belimumab during several decades.1, 2 It is well established that MMF, azathioprine, and cyclophosphamide are effective in the induction and maintenance of lupus nephritis (LN) and other features such as mucocutaneous lesions and neurological involvement. These therapeutic approaches have greatly improved morbidities and mortalities associated with SLE. However, the complexity of pathogenesis and clinical phenotypes of the disease complicates successful management.

    MMF is a prodrug of mycophenolic acid that inhibits guanosine nucleotides through reversible suppression of the enzyme inosine 5-monophosphate dehydrogenase.3, 4 The action mechanisms of MMF suppress proliferation and differentiation of activated T-lymphocytes, expression of adhesion molecules, and autoantibody formation by B-lymphocytes. Several randomized controlled trials have investigated whether MMF is a potent immunosuppressant with a crucial role in induction and maintenance management of proliferative LN. Most studies have demonstrated that patients treated with MMF showed superior or equivalent effects on suppression of renal inflammation in LN compared to those treated with cyclophosphamide or azathioprine.5, 6, 7 In addition, there is increasing evidence that MMF has some beneficial effects on non-renal manifestations including hematologic and neuropsychiatric abnormalities refractory to other conventional therapeutics.8, 9, 10, 11, 12

    However, data for therapeutic effects of MMF on organs or tissues other than kidney remain sparse for SLE. Thus, we investigated the effects of MMF on non-renal manifestations in patients with SLE using the data of an observational registry from 2014 to 2018.

    METHODS

    Study population

    The Korean Lupus Network (KORNET) registry, established in January 2014, is an observational and prospective registry for SLE patients from four university-based medical centers. Enrolled patients fulfilled the 1982 revised and 1997 updated American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for SLE.13, 14 The registry for clinical information was annually followed up and updated from baseline to the 2nd follow-up. A total of 505 patients with SLE were enrolled in the KORNET registry at baseline. However, this study recruited 439 SLE patients who completed clinical data collection after the 2nd follow-up visit. During the follow-up period, 66 SLE patients were excluded by follow-up loss or withdrawing consent.

    Collection of clinical information

    At baseline, we assessed age, gender, duration of education (year), smoking status (yes or no), and alcohol intake (yes or no). Clinical manifestations related with SLE including malar rash, discoid rash, photosensitivity, oral ulcer, arthritis, serositis (pleural effusion and pericardial effusion), neurological disorders (seizure and psychosis), and hematologic abnormalities (hemolytic anemia, leukopenia [< 4,000/mm3 on ≥ 2 occasions], lymphopenia [< 1,500/mm3 on ≥ 2 occasions], and thrombocytopenia [< 100,000/mm3]) were identified at all visits. At baseline, LN was confirmed by histology-proven diagnosis. Patients with non-renal manifestations were defined as those without histologically diagnosed LN.

    Other laboratory findings such as white blood cell (WBC), hemoglobin, platelet, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR, mm/hr), C-reactive protein (CRP, mg/mL), complement 3 (C3, mg/mL), and complement 4 (C4, mg/mL) were evaluated. Considering immunologic abnormalities, positivity for each anti-dsDNA antibody, anti-Sm antibody, and anti-phospholipid antibodies such as including anti-cardiolipin antibody, lupus anticoagulant, and false positive reaction for syphilis was also identified. Concurrent medications such as hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, tacrolimus, azathioprine, and corticosteroid were identified at enrollment.

    Assessment of disease activity and damage

    This registry utilized physician global assessment (PGA), Safety of Estrogen in Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment (SELENA)-SLE disease activity index (SLEDAI), and SELENA-SLEDAI flare index for measurement of disease activity and improvement or worsening of disease activity.15, 16 The Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology (SLICC/ACR) damage index was applied for evaluating lupus-related organ damage.17

    Determination of LN

    LN status was confirmed based on renal biopsy and its findings. Renal biopsy results were determined on the basis of World Health Organization (WHO) criteria or 2003 International Society of Nephrology (ISN)/Renal Pathology Society (RPS) Classification.18 The use of two classification criteria for LN was permitted in this study because not all participating medical centers used the same classification criteria. These criteria were used only to confirm the presence of renal disease and did not consider the extent or severity of inflammation.

    Assessment of quality of life and depression

    Questionnaires used for assessment of quality of life and depression were Short Form-36 health survey (SF-36) and Beck depression inventory (BDI), respectively.19, 20 SF-36 scores comprised a physical component score (PCS) and a mental component score (MCS).

    Statistical analysis

    Data are described as median and interquartile range for quantitative variables and frequency with percent (%) for qualitative variables. Analysis for all variables by group (MMF and non-MMF) effects with time (baseline, 1st follow-up, and 2nd follow-up) were performed using generalized estimation equation (GEE). For qualitative variables, Poisson distribution, gamma distribution, and normal distribution were used as distribution assumption. The log function was used as link function and unstructured covariance matrix was used. For quantitative variables, binomial distribution was used as distribution assumption. The logit function was used as link function and unstructured covariance matrix was used.

    To comparison frequencies of clinical manifestations of malar rash, discoid rash, photosensitivity, oral ulcer, arthritis, serositis, neurological disorder, hematologic manifestations, and immunologic abnormalities between groups (MMF and non-MMF) and among times (baseline, 1st follow-up, and 2nd follow-up), the analyses were divided into total patients, patients with LN, and patients without LN. In the analysis for hematologic abnormalities, subgroup analysis for hemolytic anemia, leukopenia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia was also performed. All tests were 2-sided, and a P value less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance using IBM SPSS ver. 19.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

    Ethics statement

    All patients registered in this study provided informed consent for inclusion in the study. This study was also approved by the Institutional Review Board of Daegu Catholic University Medical Center at the time of enrollment in the registry (CR-14-123-L). This study was performed according to the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

    RESULTS

    General characteristics of enrolled patients

    The baseline characteristics of all enrolled patients are described in Table 1. This study enrolled 439 SLE patients with a median age of 44.0 years (36.0–52.0) and of whom 411 were women (93.6%). The median age of 110 patients with biopsy-proven LN was 44.5 years (37.0–54.3), and 103 of them were women (93.6%). The remaining 329 patients free of LN had a median age of 43.0 years (35.0–49.0) and included 308 women (93.6%). Of total SLE patients, 72 (16.4%) reported MMF treatment at study enrollment, comprising 21 patients with LN (19.1%) and 51 patients (15.5%) patients without LN. Table 1 also showed the generalized characteristics of SLE patients treated with MMF.

    Table 1
    General characteristics of enrolled SLE patients

    The effect of MMF on non-renal manifestations in total SLE patients

    We analyzed the changes in relevant disease activity and laboratory variables from baseline to the 2nd follow-up between MMF and non-MMF groups. As shown in Table 2, there were significant differences in PCS of SF-36, physician global assessment, SELENA-SLEDAI, SLICC/ACR damage index, WBC, and prednisolone dosage between MMF and non-MMF group (P < 0.001, P = 0.003, P = 0.007, P < 0.001, P = 0.012, and P < 0.001, respectively). It suggests that MMF treatment improved quality of life, disease activity, and disease damage, and also reduced change in WBC and daily dose of prednisolone, compared to non-MMF treatment. In contrast, no differences of BDI, MCS of SF-36, SLE flare index, hemoglobin, platelet, ESR, CRP, complement 3, complement 4, and hydroxychloroquine dosage were not noted between two groups (P > 0.05 for all).

    Table 2
    Comparison for disease activity, laboratory markers, and medications between MMF and non-MMF groups in total patients

    In assessment of the effects of MMF on clinical manifestations, frequencies of patients with malar rash, arthritis, renal disorder, and hematologic disorder were significantly different between MMF and non-MMF groups (P = 0.023, P = 0.047, P < 0.001, and P = 0.009, respectively) (Table 3). It suggests that MMF treatment improved these clinical features during follow-up period. However, there are no differences of discoid rash, photosensitivity, oral ulcer, serositis, neurological disorder, anti-dsDNA antibody, anti-Sm antibody, and anti-phospholipid antibody between two groups.

    Table 3
    Comparison for frequencies of clinical manifestations between MMF and non-MMF groups in total patients

    There was significance in frequency of hematologic disorders in total patients (P = 0.009). In subgroup analysis of hematologic abnormalities, the frequency of patients with leukopenia was significantly different between MMF and non-MMF groups (P = 0.001) (Fig. 1A), but there was no difference regarding hemolytic anemia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia (Supplementary Fig. 1A).

    Fig. 1
    Comparison for changes in frequency for leukopenia between MMF and non-MMF groups. (A) Total lupus patients, (B) patients with lupus nephritis, (C) patients without lupus nephritis. Data was frequency (%) for each variable.
    MMF = mycophenolate mofetil.

    aIn patients with lupus nephritis, statistical analysis could not be performed because there was no leukopenia in patients treated with MMF.

    The effects of MMF on non-renal manifestations in patients with and without LN

    Changes in frequencies of clinical manifestations including malar rash, discoid rash, photosensitivity, oral ulcer, arthritis, serositis, neurological disorder, hematologic manifestations, and immunologic abnormalities except for anti-dsDNA antibody were not significantly different considering interaction of time and treatment group in patients with LN (Supplementary Table 1). Subgroup analysis of hematologic abnormalities did not show marked difference in change in frequencies of hemolytic anemia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia (Supplementary Fig. 1B). Considering frequency of leukopenia, there was no patients treated with MMF during follow-up period (Fig. 1B).

    In patients without LN, there was significant change in frequency of patients with hematologic disorder considering the interaction of time and group (P = 0.018) (Supplementary Table 2). In subgroup analysis of hematologic abnormalities, there was significant difference in change in frequency of leukopenia (P = 0.012) (Fig. 1C), but not in those of hemolytic anemia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia (Supplementary Fig. 1C).

    DISCUSSION

    Autoimmune responses mediated by formation of an immune complex; aberrant expression of autoantibodies, autoreactive T lymphocytes, and complements; and production of inflammatory cytokines are peculiar characteristics of SLE, which presents a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations.21, 22 Diverse immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory medications including hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, tacrolimus, and azathioprine have been used to control disease activity and prevent flare or organ damage, as has steroid sparing.1 These medications are helpful for cytopenia, arthritis/arthralgia, dermatitis, systemic vasculitis, and neuropsychiatric manifestations. However, there are still clinical manifestations that do not respond to conventional therapy. Over the previous several decades, MMF has been considered a main treatment to manage LN.5, 6, 7 Recently, MMF has been successfully used for management of non-renal manifestations.8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Nevertheless, there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate confidence in the clinical efficacy of MMF for non-renal manifestations in SLE. This is an observational study to determine the therapeutic effects of MMF on non-renal manifestations including musculoskeletal, mucocutaneous, neurological, and hematologic disorders and immunologic abnormalities in Korean SLE patients.

    Regarding efficacy of MMF on hematologic manifestations, a systemic review using 20 case series or open-labelled studies has demonstrated that MMF treatment induced good response to autoimmune hemolytic anemia and thrombocytopenia refractory to high-dose prednisolone, intravenous immunoglobulin, or other DMARDs.23 An observational cohort study that enrolled 177 SLE patients showed that 8/13 (61.5%) patients presenting with leukopenia and thrombocytopenia were significantly improved after MMF treatment for 12 months.11 Other studies also have shown good MMF response to autoimmune hemolytic anemia refractory to conventional treatment.8, 24 Ginzler et al.9 demonstrated that 28/47 (60%) patients with LN achieved remission in a hematologic domain based on BILAG score index in a posthoc analysis of the Aspreva Lupus Management Study (ALMS). However, Moder et al.10 reported no statistical improvement of hemoglobin, WBC count, or platelets in 23 SLE patients after 6 months of follow-up. In the present study, there were no differences in hemoglobin and platelet values, but only WBC count was different between two groups (P = 0.012). In addition, the frequency of hematologic disorders in the total study population was significantly different between MMF and non-MMF groups (P = 0.009). Subgroup analysis for hemolytic anemia, leukopenia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia revealed significantly greater improvement in leukopenia in the MMF groups compared to the non-MMF group, but not of any other cytopenia (Fig. 1 and Supplementary Fig. 1). These results suggest that MMF treatment has some efficacy to control and resolve hematologic abnormalities.

    Mucocutaneous lesions are frequently treated with conventional treatment modalities such as topical or systemic steroid, hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, or azathioprine.1 However, MMF can effectively treat lupus-related skin diseases that showed no response to conventional medications. The first report of successful MMF treatment for resistant discoid lupus erythematosus was published in 2001.25 Then, Mok23 reviewed 16 cases with lupus-related cutaneous lesions refractory to diverse therapeutics, in most of whom MMF use induced symptomatic improvement. Another study demonstrated that 73% (5/7) of patients with mild to moderately active non-renal lupus experienced improvement of skin lesions during the study period.10 Yahya et al.8 also reported improvement of more than 20% of skin lesions in two of three patients. Consistent with previous studies, we also found decreased frequency of patients with malar rash in the MMF group compared to the non-MMF group between baseline and follow-up periods. In contrast, poor response to MMF for management of refractory cutaneous lesions has been proposed. In analysis of seven SLE patients with diverse cutaneous lesions, five had no clinical response, one showed partial response, and one had initial response and subsequent relapse while on MMF treatment.26 The discrepancy in these therapeutic effects may be related to the pathological and immunological diversity of lupus-related skin lesions. A more careful consideration of the usefulness of MMF therapy is needed through analysis of the relationship between MMF and cutaneous lesions.

    Neuropsychiatric manifestations, including cognitive impairment, seizure, stroke, central and peripheral neuropathy, and psychosis, are a severe feature and contribute to increasing risk of morbidity and mortality in SLE patients.27 High-dose corticosteroids and/or cytotoxic agents such as cyclophosphamide or azathioprine are considered main therapeutics according to severity of these manifestations.27 Some studies have demonstrated favorable effects of MMF on neuropsychiatric features of SLE. In analysis of ALMS, 3 patients with neuropsychiatric features were treated with MMF; two showed partial response and one experienced remission.9 Mok23 reported clinical outcomes of seven neuropsychiatric lupus patients presenting with myelopathy or confusion state/delirium, most of whom showed beneficial efficacy ranging from complete recovery to partial response. In contrast, one observational study with 75 lupus patients treated with MMF for up to 5 years demonstrated that two patients with neurological symptoms improved after administration of MMF, but new neurological features occurred in 6 patients while on MMF treatment.28 In the present study, we found no difference in frequency of patients with neurological disorders between MMF and non-MMF groups. Interpretation of our findings may be limited because the neurological disorders included in this study were only seizure and psychosis.

    In our study, we could consider the possibility of MMF treatment in musculoskeletal manifestations. There was a significant difference in arthritis between MMF and non-MMF groups (P = 0.045). Moder et al.10 reported improvement of inflammatory arthritis in 4/7 (57%) patients after MMF treatment. Recently, a more efficient effect of complete clinical response in arthritis was cumulatively noted in 25/30 (83.3%) patients treated with MMF for 12 months.11 However, the effects of MMF on musculoskeletal manifestations have not been determined due to lack of sufficient data.

    Some evidence that MMF treatment was found to enhance quality of life in patients with SLE. Wilson et al.29 demonstrated that MMF induced better quality of life, compared to cyclophosphamide in a study using a patient-level stimulation model. In comparison of quality of life in 12 patients with LN, MMF treatment was closely linked with less emotional wellbeing, less energy/fatigue, better physical functioning, and less role limitation due to emotional problems.30 In this study, we also observed more improvement of PCS of SF-36 in patients treated with MMF, compared to those with non-MMF during follow-up period.

    There are some limitations in understanding the effects of MMF on non-renal features based on the results of this study. First, this study could not clarify whether the treatment effect of MMF was only the effect of MMF or the effect of other combination medications. Second, the non-renal manifestations analyzed in our study were mainly based on the diagnosis criteria for SLE.13, 14 This cannot rule out the possibility that assessment for non-renal manifestations might be lacking or underestimated. Third, our study could not determine whether MMF alone has a beneficial effect on leukopenia. There was a limit to revealing the interactions with other anti-rheumatic drugs. Another limitation is that the sample size of MMF-treated group seems to be small. On the other hand, the strength of this study is that using GEE analysis that considers time and group interaction has improved the statistical reliability. In addition, this study enrolled a sufficient patient number compared to previous studies.

    In conclusion, this observational study provided relevant evidence that MMF can be an alternative therapeutic option for hematologic abnormalities especially leukopenia refractory to conventional treatment modalities. To strengthen the robustness of our result, further randomized controlled study of additional effects of MMF on diverse non-renal manifestations should be performed in a larger study population.

    SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

    Supplementary Table 1

    Comparison for frequencies of clinical manifestations between MMF and non-MMF groups in patients with lupus nephritis

    Click here to view.(32K, xls)

    Supplementary Table 2

    Comparison for frequencies of clinical manifestations between MMF and non-MMF groups in patients without lupus nephritis

    Click here to view.(33K, xls)

    Supplementary Fig. 1

    Comparison for changes in frequencies for hematologic abnormalities between MMF and non-MMF groups. (A) Total lupus patients, (B) patients with lupus nephritis, (C) patients without lupus nephritis. Data was frequency (%) for each variable.

    Click here to view.(2M, ppt)

    Notes

    Funding:This work was supported by the Research Program funded by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (grant No. 2014-E63002-00).

    Disclosure:The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

    Author Contributions:

    • Conceptualization: Kim SK.

    • Data curation: Jung UH, Choe JY, Lee SS, Kim SK.

    • Formal analysis: Kim SK.

    • Investigation: Jung UH, Choe JY, Kwak SG, Lee SS, Kim SK.

    • Writing - original draft: Jung UH, Kim SK.

    • Writing - review & editing: Kim SK.

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

    Electronic development of the case report form and data management for this study were performed using iCReaT (internet-based Clinical Research and Trial management system, http://icreat.nih.go.kr/cdc/webapps/com/hismainweb/jsp/cdc_n2.live), a data management system established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea (iCReaT Study No. C140018).

    References

      1. Gordon C, Amissah-Arthur MB, Gayed M, Brown S, Bruce IN, D'Cruz D, et al. The British Society for Rheumatology guideline for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus in adults. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2018;57(1):e1–e45.
      1. Di Battista M, Marcucci E, Elefante E, Tripoli A, Governato G, Zucchi D, et al. One year in review 2018: systemic lupus erythematosus. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2018;36(5):763–777.
      1. Allison AC, Eugui EM. Mycophenolate mofetil and its mechanisms of action. Immunopharmacology 2000;47(2-3):85–118.
      1. Allison AC. Mechanisms of action of mycophenolate mofetil. Lupus 2005;14 Suppl 1:s2–s8.
      1. Chan TM, Tse KC, Tang CS, Mok MY, Li FK. Hong Kong Nephrology Study Group. Long-term study of mycophenolate mofetil as continuous induction and maintenance treatment for diffuse proliferative lupus nephritis. J Am Soc Nephrol 2005;16(4):1076–1084.
      1. Ginzler EM, Dooley MA, Aranow C, Kim MY, Buyon J, Merrill JT, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil or intravenous cyclophosphamide for lupus nephritis. N Engl J Med 2005;353(21):2219–2228.
      1. Houssiau FA, D'Cruz D, Sangle S, Remy P, Vasconcelos C, Petrovic R, et al. Azathioprine versus mycophenolate mofetil for long-term immunosuppression in lupus nephritis: results from the MAINTAIN Nephritis Trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69(12):2083–2089.
      1. Yahya F, Jasmin R, Ng CT, Cheah TE, Sockalingam S. Open label randomized controlled trial assessing the efficacy of mycophenolate sodium against other conventional immunosuppressive agents in active systemic lupus erythematosus patients without renal involvement. Int J Rheum Dis 2013;16(6):724–730.
      1. Ginzler EM, Wofsy D, Isenberg D, Gordon C, Lisk L, Dooley MA, et al. Nonrenal disease activity following mycophenolate mofetil or intravenous cyclophosphamide as induction treatment for lupus nephritis: findings in a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel-group clinical trial. Arthritis Rheum 2010;62(1):211–221.
      1. Moder KG, Amin S, Mazlumzadeh M, Crowson C, Ytterberg S. The effect of mycophenolate mofetil on patients with active non-renal SLE. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2007;25(6):932.
      1. Tselios K, Gladman DD, Su J, Urowitz MB. Mycophenolate mofetil in nonrenal manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus: an observational cohort study. J Rheumatol 2016;43(3):552–558.
      1. Kawazoe M, Kaneko K, Yamada Z, Masuoka S, Mizutani S, Yamada S, et al. Efficacy of mycophenolate mofetil in Japanese patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Clin Rheumatol 2019;38(6):1571–1578.
      1. Tan EM, Cohen AS, Fries JF, Masi AT, McShane DJ, Rothfield NF, et al. The 1982 revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 1982;25(11):1271–1277.
      1. Hochberg MC. Updating the American College of Rheumatology revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 1997;40(9):1725.
      1. Castrejón I, Tani C, Jolly M, Huang A, Mosca M. Indices to assess patients with systemic lupus erythematosus in clinical trials, long-term observational studies, and clinical care. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2014;32(5) Suppl 85:S-85–S-95.
      1. Buyon JP, Petri MA, Kim MY, Kalunian KC, Grossman J, Hahn BH, et al. The effect of combined estrogen and progesterone hormone replacement therapy on disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2005;142(12 Pt 1):953–962.
      1. Gladman D, Ginzler E, Goldsmith C, Fortin P, Liang M, Urowitz M, et al. Systemic lupus international collaborative clinics: development of a damage index in systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol 1992;19(11):1820–1821.
      1. Weening JJ, D’Agati VD, Schwartz MM, Seshan SV, Alpers CE, Appel GB, et al. The classification of glomerulonephritis in systemic lupus erythematosus revisited. Kidney Int 2004;65(2):521–530.
      1. Han CW, Lee EJ, Iwaya T, Kataoka H, Kohzuki M. Development of the Korean version of Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey: health related QOL of healthy elderly people and elderly patients in Korea. Tohoku J Exp Med 2004;203(3):189–194.
      1. Beck AT, Steer AR, Garbin MG. Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: twenty-five years of evaluation. Clin Psychol Rev 1988;8(1):77–100.
      1. Tsokos GC. Systemic lupus erythematosus. N Engl J Med 2011;365(22):2110–2121.
      1. Lisnevskaia L, Murphy G, Isenberg D. Systemic lupus erythematosus. Lancet 2014;384(9957):1878–1888.
      1. Mok CC. Mycophenolate mofetil for non-renal manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review. Scand J Rheumatol 2007;36(5):329–337.
      1. Alba P, Karim MY, Hunt BJ. Mycophenolate mofetil as a treatment for autoimmune haemolytic anaemia in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and antiphospholipid syndrome. Lupus 2003;12(8):633–635.
      1. Goyal S, Nousari HC. Treatment of resistant discoid lupus erythematosus of the palms and soles with mycophenolate mofetil. J Am Acad Dermatol 2001;45(1):142–144.
      1. Pisoni CN, Obermoser G, Cuadrado MJ, Sanchez FJ, Karim Y, Sepp NT, et al. Skin manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus refractory to multiple treatment modalities: poor results with mycophenolate mofetil. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2005;23(3):393–396.
      1. Magro-Checa C, Zirkzee EJ, Huizinga TW, Steup-Beekman GM. Management of neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus: current approaches and future perspectives. Drugs 2016;76(4):459–483.
      1. Posalski JD, Ishimori M, Wallace DJ, Weisman MH. Does mycophenolate mofetil prevent extra-renal flares in systemic lupus erythematosus? Results from an observational study of patients in a single practice treated for up to 5 years. Lupus 2009;18(6):516–521.
      1. Wilson EC, Jayne DR, Dellow E, Fordham RJ. The cost-effectiveness of mycophenolate mofetil as firstline therapy in active lupus nephritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007;46(7):1096–1101.
      1. Tse KC, Tang CS, Lio WI, Lam MF, Chan TM. Quality of life comparison between corticosteroid- and-mycofenolate mofetil and corticosteroid- and-oral cyclophosphamide in the treatment of severe lupus nephritis. Lupus 2006;15(6):371–379.
    Cited by
    Crossref 3
    Google Scholar 
    PubMed Central 2
    Scopus 6
    Web of Science 6
    MeSH Terms
    Adult
    Depression/complications
    Depression/diagnosis
    Exanthema/etiology
    Female
    Hematologic Diseases/etiology
    Humans
    Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic/complications
    Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic/drug therapy*
    Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic/pathology
    Male
    Middle Aged
    Mycophenolic Acid/adverse effects
    Mycophenolic Acid/therapeutic use*
    Quality of Life
    Registries
    Republic of Korea
    Metrics
    Share
    Links to
    Figures
    slide

    1 / 1

    Tables
    slide
    slide
    slide

    1 / 3

    ORCID IDs
    Funding Information
    PERMALINK