English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

We treated patients with idiopathic membranous nephropathy (iMGN) and renal insufficiency, using: (i) (n = 15) monthly cycles of steroids (1 g methyl-prednisolone i.v. on three consecutive days, followed by oral prednisone 0.5 mg/kg/day months 1, 3 and 5) and chlorambucil (0.15 mg/kg/day months 2, 4 and 6); or (ii) (n = 17) oral cyclophosphamide (1.5-2.0 mg/kg/day for 1 year) and steroids in a comparable dose. The groups were comparable in age, renal function and levels of proteinuria. During the 6 months preceding treatment, serum creatinine levels increased from 148 +/- 50 to 219 +/- 73 mumol/l in the chlorambucil group and from 164 +/- 86 to 274 +/- 126 mumol/l in the cyclophosphamide group. Median (range) follow-ups were: chlorambucil 38 months (8-71); cyclophosphamide 26 months (5-68) (NS). Renal function improved in both groups, but the improvement was short-lived in the chlorambucil group; 12 months after starting treatment, mean serum creatinine was 6.3 mumol/l lower in the chlorambucil group and 121 mumol/l lower in the cyclophosphamide group (p &lt; 0.01). Four chlorambucil-treated patients developed ESRD, and five needed a second course of therapy, whereas only one cyclophosphamide-treated patient developed ESRD (p &lt; 0.05). Remissions of proteinuria occurred more frequently after cyclophosphamide treatment (15/17 vs. 5/15; p &lt; 0.01). Side-effects necessitated interruption of treatment in six patients on cyclophosphamide and in 11 on chlorambucil (p &lt; 0.05). In our patients, oral cyclophosphamide was better tolerated than oral chlorambucil. The suggested greater efficacy of the oral cyclophosphamide regimen needs to be ascertained by longer follow-up.

Oral cyclophosphamide versus chlorambucil in the treatment of patients with membranous nephropathy and renal insufficiency