Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,118

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mycophenolate Mofetil versus Cyclophosphamide for Induction Treatment of Lupus Nephritis

Open access
Appel, Gerald B., Contreras, Gabriel, Dooley, Mary Anne, Ginzler, Ellen M., Isenberg, David, Jayne, David, Li, Lei-Shi, Mysler, Eduardo, Sa[Combining Acute Accent]nchez-Guerrero, Jorge, Solomons, Neil, Wofsy, David·2009·Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

Abstract

Recent studies have suggested that mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) may offer advantages over intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVC) for the treatment of lupus nephritis, but these therapies have not been compared in an international randomized, controlled trial. Here, we report the comparison of MMF and IVC as induction treatment for active lupus nephritis in a multinational, two-phase (induction and maintenance) study. We randomly assigned 370 patients with classes III through V lupus nephritis to open-label MMF (target dosage 3 g/d) or IVC (0.5 to 1.0 g/m(2) in monthly pulses) in a 24-wk induction study. Both groups received prednisone, tapered from a maximum starting dosage of 60 mg/d. The primary end point was a prespecified decrease in urine protein/creatinine ratio and stabilization or improvement in serum creatinine. Secondary end points included complete renal remission, systemic disease activity and damage, and safety. Overall, we did not detect a significantly different response rate between the two groups: 104 (56.2%) of 185 patients responded to MMF compared with 98 (53.0%) of 185 to IVC. Secondary end points were also similar between treatment groups. There were nine deaths in the MMF group and five in the IVC group. We did not detect significant differences between the MMF and IVC groups with regard to rates of adverse events, serious adverse events, or infections. Although most patients in both treatment groups experienced clinical improvement, the study did not meet its primary objective of showing that MMF was superior to IVC as induction treatment for lupus nephritis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1681/asn.2008101028

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 1,118

Metadata

Authors
Appel, G. B., Contreras, G., Dooley, M. A., Ginzler, E. M., Isenberg, D., Jayne, D., Li, L.-S., Mysler, E., Sa[Combining Acute Accent]nchez-Guerrero, J., Solomons, N., & Wofsy, D.
Venue
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Published
2009-05
Volume
20
Issue
5
Pages
1103-1112
ISSN
1046-6673 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2171121999
Cited by
1,118
References
1
FWCI
50.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mycophenolate Mofetil versus Cyclophosphamide for Induction Treatment of Lupus Nephritis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1681/asn.2008101028
The paper
Appel, G. B., Contreras, G., Dooley, M. A., Ginzler, E. M., Isenberg, D., Jayne, D., Li, L.-S., Mysler, E., Sa[Combining Acute Accent]nchez-Guerrero, J., Solomons, N., & Wofsy, D. (2009). Mycophenolate Mofetil versus Cyclophosphamide for Induction Treatment of Lupus Nephritis. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. https://doi.org/10.1681/asn.2008101028

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.