These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of efficacy and tolerability of azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, and cyclophosphamide among patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder: A prospective cohort study.
    Author: Xu Y, Wang Q, Ren HT, Qiao L, Zhang Y, Fei YY, Zhao Y, Cui LY.
    Journal: J Neurol Sci; 2016 Nov 15; 370():224-228. PubMed ID: 27772764.
    Abstract:
    AIMS: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of azathioprine (AZA), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), and cyclophosphamide (CTX) in patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD). METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort analysis of relapses, disability, and adverse events in NMOSD patients treated with AZA, MMF, or CTX (n=119, 38, and 41, respectively). All the patients were co-treated with oral prednisone. RESULTS: A significant reduction in relapse rate was found in patients taking AZA (p<0.001), MMF (p<0.001) or CTX (p=0.01). MMF was associated with a lower risk of relapse than AZA, but this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.08). AZA and MMF decreased the mean Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores significantly (AZA: p=0.02; MMF: p=0.01), whereas CTX did not. Compared with AZA, MMF had a significantly lower risk of treatment discontinuation due to drug-related adverse events (p=0.02), whereas CTX had a comparable risk (p=0.35). CONCLUSIONS: MMF is a good first-line treatment option for NMOSD and AZA remains a valuable first-line drug if its side effects are tolerable while CTX can be a treatment option for patients who cannot tolerate AZA and MMF.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]