BACKGROUND: @entity1988 ( @entity1988 ) is one of the most serious manifestations of @entity1252 . Although there have been substantial improvements in @entity1988 treatment over the last decade, the outcome remains unoptimistic in a considerable percentage of @entity1 . The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of @entity20771 (MZR), a novel selective inhibitor of @entity15129 dehydrogenase, as induction treatment for active @entity1988 in comparison with @entity618 ( @entity2098 ) and intravenous @entity786 (CYC). METHODS: Ninety @entity1 with active @entity1988 were observed. Thirty @entity1 were given MZR orally at the dose of 300 mg every other day. Thirty @entity1 took @entity2098 at 2 g per day in two divided doses. Thirty @entity1 received CYC intravenously 0.5 g every 2 weeks. Therapeutic effects and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated at the end of 24-week treatment. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Dunn's test was applied to compare the difference among the groups. For comparing categorical data between two groups,   (2) test was employed. RESULTS: Early responses at week 12 were achieved by 73.3%, 90.0%, and 96.7% in MZR, @entity2098 , and CYC groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in the complete remission rates (22.7%, 24.0%, and 25.0%, respectively) or overall response rates (68.2%, 72.0%, and 75.0%, respectively) among the three groups at week 24. The most prominent drop-down of @entity1252 Activity Index scores was observed in @entity2098 or CYC group, and the decline of health assessment questionnaire scores in MZR or @entity2098 group was more prominent than that in the CYC group at week 12. Serum complement 3 (C3) or C4 levels were elevated in all groups after the treatments. CYC was more effective in inhibiting anti-double-stranded DNA antibody, while MZR was more effective in inhibiting antinuclear antibody. The incidences of AEs in @entity1 treated with CYC were significantly higher than those in @entity1 treated with MZR or @entity2098 (24.2% for CYC vs. 3.3% for MZR, and 2.6% for @entity2098 , P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: MZR is well tolerated and has an effect similar to @entity2098 in the induction therapy of active @entity1988 . MZR may serve as an alternative approach for @entity1988 @entity1 .

XXXX versus @entity618 or intravenous @entity786 for induction treatment of active @entity1988 .

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients'] @entity1252 :: ('MESH:D008180', 'Disease') :: ['systemic lupus erythematosus', 'Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease'] @entity786 :: ('MESH:D003520', 'Chemical') :: ['cyclophosphamide'] @entity1988 :: ('MESH:D008181', 'Disease') :: ['LN', 'Lupus nephritis'] @entity2098 :: ('CHEBI:8764', 'Chemical') :: ['MMF'] @entity618 :: ('MESH:C063008', 'Chemical') :: ['mycophenolate mofetil'] @entity15129 :: ('MESH:D007291', 'Chemical') :: ['inosine monophosphate'] @entity20771 :: ('MESH:C010052', 'Chemical') :: ['mizoribine']
@entity20771 :: (MESH:C010052,Chemical) :: ['Mizoribine']
