{"title":"Efficacy and Safety of Methylprednisolone Pulse Therapy and Conventional Oral Prednisone for Pediatric Patients With Nephrotic Syndrome.","authors":"Mingfang Liu, Yingjian Cai","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>High-dose methylprednisolone pulse therapy and oral high-dose prednisone are two common treatments for pediatric nephrotic syndrome (NS). While both treatments have shown effectiveness for patients with pediatric NS to some extent, a clear comparison of their efficacy and safety remains elusive, posing a challenge for clinicians when devising treatment plans.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The study intended to compare the efficacy and safety of high-dose methylprednisolone pulse therapy and conventional oral high-dose prednisone for pediatric patients with NS, to provide more accurate treatment recommendations for clinicians to optimize their treatment plans, improve their QoL, and prevent complications.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>The research team conducted a randomized controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>The study took place at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University in Quanzhou, China.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Participants were 60 patients with pediatric NS who received treatment at the hospital between November 2020 and March 2022.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>The research team randomly divided participants into two groups, each comprising 30 patients: (1) the intervention group, which received high-dose methylprednisolone pulse therapy, and (2) the conventional group, which received oral high-dose prednisone.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>The research team measured: (1) clinical efficacy rates, the primary outcome measure; (2) time to symptom relief; (3) laboratory indicators, including blood urea nitrogen (BUN), serum creatinine (SCr), serum globulin (GLB), and 24-hour urine protein quantification; and (4) incidence of adverse events.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to the conventional group, the intervention group's: (1) clinical efficacy rate was significantly higher (P < .05); (2) resolution times for edema (P < .001) and urine protein turning negative (P < .001) were significantly shorter; (3) levels of BUN (P < .001), SCr (P < .001), GLB (P < .001), and 24-hour urine protein quantification (P < .001) were significantly lower; and (4) incidence of adverse reactions was significantly higher (P < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>High-dose methylprednisolone pulse therapy demonstrated better efficacy in treating pediatric NS patients, showing a shorter time to symptom relief, but it may also entail a higher risk of adverse reactions compared to conventional oral high-dose prednisone. Clinicians should consider the specific circumstances and needs of pediatric patients when selecting a treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":7571,"journal":{"name":"Alternative therapies in health and medicine","volume":" ","pages":"430-435"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alternative therapies in health and medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Context: High-dose methylprednisolone pulse therapy and oral high-dose prednisone are two common treatments for pediatric nephrotic syndrome (NS). While both treatments have shown effectiveness for patients with pediatric NS to some extent, a clear comparison of their efficacy and safety remains elusive, posing a challenge for clinicians when devising treatment plans.
Objective: The study intended to compare the efficacy and safety of high-dose methylprednisolone pulse therapy and conventional oral high-dose prednisone for pediatric patients with NS, to provide more accurate treatment recommendations for clinicians to optimize their treatment plans, improve their QoL, and prevent complications.
Design: The research team conducted a randomized controlled trial.
Setting: The study took place at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University in Quanzhou, China.
Participants: Participants were 60 patients with pediatric NS who received treatment at the hospital between November 2020 and March 2022.
Interventions: The research team randomly divided participants into two groups, each comprising 30 patients: (1) the intervention group, which received high-dose methylprednisolone pulse therapy, and (2) the conventional group, which received oral high-dose prednisone.
Outcome measures: The research team measured: (1) clinical efficacy rates, the primary outcome measure; (2) time to symptom relief; (3) laboratory indicators, including blood urea nitrogen (BUN), serum creatinine (SCr), serum globulin (GLB), and 24-hour urine protein quantification; and (4) incidence of adverse events.
Results: Compared to the conventional group, the intervention group's: (1) clinical efficacy rate was significantly higher (P < .05); (2) resolution times for edema (P < .001) and urine protein turning negative (P < .001) were significantly shorter; (3) levels of BUN (P < .001), SCr (P < .001), GLB (P < .001), and 24-hour urine protein quantification (P < .001) were significantly lower; and (4) incidence of adverse reactions was significantly higher (P < .001).
Conclusions: High-dose methylprednisolone pulse therapy demonstrated better efficacy in treating pediatric NS patients, showing a shorter time to symptom relief, but it may also entail a higher risk of adverse reactions compared to conventional oral high-dose prednisone. Clinicians should consider the specific circumstances and needs of pediatric patients when selecting a treatment.
期刊介绍:
Launched in 1995, Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine has a mission to promote the art and science of integrative medicine and a responsibility to improve public health. We strive to maintain the highest standards of ethical medical journalism independent of special interests that is timely, accurate, and a pleasure to read. We publish original, peer-reviewed scientific articles that provide health care providers with continuing education to promote health, prevent illness, and treat disease. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine was the first journal in this field to be indexed in the National Library of Medicine. In 2006, 2007, and 2008, ATHM had the highest impact factor ranking of any independently published peer-reviewed CAM journal in the United States—meaning that its research articles were cited more frequently than any other journal’s in the field.
Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine does not endorse any particular system or method but promotes the evaluation and appropriate use of all effective therapeutic approaches. Each issue contains a variety of disciplined inquiry methods, from case reports to original scientific research to systematic reviews. The editors encourage the integration of evidence-based emerging therapies with conventional medical practices by licensed health care providers in a way that promotes a comprehensive approach to health care that is focused on wellness, prevention, and healing. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine hopes to inform all licensed health care practitioners about developments in fields other than their own and to foster an ongoing debate about the scientific, clinical, historical, legal, political, and cultural issues that affect all of health care.