Lupus & antiphospholipid syndrome
Induction treatment of lupus nephritis: to pulse or not to pulse? Whether ’tis nobler to universally or selectively prescribe
Authors' conclusion
The SLR identifies a distinct pharmacological benefit unique to pulse treatment, though without direct evidence necessary for the treatment of LN; includes observational studies with evidence of superior efficacy, but not consistently; and identifies a higher risk of adverse effects.
Study context
- Population
- Studies of pulse vs high-dose oral GC in lupus nephritis (LN); historical use of GC in SLE
- Comparison
- IV pulse GC vs high-dose oral GC for induction treatment of LN
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
- Non-genomic mechanisms of action more associated with pulse than oral steroids
- Some observational studies: improved renal responses with pulse steroids
- Some observational studies: more adverse metabolic bone disease effects (eg, osteoporosis, avascular necrosis), infections and mortality with pulse steroids
- Observational studies
Original publication
Induction treatment of lupus nephritis: to pulse or not to pulse? Whether ’tis nobler to universally or selectively prescribe. Lupus Sci Med. Published 15 February 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →