Search

Open in new tab Download slide Open in new tab Download slide   Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine platforms are becoming available and are the most promising strategy to curb the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections. However, numerous uncertainties exist regarding the pros and cons of vaccination, especially in patients with (immune-mediated) kidney diseases on immunosuppressive drugs. Here, members of the Immunonephrology Working Group of the European Renal Association–European Dialysis and Transplant Association discuss 13 frequently asked questions regarding the safety and efficacy of the most promising vaccine candidates. Post-marketing surveillance should be performed to estimate the rate of vaccine response (humoral and cellular) of different vaccine platforms and disease activity following the administration of COVID-19 vaccines. Some of the candidates induce signalling pathways, which also promote autoimmune kidney diseases, e.g. type I interferons in systemic lupus erythematosus. Efficacy estimates would thus far favour the use of selected COVID-19 vaccines, such as BNT162b2, mRNA-1273 or Gam-COVID-Vac. Humoral immune response after vaccination should be monitored using appropriate assays. Even in the absence of neutralizing antibodies, patients might be protected by a sufficient cellular immune response capable of reducing the severity of COVID-19. A reduced vaccine response after the use of CD20-depleting agents is anticipated and it is particularly important to discuss strategies to improve vaccine response with these patients. Distancing and shielding measures remain important, as not all vaccines fully protect from coronavirus infection. In-depth information about the most pressing vaccine questions is essential to reduce vaccine hesitancy of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Plasma exchange (PLEX) is capable of removing significant amounts of circulating antibodies. In anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis, PLEX was reserved for patients with severe presentation forms such as rapidly progressive glomerulonephritis and pulmonary haemorrhage. The Plasma Exchange and Glucocorticoids in Severe ANCA-Associated Vasculitis (PEXIVAS) trial included all comers with a glomerular filtration rate <50 mL/min/1.73 m2 and thus aimed to answer the question of whether PLEX is an option for patients with no relevant kidney function impairment or not. PEXIVAS revealed that after a follow-up of almost 3 years, routine administration of PLEX does not provide an additional benefit to reduce the rate of a composite comprising end-stage kidney disease or death. In the absence of histological parameters, it is tempting to speculate whether PLEX is effective or not in those with a potential for renal recovery. A subset of patients presented with alveolar haemorrhage, and there was a trend towards a better outcome of such cases receiving PLEX. This would be in line with observational studies reporting a recovery of alveolar haemorrhage following extracorporeal treatment. In this PRO part of the debate, we highlight the shortcomings of the PEXIVAS trial and stimulate further research paths, which in our eyes are necessary before abandoning PLEX from the therapeutic armamentarium. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lupus nephritis (LN) is one of the most severe manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), affecting ~50% of patients, and both renal disease and treatment-related toxicity contribute to significant morbidity and mortality. Although our understanding of the aetiopathogenesis of LN is improving, treatment still remains a challenge, with the achievement of complete remission at 1 year in <50% of patients treated with current standard of care immunosuppressive therapy; this is associated with considerable short- and long-term side effects, some of which further contribute to non-adherence. Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) have been successfully used in organ transplantation and there is increasing evidence that cyclosporin A (CSA), and especially tacrolimus (TAC), are also effective in the treatment of LN. Randomised controlled trials showed similar efficacy for TAC when compared with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and multitarget therapy, including TAC and low-dose MMF, and resulted in significantly more complete remissions and overall responses compared with intravenous cyclophosphamide (CYC). Flares are observed in up to 45% of patients with LN, and an increase in relapse rate following induction with CNIs may be an issue. Most studies on this matter have been restricted to patients from Asia, and studies in more balanced cohorts are desirable. Moreover, there is a need to understand and determine the long-term effects of CNIs on renal function, proteinuria and comorbidities, with a special focus on cardiovascular risk. In this 'Pros and Cons' debate, the potential benefits and disadvantages of CNIs in the treatment of LN will be critically highlighted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The administration of iodinated contrast medium (CM) has immediate negative impact on multiple levels of the nephron, including vasoconstriction, an increase in apoptotic pathways and oxidative stress. Therefore, contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) remains an important cause of sudden impairment of renal function. Far from being just a transient phenomenon, CI-AKI has consistently been shown to be associated with adverse outcomes. The phenomenon of chronic kidney disease (CKD) following AKI might explain why this entity portends a poor prognosis in the long run. While it is generally acknowledged that in individuals with normal renal function, the risk of CI-AKI is negligible, pre-existing renal disease is its greatest independent risk factor. Although several recent publications have challenged the dogma of CI-AKI as a stand-alone disease entity, these trials, despite careful propensity matching, are hampered by their retrospective nature. In this article, we concede that there is always a trade-off and that administration of CM may be justified if its diagnostic value is believed to outweigh its associated risks. However, we reason that despite considerable progress in the field, the risk of CI-AKI is still high in the modern era and that CM-based imaging should be employed with great restraint in patients with CKD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Studies in anti-neutrophil cytoplasm antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) have revealed promising biomarkers. The aim of our study was to validate the most encouraging markers of granulomatosis with polyangiitis and microscopic polyangiitis identified by literature search and to create biomarker panels. Methods. A systematic literature review was performed and we identified 161 marker molecules that were ranked by their quantitative differential expression between active and inactive disease. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays were used to validate the results in a cross-sectional cohort of patients with renal involvement. Active vasculitis as assessed by the Birmingham Vasculitis Score version 3 (BVAS v3) was defined as BVAS v3 ≥1 and inactive disease as BVAS v3 = 0. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS version 21 and the Salford Predictive Modeler 7.0 was used to generate a predictive biomarker panel. Results. The review indicated abundant expression of sC5bC9, C3a, C5a and monocyte chemotactic protein (MCP)-1 in urine, whereas granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor, Creactive protein (CRP), soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1, interleukin-17A (IL-17A), C5a, hyaluronan, C3a and interleukin- 18 binding protein (IL-18BP) were identified to be highly diverse in active and inactive disease in blood samples. Our cross-sectional analysis revealed significant up-regulation of CRP, C5a, C3a, IL-18BP in blood and C5a and MCP-1 in urine samples during active AAV (all P < 0.05). Creation of a biomarker panel comprising CRP and urinary MCP-1 yielded a sensitivity and specificity of 76% (area under the curve 0.89). Conclusions. We identified promising biomarkers in a literature- based review that were in part corroborated as has been shown for CRP, C3a, C5a, IL-18BP in blood and MCP-1 and C5a in urine samples. Moreover, we propose a biomarker panel comprising CRP and urinary MCP-1 in patients with AAV and renal involvement. Further investigations to confirm our preliminary results are clearly warranted, including the reliability to predict disease relapses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rituximab has enriched our armamentarium in the treatment of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)- associated vasculitis. Two randomised controlled trials have shown that rituximab is non-inferior compared with cyclophosphamide followed by azathioprine for the induction of remission. The newly diagnosed patients in the Rituximab in ANCA-Associated Vasculitis (RAVE) and Rituximab Versus Cyclophosphamide in ANCA-Associated Vasculitis (RITUXVAS) trials had a numerically higher response rate in the cyclophosphamide/azathioprine arm, and the number of such patients treated with rituximab numbered <90.We are arguing that in newly diagnosed patients, the evidence for rituximab requires further confirmation and the length of experience with a cyclophosphamide-based induction therapy supports it continuing as the preferred first choice for induction. Also, there is an absence of information regarding rituximab as 'sole' remission induction along with steroids in patients with advanced renal presentations or lung haemorrhage. Reported side effects were similar in both trials; however, the number of participants with at least one serious adverse event following rituximab induction treatment was numerically higher in the RAVE trial. In addition, hypogammaglobulinaemia with the need of substitution in some cases and late-onset neutropaenia are complications not seen with cyclophosphamide. Over the longer term it is unclear what relapse prevention strategy should be employed after rituximab, and there was a trend to a higher relapse risk after rituximab in the RITUXVAS trial at 2 years. Further health economic studies are required to understand all the costs associated with rituximab. In the context of concomitant underlying infectious complications, in terms of fertility concerns, especially in young patients, and when malignancy is underlying we would recommend the use of rituximab as first-line therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The approval of avacopan as a treatment for anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2021 and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2022 represents an important therapeutic advance. Of the patients receiving avacopan, 13.3% suffered serious infections versus 15.2% in those in the prednisone group, and serious opportunistic infections were less common in patients receiving avacopan (3.6% in the avacopan group, 6.7% in the prednisone group) [[10]]. Insights from the ADVOCATE study: respiratory tract involvement in patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of avacopan. Recovery of renal function among ANCA-associated vasculitis patients with baseline eGFR <=20 in the avacopan ADVOCATE trial. [Extracted from the article]

In 2019 and 2021, the European League for Rheumatism (EULAR) jointly with the European Renal Association (ERA) and the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO), respectively, released updated guidelines on the management of lupus nephritis (LN). The Immunology Working Group of the ERA reviewed and compared both updates. Recommendations were either consistent or differences were of negligible clinical relevance for: indication for kidney biopsy, kidney biopsy interpretation, treatment targets, hydroxychloroquine dosing, first-line initial immunosuppressive therapy for active class III, IV (±V) LN, pregnancy in LN, LN in paediatric patients and LN patients with kidney failure. Relevant differences in the recommended management relate to the recognition of lupus podocytopathies, uncertainties in steroid dosing, drug preferences in specific populations and maintenance therapy, treatment of pure class V LN, therapy of recurrent LN, evolving alternative drug options and diagnostic work-up of thrombotic microangiopathy. Altogether, both documents provide an excellent guidance to the growing complexity of LN management. This article endeavours to prevent confusion by identifying differences and clarifying discrepancies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Uncertainties exist about the use of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in anti-neutrophil cytoplasmatic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV), particularly for remission maintenance. Methods Systematic review and meta-analysis of phase II and III trials assessing the use of MMF in AAV, granulomatosis with polyangiitis and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA). A comprehensive search of several databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus) from inception to 5 May 2020 has been conducted. Trial data were extracted to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and estimates (ES) for MMF efficacy (remission-induction and maintenance). Severe adverse effects (SAEs) were collected. Results From 565 articles captured, 10 met the predefined criteria, 5 phase II and 5 III trials; 4 assessed remission-induction, 3 remission maintenance and 3 both. The pooled OR for remission-induction at 6 months was 1.06 (95% confidence interval 0.74, 1.52), with no significant difference by subgroup meta-analysis of trials stratified by different study-level features (i.e. kidney disease, MPA, myeloperoxidase-ANCA positivity, newly diagnosed disease) (P > 0.05). The overall ES for remission maintenance at the end of follow-up ranged between 51% and 91% (I2 = 74.8%). Subgroup meta-analysis identified kidney involvement as a possible source of heterogeneity, yielding a significantly higher rate of sustained remission in trials enrolling only patients with kidney involvement (92%, 76–100%) versus those enrolling patients with and without kidney involvement (56%, 45–66%). Results were similar in multiple sensitivity analyses. During follow-up, the frequency of SAEs in MMF-based treatment arms was 31.8%. Conclusions In AAV, MMF use was significantly associated with higher sustained remission rates in trials enrolling only patients with kidney involvement. These findings might influence clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients with immune-mediated kidney diseases are at increased risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The international rollout of COVID-19 vaccines has provided varying degrees of protection and enabled the understanding of vaccine efficacy and safety. The immune response to COVID-19 vaccines is lower in most patients with immune-mediated kidney diseases; either related to immunosuppression or comorbidities and complications caused by the underlying disease. Humoral vaccine response, measured by the presence of antibodies, is impaired or absent in patients receiving rituximab, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), higher doses of glucocorticoids and likely other immunosuppressants, such as cyclophosphamide. The timing between the use of these agents and administration of vaccines is associated with the level of immune response: with rituximab, vaccine response can only be expected once B cells start to recover and patients with transient discontinuation of MMF mount a humoral response more frequently. The emergence of new COVID-19 variants and waning of vaccine-induced immunity highlight the value of a booster dose and the need to develop mutant-proof vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines are safe, exhibiting a very low risk of de novo or relapsing immune-mediated kidney disease. Population-based studies will determine whether this is causal or coincidental. Such cases respond to standard management, including the use of immunosuppression. The Immunonephrology Working Group and European Vasculitis Society recommend that patients with immune-mediated kidney diseases follow national guidance on vaccination. Booster doses based on antibody measurements could be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent decades, several important advances have taken place in the understanding of the pathogenesis underlying membranous nephropathy (MN) that have sparked renewed interest in its management. Four landmark trials in MN and a fifth clinical trial—which was a pilot study—have been published in recent years. The results from some of these trials have had a significant impact on the recommendations included in the 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Guideline for the Management of Glomerular Diseases, representing a significant step forward compared with the previous guideline in several aspects, including diagnosis, disease monitoring and treatment strategies. However, considering the rapidly evolving advances in the knowledge of MN and the recent publication of the STARMEN and RI-CYCLO trials, several recommendations contained in the guideline warrant updates. This article provides a perspective of the Immunonephrology Working Group of the European Renal Association regarding the management of MN in native kidneys of adult patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]