Search

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]

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]