Renal Thrombotic Microangiopathy in Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and the Antiphospholipid Syndrome

1992 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 150-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.D. Hughson ◽  
T. Nadasdy ◽  
G.A. McCarty ◽  
C. Sholer ◽  
K-W. Min ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Antiphospholipid Syndrome ◽  
Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Thrombotic Microangiopathy ◽  
Systemic Lupus

scholarly journals Extracellular Vesicles Tune the Immune System in Renal Disease: A Focus on Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, Antiphospholipid Syndrome, Thrombotic Microangiopathy and ANCA-Vasculitis

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (8) ◽  
pp. 4194
Author(s):  
Martina Mazzariol ◽  
Giovanni Camussi ◽  
Maria Felice Brizzi
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Immune System ◽  
Autoimmune Diseases ◽  
Extracellular Vesicles ◽  
Antiphospholipid Syndrome ◽  
Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Thrombotic Microangiopathy ◽  
Coagulation Cascade ◽  
Renal Diseases ◽  
Systemic Lupus

Extracellular vesicles (EV) are microparticles released in biological fluids by different cell types, both in physiological and pathological conditions. Owing to their ability to carry and transfer biomolecules, EV are mediators of cell-to-cell communication and are involved in the pathogenesis of several diseases. The ability of EV to modulate the immune system, the coagulation cascade, the angiogenetic process, and to drive endothelial dysfunction plays a crucial role in the pathophysiology of both autoimmune and renal diseases. Recent studies have demonstrated the involvement of EV in the control of renal homeostasis by acting as intercellular signaling molecules, mediators of inflammation and tissue regeneration. Moreover, circulating EV and urinary EV secreted by renal cells have been investigated as potential early biomarkers of renal injury. In the present review, we discuss the recent findings on the involvement of EV in autoimmunity and in renal intercellular communication. We focused on EV-mediated interaction between the immune system and the kidney in autoimmune diseases displaying common renal damage, such as antiphospholipid syndrome, systemic lupus erythematosus, thrombotic microangiopathy, and vasculitis. Although further studies are needed to extend our knowledge on EV in renal pathology, a deeper investigation of the impact of EV in kidney autoimmune diseases may also provide insight into renal biological processes. Furthermore, EV may represent promising biomarkers of renal diseases with potential future applications as diagnostic and therapeutic tools.

scholarly journals Thrombotic microangiopathy in rheumatology: a link between thrombosis and autoimmunity

2020 ◽  
Vol 92 (5) ◽  
pp. 4-14
Author(s):  
Evgeny L. Nasonov ◽  
Tatyana M. Reshetnyak ◽  
Zemfira S. Alekberova
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Antiphospholipid Syndrome ◽  
Rheumatic Diseases ◽  
Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Thrombotic Microangiopathy ◽  
Human Diseases ◽  
Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases ◽  
Systemic Lupus ◽  
Close Link ◽  
Wide Range

Uncontrolled hypercoagulation and inflammation (thromboinflammation), which are both independent and closely related and amplifying each other pathological processes, form the basis for pathogenesis of a wide range of diseases and complications, including immuno-inflammatory (autoimmune) rheumatic diseases, with the development of potentially fatal injuries of internal organs. Thrombotic microangiopathy is one of the most prominent prototypes of thromboinflammatory pathological conditions. The close link between environmental factors, hemostasis genetic defects and the complement system, inflammation and autoimmunity as pathogenetic mechanisms of microthrombosis draws particular attention to studying thrombotic microangiopathy in immuno-inflammatory rheumatic diseases, primarily systemic lupus erythematosus, antiphospholipid syndrome and scleroderma renal crisis. In future, these studies may be important for expanding the idea of the role of autoimmune mechanisms in pathogenesis of critical hemostasis disorders in human diseases, and for developing new approaches to therapy. Recently, special attention has been paid to the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus and antiphospholipid syndrome with eculizumab, which is humanized monoclonal IgG2/4k antibody that blocks the complement component C5a and the membrane attack complex (C5b-9) formation, and which is registered for the treatment of atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome, paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, as well as severe forms of myasthenia gravis and neuromyelitis optica. Further studies in this direction will create prerequisites for improving the prognosis not only in patients with orphan disorders, but also for widespread human diseases.

Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Antiphospholipid Syndrome: A Clinical Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 84-91
Author(s):  
Julia L. Riera ◽  
María del R. Maliandi ◽  
Jorge L. Musuruana ◽  
Javier A. Cavallasca
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Antiphospholipid Syndrome ◽  
Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Clinical Feature ◽  
Systemic Lupus ◽  
Bilateral Involvement

Background: Sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) is defined as a sudden loss of hearing, usually unilateral, of more than 30 dB in 3 contiguous frequencies of the tonal audiometry. SSNHL estimates an incidence ranging from 5 to 20 per 100.000 people per year. In approximately 75% of cases, a cause cannot be identified. However, it could be a clinical manifestation of Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS). Objective: This review will focus on the clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management of the SLE and APS associated SSNHL. Methods: We searched in PubMed, Scopus, Lilacs, and Cochrane reviewing reports of Sudden sensorineural hearing loss in SLE and/or APS. Articles written in English and Spanish, and were available in full text, were included. Results: In patients with SLE, bilateral involvement was frequent. Antiphospholipid antibodies were positive in the majority of the patients. Corticosteroids were the mainstay of the treatment. The auditory prognosis was poor with total hearing loss recovery reached in only 22% of patients. : On the other hand, most of the patients with SSNHL and APS were males and presented associated symptoms such as vertigo, tinnitus and/or headache, 75% had bilateral disease. Lupus anticoagulant and aCL were found in equal proportions, all patients were anticoagulated, and aspirin was associated in 25% of the cases. Complete resolution or improvement of symptoms was observed in 25% of the patients. Conclusion: Sudden sensorineural hearing loss, can be a clinical feature of SLE and APS. Treating physicians should be aware of this devastating complication, especially when bilateral involvement occurs.

scholarly journals SAT0211 RENAL INJURY IN SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS CHARACTERIZED BY THROMBOTIC MICROANGIOPATHY

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1048.1-1048
Author(s):  
W. Hu
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Lupus Nephritis ◽  
Renal Biopsy ◽  
Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Thrombotic Microangiopathy ◽  
Renal Injury ◽  
Renal Outcome ◽  
Pathological Examination ◽  
Systemic Lupus ◽  
Tubulointerstitial Lesions

Background:Classical lupus nephritis (LN) is characterized by glomerular immune complex(IC) deposition with glomerular proliferation, basement membrane destruction and cell infiltration. Non-IC mediated renal injury with thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) was also reported in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE-renal TMA), but most studies were reported in patients with both LN and renal TMA.Objectives:In this study, clinical features and outcomes of SLE-renal TMA in absence of obvious IC in SLE patients were analyzed.Methods:Patients with glomerular TMA and/or vascular TMA in the absence of obvious subendothelial or epithelial immune deposits were screened out from 2332 biopsied in SLE patients who underwent first renal biopsy from January 2005 to August 2016. Their clinical, histological features and outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.Results:In 2332 renal biopsies obtained from SLE patients, 257 (11.0%) showed renal TMA, of which 237 showed both renal TMA and LN, and 20 biopsies had only renal TMA (SLE-renal TMA). There were 2 males and 18 females with an average age of (25 ± 10) years. The median course of SLE and LN were 3.0(1.0, 6.0) and 0.8(0.5, 1.9) months. All 20 patients deserved acute kidney injury, of which 11 (55%) needed renal replacement therapy (RRT) and 12 (60%) were nephrotic syndrome. Blood system involvement was found in all cases, including 13 cases (65.0%) with TMA triad (microvascular hemolytic anemia, thrombocytopenia and elevated lactate dehydrogenase).Pathological examination showed that 17 cases (85.0%) had both glomerular TMA and vascular TMA. Immunofluorescence and electron microscopy showed that 8 cases (40%) had no IC deposition in glomerulus and 12 cases (60%) had only IC deposition in mesangium. Acute tubulointerstitial lesions in patients requiring RRT were more serious than those no needing for RRT((43.6±24.9) %vs(21.7±20.1) %,P=0.047). The fusion range of foot process was positively correlated with proteinuria (r2= 0.347,P=0.006).All patients received high-dose methylprednisolone pulse therapy. Four patients received plasma exchange and three patients received gamma globulin, respectively. Eleven patients requiring RRT all stop RRT in a median time of 16.0 (9.0, 30.0) days. During a median follow-up of 58.0 (36.0, 92.3) months, complete remission (CR) was obtained in 15 cases, partial remission in 4 cases and no remission in 1 case. Six cases (30%) relapsed. No case died or progressed to end stage renal disease.Conclusion:Renal injury characterized by TMA is not uncommon in SLE renal biopsy cases. The clinical manifestation is special and the renal injury is serious. The renal outcome is good by intensive immunosuppressive therapy. It should be considered as a unique type of renal injury in SLE.References:[1]Moake JL. Thrombotic microangiopathies. N Engl J Med. 2002. 347(8): 589-600.[2]Anders HJ, Weening JJ. Kidney disease in lupus is not always ‘lupus nephritis’. Arthritis Res Ther. 2013. 15(2): 108.[3]Song D, Wu LH, Wang FM, et al. The spectrum of renal thrombotic microangiopathy in lupus nephritis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2013. 15(1): R12.[4]Hu WX, Liu ZZ, Chen HP, Zhang HT, Li LS, Liu ZH. Clinical characteristics and prognosis of diffuse proliferative lupus nephritis with thrombotic microangiopathy. Lupus. 2010. 19(14): 1591-8.[5]Tomov S, Lazarchick J, Self SE, Bruner ET, Budisavljevic MN. Kidney-limited thrombotic microangiopathy in patients with SLE treated with romiplostim. Lupus. 2013. 22(5): 504-9.[6]Li C, Yap D, Chan G, et al. Clinical Outcomes and Clinico-pathological Correlations in Lupus Nephritis with Kidney Biopsy Showing Thrombotic Microangiopathy. J Rheumatol. 2019 .[7]Chen MH, Chen MH, Chen WS, et al. Thrombotic microangiopathy in systemic lupus erythematosus: a cohort study in North Taiwan. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2011. 50(4): 768-75.[8]Park MH, AUID- Oho, Caselman N, Ulmer S, Weitz IC, AUID- Oho. Complement-mediated thrombotic microangiopathy associated with lupus nephritis. Blood Adv. 2018. 2(16): 2090-2094.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

scholarly journals POS0706 PERFORMANCES OF DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA FOR SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS IN A SINGLE CENTER COHORT FROM TURKEY

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 602.1-603
Author(s):  
E. S. Torun ◽  
E. Bektaş ◽  
F. Kemik ◽  
M. Bektaş ◽  
C. Cetin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Positive Predictive Value ◽  
Negative Predictive Value ◽  
Antiphospholipid Syndrome ◽  
Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Sjogren's Syndrome ◽  
Classification Criteria ◽  
Systemic Lupus ◽  
Acr Criteria

Background:Recently developed EULAR/ACR classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have important differences compared to the 2012 Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) SLE classification criteria and the revised 1997 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria: The obligatory entry criterion of antinuclear antibody (ANA) positivity is introduced and a “weighted” approach is used1. Sensitivity and specificity of these three criteria have been debated and may vary in different populations and clinical settings.Objectives:We aim to compare the performances of three criteria sets/rules in a large cohort of patients and relevant diseased controls from a reference center with dedicated clinics for SLE and other autoimmune/inflammatory connective tissue diseases from Turkey.Methods:We reviewed the medical records of SLE patients and diseased controls for clinical and laboratory features relevant to all sets of criteria. Criteria sets/rules were analysed based on sensitivity, positive predictive value, specificity and negative predictive value, using clinical diagnosis with at least 6 months of follow-up as the gold standard. A subgroup analysis was performed in ANA positive patients for both SLE patients and diseased controls. SLE patients that did not fulfil 2012 SLICC criteria and 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria and diseased controls that fulfilled these criteria were evaluated.Results:A total of 392 SLE patients and 294 non-SLE diseased controls (48 undifferentiated connective tissue disease, 51 Sjögren’s syndrome, 43 idiopathic inflammatory myopathy, 50 systemic sclerosis, 52 primary antiphospholipid syndrome, 15 rheumatoid arthritis, 15 psoriatic arthritis and 20 ANCA associated vasculitis) were included into the study. Hundred and fourteen patients (16.6%) were ANA negative.Sensitivity was more than 90% for 2012 SLICC criteria and 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria and positive predictive value was more than 90% for all three criteria (Table 1). Specificity was the highest for 1997 ACR criteria. Negative predictive value was 76.9% for ACR criteria, 88.4% for SLICC criteria and 91.7% for EULAR/ACR criteria.In only ANA positive patients, sensitivity was 79.6% for 1997 ACR criteria, 92.2% for 2012 SLICC criteria and 96.1% for 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria. Specificity was 92.6% for ACR criteria, 87.8% for SLICC criteria 85.2% for EULAR/ACR criteria.Eleven clinically diagnosed SLE patients had insufficient number of items for both 2012 SLICC and 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria. Both criteria were fulfilled by 16 diseased controls: 9 with Sjögren’s syndrome, 5 with antiphospholipid syndrome, one with dermatomyositis and one with systemic sclerosis.Table 1.Sensitivity, positive predictive value, specificity and negative predictive value of 1997 ACR, 2012 SLICC and 2019 EULAR/ACR classification criteriaSLE (+)SLE (-)Sensitivity (%)Positive Predictive Value (%)Specificity (%)Negative Predictive Value (%)1997 ACR(+) 308(-) 841527978.695.494.976.92012 SLICC(+) 357(-) 352626891.193.291.288.42019 EULAR/ACR(+) 368(-) 242826693.892.990.591.7Conclusion:In this cohort, although all three criteria have sufficient specificity, sensitivity and negative predictive value of 1997 ACR criteria are the lowest. Overall, 2019 EULAR/ACR and 2012 SLICC criteria have a comparable performance, but if only ANA positive cases and controls are analysed, the specificity of both criteria decrease to less than 90%. Some SLE patients with a clinical diagnosis lacked sufficient number of criteria. Mostly, patients with Sjögren’s syndrome or antiphospholipid syndrome are prone to misclassification by both recent criteria.References:[1]Aringer M, Costenbader K, Daikh D, et al. 2019 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis 2019;78:1151-1159.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document