scholarly journals Initial Preserved Renal Function as a Predictor of Favorable Renal Response to Rituximab in Refractory or Relapsing Lupus Nephritis: A Single-center Cohort Study in Korea

2022 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-32
Author(s):  
Su Jin Choi ◽  
Soo Min Ahn ◽  
Ji Seon Oh ◽  
Seokchan Hong ◽  
Chang-Keun Lee ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pranab Jyoti Mahanta ◽  
Manjuri Sharma ◽  
Shahzad Alam ◽  
Prodip Kumar Doley ◽  
Gayatri Pegu ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and Aims SLE patients have 40% to 70% life time risk of developing lupus nephritis (LN). In LN patients rate of end-stage renal disease is 10%, remaining constant in the last 30 years, even after the emergence of various immunosuppressive therapy. SLE is an example of classical antibody-mediated disease and hence treatment with B cell depleting agent (like the use of Rituximab ) appears to be a promising approach for this unwinnable disease from the Roman era. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcome in terms of - no renal response (NRR), complete renal response (CRR) or partial renal response (PRR) at week 24 after rituximab treatment initiation in refractory LN. CRR considered, if serum creatinine (S Cr) level returned to baseline, with a decline in the 24 hour urinary protein to < 500 mg/day. PRR defined as stabilization (+/-25%), or improvement of S Cr, plus a 50% decrease in 24 hour urinary protein (which was < 3.5 gm/day). NRR considered, if participant did not achieve either a CRR or PRR. Method It is a single center prospective observational study, comparing short term (24 week) outcomes in resistant lupus nephritis patients of >18 year age group with weekly (total 4) dose of rituximab therapy. The study was conducted on 25 refractory lupus nephritis patients admitted in Nephrology Department (not responding to conventional immunosuppressive drugs like cyclophosphamide, MMF). Repeat renal biopsy was performed, all baseline investigations were done. Injection Rituximab 375 mg/m2 weekly 0,1,2,3 week along with premedication treatment were given to every patient. The clinical outcome was assessed monthly post-treatment. Results In the study maximum patients were of class IV, n=21 (84 %). Sustained (6 months post treatment) CRR was achieved in n=6 (24%) patients, n=7 (28%) patients achieved PRR, rest n=12 (48%) patients had NRR. Mean blood absolute CD-19 count was significantly negatively correlated with response to rituximab treatment ( p< 0.001) .Mean absolute CD-19 count was 2.33/microliter in CRR, 2.14/microliter in PRR group and 21.25 / microliter in NRR group . No significant side effects of rituximab were observed. Limitations –Small sample size, single center study, long term follow up not considered. Conclusion In refractory LN patients, 24 weeks after Rituximab treatment


Lupus ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 18 (12) ◽  
pp. 1073-1081 ◽  
Author(s):  
F Yu ◽  
Y Tan ◽  
L-H Wu ◽  
S-N Zhu ◽  
G Liu ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1034.2-1034
Author(s):  
M. Luis ◽  
A. R. Prata ◽  
H. Assunção ◽  
J. A. P. Da Silva ◽  
L. Inês

Background:The EULAR/ERA-EDTA recommendations for lupus nephritis (LN) state that renal response should be achieved within 12 months following induction therapy. However, there is an unmet need for early predictors of renal outcome in order to adjust the immunosuppression regimen and optimize the renal outcome.Objectives:To identify predictors of poor renal outcome at baseline, 3 months and 6 months after starting induction therapy.Methods:Retrospective cohort study over 36 months including patients with Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) fulfilling the ACR’97 and/or the SLICC’12 classification criteria and with biopsy-proven proliferative LN (class III/IV), enrolled in the CHUC Lupus Cohort from 1999 to 2018. Poor renal outcome was defined as longer time to complete renal response (CRR), characterized by proteinuria <0.5g/day and normal renal function, according to EULAR/ERA-EDTA criteria. Clinical-analytical characteristics at baseline, 3 months and 6 months after starting induction treatment were compared using survival analysis for time-to-CRR. Variables with p<0.25 on univariate analysis using Log-Rank tests were further evaluated as predictors applying multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models (Backward Stepwise method, Wald-based) with estimation of hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI).Results:56 patients were included (76.8% female, age at LN diagnosis 30.0 ± 13.2 years). Over the follow-up, 51 patients (91.1%) achieved CRR, within a median time of 6.0 months. In multivariate analysis, predictors of poor renal outcome were proteinuria >2g/day at baseline (HR 1.98; 95%CI 1.04-3.77; p=0.037) and induction therapy with pulse cyclophosphamide (CYC), as compared to mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (HR=2.05; 95%CI 1.07-3.94; p=0.030) (Figure 1). Diabetes mellitus (HR=6.0; 95%CI 1.24-29.07; p=0.026) and negative anti-RNP antibody (HR 3.17; 95%CI 1.27-7.93; p=0.013) at baseline predicted poor renal outcome at 3 months. At this timepoint, level of proteinuria and clearance rate were not predictive of renal response. At 6 months, no predictors of LN outcome were found for those patients that did not achieve CRR up to this timepoint. Use of glucocorticoid pulses and/or antihypertensive drugs did not predict LN outcome.Figure 1.Conclusion:In this SLE cohort, most patients with proliferative LN achieved CRR. Proteinuria above 2 g/day at baseline and diabetes mellitus were predictors of poor renal outcome, while positive anti-RNP was protective. Induction treatment with CYC was associated with poorer outcome as compared with MMF. Given the retrospective non-randomized nature of this study, caution is needed when drawing conclusions regarding both treatments efficacy.Disclosure of Interests:Mariana Luis: None declared, Ana Rita Prata: None declared, Helena Assunção: None declared, José Antonio P. da Silva Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Abbvie, Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Luís Inês: None declared


2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Qijiao Wei ◽  
Wei Wang ◽  
Yanqing Dong ◽  
Linqing Zhong ◽  
Hongmei Song

2017 ◽  
Vol 08 (12) ◽  
pp. 668-679
Author(s):  
Mio Kodama ◽  
Keiko Uchida ◽  
Kazunori Karasawa ◽  
Takahito Moriyama ◽  
Kosaku Nitta

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document