Variants in complement genes are uncommon in patients with anti-factor H autoantibody-associated atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome

Autoantibodies and therapeutic antibodies against complement factor H

The complement system is a crucial part of our immune defense as, upon recognition, it can kill pathogens fast and effectively. However, misguided complement activation could cause damage to host tissues. Therefore, a well-controlled regulation of the complement system is a necessity to prevent collateral damage. Regulation is achieved by several complement inhibitory proteins, acting at different levels of the complement system. One of these complement regulators is factor H, the main regulator of the alternative complement activation pathway. Factor H can regulate the complement system both in fluid-phase and on the host cell surface by, for example, acting as co-factor for factor I, inactivating C3b. The functional properties of factor H are located within different regions of the protein. Functional impairment of factor H, either because of genetic variants, competing proteins such as the factor H-related proteins and proteins from certain pathogens, but also the presence of autoantibodies will impact on complement activation. However, exact consequences are dependent on the region within factor H that is affected. Autoantibodies binding to factor H have been shown to inhibit several regulatory functions of factor H, which is observed in diseases such as membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis and atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome. As more recently the presence of anti-factor H autoantibodies has also been discovered in several other diseases, ranging from autoimmune diseases to cancer, this review provides an overview of the presence of factor H autoantibodies described in these diseases. Factor H autoantibodies are reported to have inhibitory, or enhancing, effects on factor H, depending on the epitopes that are recognized. Formal conclusions about the pathogenicity of the factor H autoantibodies in some of these diseases cannot be drawn yet. Importantly, understanding the binding and functional impact of anti-factor H (auto)antibodies will allow targeted interventions to diminish pathological consequences of anti-factor H autoantibodies but may also open up additional avenues for the use of anti-factor H antibodies as therapeutic agents.

Updates in atypical hemolytic syndrome

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to summarize how scientific advances in complement biology have not only improved the diagnosis and management of aHUS but also continue to offer insights into the pathophysiology of complement-mediated disease that may be leveraged for future therapeutic developments.

RECENT FINDINGS

Updated information on the clinical and epidemiological features, pathophysiology, diagnosis, management, and potential for future therapeutic advancements in the treatment of aHUS are reviewed.

SUMMARY

aHUS is a rare but potentially life-threatening disease that requires prompt diagnosis and treatment as well as long-term management via a multidisciplinary team providing coordination of primary and specialty care as well as outreach and education for children and families affected by this life-long disease.

Anti-factor B antibodies in atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome

BACKGROUND

The etiology of atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS) is unknown in 30-40% of patients. Anti-factor B (FB) antibodies are reported in C3 glomerulopathy (C3G) and immune-complex membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis (IC-MPGN), though not in aHUS.

METHODS

We screened patients < 18-year-old from cohorts of aHUS and C3G/idiopathic IC-MPGN. Anti-FB IgG antibodies were measured by ELISA and confirmed by Western blot. Normative levels were based on antibody levels in 103 healthy blood donors.

RESULTS

Prevalence of anti-FB antibodies was 9.7% (95% CI 6.1-14.5%; n = 21) in 216 patients with aHUS, including 11.5% (95% CI 6.4-18.5%; n = 14) in anti-FH associated aHUS and 11.8% (95% CI 4.4-23.9%; n = 6) in patients without a definitive genetic or autoimmune etiology. Patients with significant genetic variants did not show anti-FB antibodies. In patients with concomitant anti-FB and anti-FH antibodies, median anti-FH titers were higher (11,312 AU/mL vs. 4920 AU/mL; P = 0.04). Anti-FB antibody titer correlated with disease severity (hemoglobin and platelets; P < 0.05), declined following plasma exchange and increased during relapse. While 4/64 patients with C3G (6.3%) and 1/17 with IC-MPGN showed anti-FB antibodies, titers were higher in aHUS (544.8 AU/mL vs. 1028.8 AU/mL; P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Anti-FB antibodies are present in 6-10% of patients with aHUS and C3G/IC-MPGN, with higher titers in the former. The diagnostic and therapeutic implication of anti-FB antibodies in aHUS needs confirmation and further studies. The study shows propensity for autoantibody generation and co-existence of multiple risk factors for aHUS in Indian children.