Immune Complex Disease With a Lupus-like Pattern of Deposition in an Antinuclear Antibody–Negative Patient

Nonlupus Full House Nephropathy: A Systematic Review

Key Points

Nonlupus full house nephropathy is a rare, complex entity: confusion arises by the low-quality evidence and the lack of consensus on nomenclature. This systematic review supports that systemic lupus erythematosus and nonlupus full house nephropathy are distinct clinical entities, with comparable outcomes. The identification of three pathogenetic categories provides further clues for a shared clinical and diagnostic approach to the disease.

Background

The presence of a full house pattern at immunofluorescence on kidney biopsy in a patient without clinical and laboratory features of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) has led to the descriptive term nonlupus full house nephropathy. This systematic review and meta-analysis focus on nonlupus full house nephropathy nomenclature, clinical findings, and outcomes.

Methods

In a reiterative process, all identified terms for nonlupus full house nephropathy and other medical subject headings terms were searched in PubMed. Out of 344 results, 57 records published between 1982 and 2022 were included in the analysis. Clinical data of single patients from different reports were collected. Patients were classified into three pathogenetic categories, which were compared according to baseline characteristics, treatments, and outcomes.

Results

Out of the 57 records, 61% were case reports. Nonlupus full house nephropathy was addressed with 17 different names. We identified 148 patients: 75 (51%) were men; median age 35 (23–58) years. Serum creatinine and proteinuria at onset were 1.4 (0.8–2.5) mg/dl and 5.7 (2.7–8.8) g/d. About half of patients achieved complete response. A causative agent was identified in 51 patients (44%), mainly infectious (41%). Secondary nonlupus full house nephropathy was mostly nonrelapsing with worse kidney function at onset compared with idiopathic disease (P = 0.001). Among the 57 patients (50%) with idiopathic nonlupus full house nephropathy, complete response was comparable between patients treated with immunosuppression and supportive therapy; however, proteinuria and creatinine at onset were higher in patients treated with immunosuppression (P = 0.09 and P = 0.07). The remaining 7 patients (6%) developed SLE after a median follow-up of 5.0 (1.9–9.0) years.

Conclusions

Our data support that SLE and nonlupus full house nephropathy are distinct clinical entities, with comparable outcomes. A small subset of patients develops SLE during follow-up. Nonlupus full house nephropathy is addressed by many different names in the literature. The identification of three pathogenetic categories provides further clues for the management of the disease.

The role of the mesangium in glomerular function

When discussing glomerular function, one cell type is often left out, the mesangial cell (MC), probably since it is not a part of the filtration barrier per se. The MCs are instead found between the glomerular capillaries, embedded in their mesangial matrix. They are in direct contact with the endothelial cells and in close contact with the podocytes and together they form the glomerulus. The MCs can produce and react to a multitude of growth factors, cytokines, and other signaling molecules and are in the perfect position to be a central hub for crosstalk communication between the cells in the glomerulus. In certain glomerular diseases, for example, in diabetic kidney disease or IgA nephropathy, the MCs become activated resulting in mesangial expansion. The expansion is normally due to matrix expansion in combination with either proliferation or hypertrophy. With time, this expansion can lead to fibrosis and decreased glomerular function. In addition, signs of complement activation are often seen in biopsies from patients with glomerular disease affecting the mesangium. This review aims to give a better understanding of the MCs in health and disease and their role in glomerular crosstalk and inflammation.

The spectrum of renal diseases with lupus-like features: a single-center study

BACKGROUND

A subset of patients without overt systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) present with biopsy findings typically seen in lupus nephritis (LN). Although a minority eventually develops SLE, many do not. It remains unclear how to classify or treat these patients. Our study attempted to further understand the clinical and pathological characteristics of cases with lupus-like nephritis (LLN).

METHODS

Among 2700 native kidney biopsies interpreted at University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC) from 2010 to 2019, we identified 27 patients with biopsies showing lupus-like features (LL-fx) and 96 with LN. Of those with LL-fx, 17 were idiopathic LLN and 10 were associated with a secondary etiology (e.g., infection/drugs).

RESULTS

At the time of biopsy, the LLN-group tended to be slightly older (44 vs. 35), male (58.8 vs. 17.7%, p = .041), and Caucasian (47.0 vs. 28.1%, p = .005). Chronic kidney disease was the most common biopsy indication in LLN (21.4 vs. 2.8%, p = .001). Both LN and LLN presented with nephrotic-range proteinuria (mean 5.73 vs. 4.40 g/d), and elevated serum creatinine (mean 1.66 vs. 1.47 mg/dL). Tubuloreticular inclusions (TRIs; p < .001) and fibrous crescents (p = .04) were more often seen in LN, while more tubulointerstitial scarring was seen in LLN (p = .011). At mean follow-up of 1684 d (range: 31-4323), none of the LLN patients developed ESRD. A subset of both LN and cases with LL-fx overlapped with other autoimmune diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

Lupus-like pathologic features are seen in a wide array of disease processes. The findings suggest that LLN may be a manifestation of an autoimmune process that overlaps with SLE.

Lupus-like membranous nephropathy. Is it lupus? Report of 5 cases in a reference hospital in Mexico

INTRODUCTION

Lupus nephritis requires antinuclear antibodies as classification criteria. There is a group of patients with nephrotic syndrome and conclusive histopathological findings for lupus nephritis, without classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) or extrarenal manifestations. These groups of patients have been described as "lupus-like" nephritis or "renal-limited lupus nephritis".

METHODS

Renal biopsy with histopathological evaluation with "full-house" immune-reactants in patients with negative antinuclear antibodies.

RESULTS

We report four cases with nephrotic syndrome and one with hematuria-proteinuria syndrome: two with impaired glomerular filtration rate and three with preserved renal function; urinary sediment with hematuria without dysmorphia and without extrarenal manifestations for autoimmune disease, negative antinuclear antibodies (ANA) and anti-double stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA); normal C3 and C4 complement levels. Renal biopsy in all cases was consistent for lupus nephritis class V. All patients received treatment as lupus nephritis protocol; only one case received induction with cyclophosphamide and methylprednisolone boluses, the rest received mycophenolic acid and prednisone as induction and maintenance. Two of the cases induced with mycophenolic acid relapsed, requiring cyclophosphamide for 6 months, achieving complete remission. All patients received renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade and hydroxychloroquine. At follow-up, 4 cases still have negative antibodies and are without extrarenal manifestations for SLE classification criteria. The other case, during pregnancy several years after initial diagnosis, had preeclampsia with nephrotic proteinuria and a new determination of positive ANA and anti-dsDNA antibodies, complement levels below normal limits.

CONCLUSION

The follow-up of patients with membranous glomerulopathy must be close; lupus like nephritis may be the first manifestation of the disease.

Sensitivity and Specificity of Pathologic Findings to Diagnose Lupus Nephritis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In 2012, the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics proposed that lupus nephritis, in the presence of positive ANA or anti-dsDNA antibody, is sufficient to diagnose SLE. However, this "stand-alone" kidney biopsy criterion is problematic because the ISN/RPS classification does not specifically define lupus nephritis. We investigated the combination of pathologic features with optimal sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of lupus nephritis.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Three hundred consecutive biopsies with lupus nephritis and 560 contemporaneous biopsies with nonlupus glomerulopathies were compared. Lupus nephritis was diagnosed if there was a clinical diagnosis of SLE and kidney biopsy revealed findings compatible with lupus nephritis. The control group consisted of consecutives biopsies showing diverse glomerulopathies from patients without SLE, including IgA nephropathy, membranous glomerulopathy, pauci-immune glomerulonephritis, membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis (excluding C3 GN), and infection-related glomerulonephritis. Sensitivity and specificity of individual pathologic features and combinations of features were computed.

RESULTS

Five characteristic features of lupus nephritis were identified: "full-house" staining by immunofluorescence, intense C1q staining, extraglomerular deposits, combined subendothelial and subepithelial deposits, and endothelial tubuloreticular inclusions, each with sensitivity ranging from 0.68 to 0.80 and specificity from 0.8 to 0.96. The presence of at least two, three, or four of the five criteria had a sensitivity of 0.92, 0.8, and 0.66 for the diagnosis of lupus nephritis, and a specificity of 0.89, 0.95, and 0.98.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, combinations of pathologic features can distinguish lupus nephritis from nonlupus glomerulopathies with high specificity and varying sensitivity. Even with stringent criteria, however, rare examples of nonlupus glomerulopathies may exhibit characteristic features of lupus nephritis.

The oral mucosa: A barrier site participating in tissue-specific and systemic immunity

In the oral cavity, the immune system is constantly exposed to unique tissue-specific signals, including a rich community of commensal microbes and their metabolites, continuous tissue damage from mastication, and antigens from food and airborne particles. How this unique combination of signals participates in the training of specialized immunity at this site is not well understood, yet imbalance of local responses is linked to tissue-specific disease susceptibilities with the prototypic disease being periodontitis. However, the oral mucosa is also well recognized as a site where systemic inflammatory and autoimmune diseases often manifest, indicating that systemic immune deregulation is reflected in the function of the oral immune system. This commentary will discuss both aspects of compartmentalized and systemic immunity at the oral mucosa.

Evaluating the diagnostic and prognostic value of lone anti-Sm for autoimmune diseases using Euroimmun line immunoassays

To investigate the value of lone anti-Smith antibody (anti-Sm) using Euroimmun line immunoassay (LIA) in a Chinese population. One thousand two hundred eight of 39,766 patients who were analyzed for anti-Sm had positive anti-Sm, and were divided into true group (having both positive Sm and nRNP/Sm bands) and lone group (only having Sm band without nRNP/Sm band). The proportions of clinical diagnosis of autoimmune diseases (AIDs), non-autoimmune diseases (NAIDs), concentration of C3, C4, and rheumatoid factor (RF), positive rate of autoantibodies of antinuclear antibody (ANA) profile, and titer of anti-Sm and ANA in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients were analyzed. Lone anti-Sm was evident in 271/1208 (22.42%) of all positive cases. One hundred seventy-five of them had definitive diagnoses with AIDs being the most prominent (69.71%, 122/175). Compared to the true group, SLE patients in the lone group showed significantly lower ANA and anti-Sm titers (both P < 0.001). There was no difference in frequency of other autoantibodies or C3, C4, and RF levels of SLE patients between the two groups. In NAIDs patients, lone anti-Sm indicates less incidence of kidney injury than true anti-Sm (P = 0.05). Lone anti-Sm has great diagnostic value in AIDs, especially SLE. Lone anti-Sm has relationship with mild kidney impairment. Positive anti-Sm patients with no clinical findings or SLE diagnosis should be submitted to new testing to identify changes in anti-Sm, because turning of lone anti-Sm to true anti-Sm indicates evolving kidney injury.