History of Proliferative Glomerulonephritis Predicts End Stage Kidney Disease in Pure Membranous Lupus Nephritis

2024 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Guideline for the Screening, Treatment, and Management of Lupus Nephritis

OBJECTIVE

The objective is to provide evidence-based and expert guidance for the screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis.

METHODS

The Core Team developed clinical questions for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis using the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were completed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the quality of evidence and to formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus ≥70% on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation.

RESULTS

We present 28 graded recommendations (7 strong, 21 conditional) and 13 ungraded, consensus-based good practice statements for the screening and management of lupus nephritis. Our recommendations focus on the unifying principle that lupus nephritis therapy is continuous and ongoing, rather than consisting of discrete induction/initial and maintenance/subsequent therapies. Therapy should include pulse glucocorticoids followed by oral glucocorticoid taper and two additional immunosuppressive agents for 3-5 years for those achieving complete renal response.

CONCLUSION

This guideline provides direction for clinicians regarding screening and treatment decisions for management of lupus nephritis. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies, as treatment decisions may vary due to the unique clinical situation and personal preferences of each individual patient.

2024 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Guideline for the Screening, Treatment, and Management of Lupus Nephritis

OBJECTIVE

The objective is to provide evidence-based and expert guidance for the screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis.

METHODS

The Core Team developed clinical questions for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis using the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were completed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the quality of evidence and to formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus ≥70% on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation.

RESULTS

We present 28 graded recommendations (7 strong, 21 conditional) and 13 ungraded, consensus-based good practice statements for the screening and management of lupus nephritis. Our recommendations focus on the unifying principle that lupus nephritis therapy is continuous and ongoing, rather than consisting of discrete induction/initial and maintenance/subsequent therapies. Therapy should include pulse glucocorticoids followed by oral glucocorticoid taper and two additional immunosuppressive agents for 3-5 years for those achieving complete renal response.

CONCLUSION

This guideline provides direction for clinicians regarding screening and treatment decisions for management of lupus nephritis. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies, as treatment decisions may vary due to the unique clinical situation and personal preferences of each individual patient.

Lupus nephritis: Biomarkers

Lupus nephritis (LN) or renal involvement of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), is a common manifestation occurring in at least 50 % of SLE patients. LN remains a significant source of morbidity, often leading to progressive renal dysfunction and is a major cause of death in SLE. Despite these challenges, advances in the understanding of the pathogenesis and genetic underpinnings of LN have led to a commendable expansion in available treatments over the past decade. This chapter provides a foundation for the understanding LN pathogenesis, diagnosis, and epidemiology, and guides the reader through recent advances in biomarkers, genetic susceptibility of this intricate condition.

Association of Autoantibody Concentrations and Trajectories With Lupus Nephritis Histologic Features and Treatment Response

OBJECTIVE

Autoantibodies are a hallmark of lupus nephritis (LN), but their association with LN classes and treatment response are not adequately known. In this study, we quantified circulating autoantibodies in the Accelerating Medicines Partnership LN longitudinal cohort to identify serological biomarkers of LN histologic classification and treatment response and how these biomarkers change over time based on treatment response.

METHODS

Peripheral blood samples were collected from 279 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus undergoing diagnostic kidney biopsy based on proteinuria. Of these, 268 were diagnosed with LN. Thirteen autoantibody specificities were measured by bead-based assays (Bio-Rad Bioplex 2200) and anti-C1q by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay at the time of biopsy (baseline) and at 3, 6, and 12 months after biopsy. Clinical response was determined at 12 months.

RESULTS

Proliferative LN (International Society of Nephrology/Renal Pathology Society class III/IV±V, n = 160) was associated with higher concentrations of anti-C1q, anti-chromatin, anti-double-stranded DNA (dsDNA), and anti-ribosomal P autoantibodies compared to nonproliferative LN (classes I/II/V/VI, n = 108). Anti-C1q and-dsDNA were independently associated with proliferative LN. In proliferative LN, higher baseline anti-C1q levels predicted complete response (area under the curve [AUC] 0.72; P = 0.002) better than baseline proteinuria (AUC 0.59; P = 0.21). Furthermore, all autoantibody levels except for anti-La/SSB decreased over 12 months in patients with proliferative, but not membranous, LN with a complete response.

CONCLUSION

Baseline levels of anti-C1q and anti-dsDNA may serve as noninvasive biomarkers of proliferative LN, and anti-C1q may predict complete response at the time of kidney biopsy. In addition, tracking autoantibodies over time may provide further insights into treatment response and pathogenic mechanisms in patients with proliferative LN.

Kidney injury: the spleno-renal connection and splenic tyrosine kinase

Kidney injury is a major medical burden and one of the most common reasons for hospitalization and poor life quality. Kidney injury can include acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, and immune-mediated kidney diseases most of which have no definitive therapy. The spleen is a secondary lymphoid organ in the reticuloendothelial system that plays an important role in protecting the body from various diseases. Notably, spleen tyrosine kinase, a non-receptor tyrosine kinase, is a crucial player that aids in immunity and protection and is highly expressed in the kidney and hematopoietic cells. It has been shown that alterations in spleen tyrosine kinase function or expression could lead to a wide range of diseases and abnormalities. Over the past decade, the role of spleen and spleen tyrosine kinase in multiple kidney diseases has emerged. Evidence suggests that modulating the spleno-renal connection through activation of the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway can be a promising strategy for protecting against kidney injury. Imitating the protective function of the spleen through interleukin-10-extracellular vesicles can also be of therapeutic value. In addition, evidence showed that inhibition of the spleen tyrosine kinase leads to amelioration of the kidney injury. However, further exploration and long-term studies are needed to unravel the spleno-renal connection, as well as the efficacy of spleen tyrosine kinase inhibitors, before they can be used as means for treatment of kidney injury.

Increased Urine Excretion of Neutrophil Granule Cargo in Active Proliferative Lupus Nephritis

Key Points

Neutrophil degranulation participates in glomerular injury in proliferative lupus nephritis. Urine excretion of neutrophil granule proteins is a potential diagnostic for proliferative lupus nephritis.

Background

Lupus nephritis (LN) occurs in more than half of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, but the cellular and molecular events that contribute to LN are not clearly defined. We reported previously that neutrophil degranulation participates in glomerular injury in mouse models of acute LN. This study tests the hypothesis that glomerular recruitment and subsequent activation of neutrophils result in urine excretion of neutrophil granule constituents that are predictive of glomerular inflammation in proliferative LN.

Methods

Urine and serum levels of 11 neutrophil granule proteins were measured by antibody-based array in patients with proliferative LN and healthy donors (HDs), and the results were confirmed by ELISA. Glomerular neutrophil accumulation was assessed in biopsies of patients with LN who contributed urine for granule cargo quantitation and normal kidney tissue by microscopy. Degranulation was measured by flow cytometry in neutrophils isolated from patients with LN and HD controls by cell surface granule markers CD63 (azurophilic), CC66b (specific), and CD35 (secretory). Nonparametric statistical analyses were performed and corrected for multiple comparisons.

Results

Eight granule proteins (myeloperoxidase, neutrophil elastase, azurocidin, olfactomedin-4, lactoferrin, alpha-1-acid glycoprotein 1, matrix metalloproteinase 9, and cathelicidin) were significantly elevated in urine from patients with active proliferative LN by array and/or ELISA, whereas only neutrophil elastase was increased in LN serum. Urine excretion of alpha-1-acid glycoprotein 1 declined in patients who achieved remission. The majority of LN glomeruli contained ≥3 neutrophils. Basal levels of specific granule markers were increased in neutrophils from patients with LN compared with HD controls. Serum from patients with active LN stimulated specific and secretory, but not azurophilic granule, release by HD neutrophils.

Conclusions

Circulating neutrophils in patients with LN are primed for enhanced degranulation. Glomerular recruitment of those primed neutrophils leads to release and urine excretion of neutrophil granule cargo that serves as a urine marker of active glomerular inflammation in proliferative LN.

Blood immunophenotyping identifies distinct kidney histopathology and outcomes in patients with lupus nephritis

Lupus nephritis (LN) is a frequent manifestation of systemic lupus erythematosus, and fewer than half of patients achieve complete renal response with standard immunosuppressants. Identifying non-invasive, blood-based pathologic immune alterations associated with renal injury could aid therapeutic decisions. Here, we used mass cytometry immunophenotyping of peripheral blood mononuclear cells in 145 patients with biopsy-proven LN and 40 healthy controls to evaluate the heterogeneity of immune activation in patients with LN and to identify correlates of renal parameters and treatment response. Unbiased analysis identified 3 immunologically distinct groups of patients with LN that were associated with different patterns of histopathology, renal cell infiltrates, urine proteomic profiles, and treatment response at one year. Patients with enriched circulating granzyme B+ T cells at baseline showed more severe disease and increased numbers of activated CD8 T cells in the kidney, yet they had the highest likelihood of treatment response. A second group characterized primarily by a high type I interferon signature had a lower likelihood of response to therapy, while a third group appeared immunologically inactive by immunophenotyping at enrollment but with chronic renal injuries. Main immune profiles could be distilled down to 5 simple cytometric parameters that recapitulate several of the associations, highlighting the potential for blood immune profiling to translate to clinically useful non-invasive metrics to assess immune-mediated disease in LN.

Kidney Biopsy in Management of Lupus Nephritis: A Case-Based Narrative Review

Kidney involvement in patients with lupus highly increases morbidity and mortality. In recent years, several reports have emphasized the dissociation between clinical and histological findings and highlighted the role of kidney biopsy as an instrument for diagnosis and follow-up of lupus nephritis. The kidney biopsy at initial diagnosis allows an early diagnosis, assessment of activity and chronicity, and detection of nonimmune complex nephritis. A kidney biopsy repeated months after treatment aids in the detection of persistent histological inflammation, which has been linked to the occurrence of future kidney relapses. A kidney biopsy at a relapse detects histological changes including chronic scarring. Finally, a kidney biopsy in patients with a clinical response undergoing maintenance immunosuppression may aid therapy tapering and/or suspension. The evidence supporting the use of a kidney biopsy in different scenarios across the course of lupus nephritis is heterogeneous, with most reports assessing the value for the diagnosis of a first or relapsing flare. In contrast, less evidence suggests additional therapeutic-modifying information derived from repeat posttreatment biopsies and biopsies to evaluate treatment tapering or suspension. In this clinical case-based review, we examine the role of kidney biopsy as a tool to improve clinical outcomes of patients with lupus nephritis.

Elevated serum levels of human epididymis protein 4 in adult patients with proliferative lupus nephritis

Background

This study aimed to access whether serum human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) level could identify lupus nephritis (LN) pathological classes in adults and children.

Methods

The serum HE4 levels of 190 healthy subjects and 182 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) (61 adult-onset LN [aLN], 39 childhood-onset LN [cLN], and 82 SLE without LN) were determined using Architect HE4 kits and an Abbott ARCHITECT i2000SR Immunoassay Analyzer.

Results

Serum HE4 level was significantly higher in the aLN patients (median, 85.5 pmol/L) than in the patients with cLN (44 pmol/L, P < 0.001) or SLE without LN (37 pmol/L, P < 0.001), or the healthy controls (30 pmol/L, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that serum HE4 level was independently associated with aLN. Stratified by LN class, serum HE4 level was significantly higher in the patients with proliferative LN (PLN) than in those with non-PLN, and this difference was found only in aLN (median, 98.3 versus 49.3 pmol/L, P = 0.021) but not in cLN. Stratified by activity (A) and chronicity (C) indices, the aLN patients with class IV (A/C) possessed significantly higher serum HE4 levels than those with class IV (A) (median, 195.5 versus 60.8 pmol/L, P = 0.006), and this difference was not seen in the class III aLN or cLN patients.

Conclusion

Serum HE4 level is elevated in patients with class IV (A/C) aLN. The role of HE4 in the pathogenesis of chronic lesions of class IV aLN needs further investigation.

High incidence of proliferative and membranous nephritis in SLE patients with low proteinuria in the Accelerating Medicines Partnership

OBJECTIVE

Delayed detection of LN associates with worse outcomes. There are conflicting recommendations regarding a threshold level of proteinuria at which biopsy will likely yield actionable management. This study addressed the association of urine protein:creatinine ratios (UPCR) with clinical characteristics and investigated the incidence of proliferative and membranous histology in patients with a UPCR between 0.5 and 1.

METHODS

A total of 275 SLE patients (113 first biopsy, 162 repeat) were enrolled in the multicentre multi-ethnic/racial Accelerating Medicines Partnership across 15 US sites at the time of a clinically indicated renal biopsy. Patients were followed for 1 year.

RESULTS

At biopsy, 54 patients had UPCR <1 and 221 had UPCR ≥1. Independent of UPCR or biopsy number, a majority (92%) of patients had class III, IV, V or mixed histology. Moreover, patients with UPCR <1 and class III, IV, V, or mixed had a median activity index of 4.5 and chronicity index of 3, yet 39% of these patients had an inactive sediment. Neither anti-dsDNA nor low complement distinguished class I or II from III, IV, V or mixed in patients with UPCR <1. Of 29 patients with baseline UPCR <1 and class III, IV, V or mixed, 23 (79%) had a UPCR <0.5 at 1 year.

CONCLUSION

In this prospective study, three-quarters of patients with UPCR <1 had histology showing class III, IV, V or mixed with accompanying activity and chronicity despite an inactive sediment or normal serologies. These data support renal biopsy at thresholds lower than a UPCR of 1.