1
|
Banos A, Bertsias G. Flares in Lupus Nephritis: Risk Factors and Strategies for Their Prevention. Curr Rheumatol Rep 2023; 25:183-191. [PMID: 37452914 PMCID: PMC10504124 DOI: 10.1007/s11926-023-01109-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/26/2023] [Indexed: 07/18/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW Discuss the prognostic significance of kidney flares in patients with lupus nephritis, associated risk factors, and possible preventative strategies. RECENT FINDINGS Recently performed clinical trials and observational cohort studies underscore the high frequency of relapses of kidney disease, following initial response, in patients with proliferative and/or membranous lupus nephritis. Analysis of hard disease outcomes such as progression to chronic kidney disease or end-stage kidney disease, coupled with histological findings from repeat kidney biopsy studies, have drawn attention to the importance of renal function preservation that should be pursued as early as lupus nephritis is diagnosed. In this respect, non-randomized and randomized evidence have suggested a number of factors associated with reduced risk of renal flares such as attaining a very low level of proteinuria (< 700-800 mg/24 h by 12 months), using mycophenolate over azathioprine, adding belimumab to standard therapy, maintaining immunosuppressive/biological treatment for at least 3 to 5 years, and using hydroxychloroquine. Other factors that warrant further clarification include serological activity and the use of repeat kidney biopsy to guide the intensity and duration of treatment in selected cases. The results from ongoing innovative studies integrating kidney histological and clinical outcomes, together with an expanding spectrum of therapies in lupus nephritis, are expected to facilitate individual medical care and long-term disease and patient prognosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aggelos Banos
- Department of Rheumatology, 'Asklepieion' General Hospital, Voula, Athens, Greece
- Laboratory of Autoimmunity and Inflammation, Center of Clinical, Experimental Surgery and Translational Research, Biomedical Research Foundation Academy of Athens, 115 27, Athens, Greece
| | - George Bertsias
- Rheumatology, Clinical Immunology and Allergy, University Hospital of Heraklion and University of Crete Medical School, Voutes-Stavrakia, 71008, Heraklion, Greece.
- Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology-FORTH, Heraklion, Greece.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Complement as a Biomarker for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Biomolecules 2023; 13:biom13020367. [PMID: 36830735 PMCID: PMC9953581 DOI: 10.3390/biom13020367] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/29/2023] [Revised: 02/06/2023] [Accepted: 02/10/2023] [Indexed: 02/17/2023] Open
Abstract
Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a disease of immune complex deposition; therefore, complement plays a vital role in the pathogenesis of SLE. In general, complement levels in blood and complement deposition in histological tests are used for the management of SLE. Thus, the evaluation of complement status can be useful in the diagnosis of SLE, assessment of disease activity, and prediction of treatment response and prognosis. In addition, novel complement biomarkers, such as split products and cell-bound complement activation products, are considered to be more sensitive than traditional complement markers, such as serum C3 and C4 levels and total complement activity (CH50), which become more widely used. In this review, we report the complement testing in the management of SLE over the last decade and summarize their utility.
Collapse
|
3
|
El Miedany Y, Kamel NS, Abu-Zaid MH, El Hadidi K, Mahmoud GA, Sarhan E, El Gaafary M, Abdel-Nasser A, Abualfadl EM, Azim AA, Fathi NA, Mokbel A, Hassan W, Tabra SAA, Eissa M, Mortada M, Fouad NA, Elnemr R, Mansour AE, Elaraby I, Medhat BM, Mohamed SS, Abdelradi ER, Ibrahim RA, Saber S. Egyptian evidence-based consensus on clinical practice recommendations for the management of lupus nephritis. EGYPTIAN RHEUMATOLOGY AND REHABILITATION 2022. [DOI: 10.1186/s43166-022-00146-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Lupus nephritis (LN) affects a substantial number of the patients living with Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), representing a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Patients with lupus nephritis should be referred to a lupus nephritis expert who can confirm the diagnosis, assess the level of disease activity, and offer guidance on treatment and monitoring of the disease, as well as its consequences and side effects. The aim of this guideline was to develop recommendations for the management of adult lupus patients, including lupus nephritis diagnosis, assessment, and monitoring.
Nineteen key clinical questions were identified by scientific committee according to the Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes and Timing (PICOT) approach. Literature review team performed a systematic review to summarize evidence advocating the benefits and harms of available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for LN. Subsequently, recommendations were formulated. The level of evidence was determined for each section using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine (CEBM) system. A 2-round Delphi process was conducted with 24 experts. All rounds were conducted online. A consensus was achieved on the direction and the strength of the recommendations.
Results
An online questionnaire was sent to an expert panel who participated in the two rounds (response rate 100%). At the end of round 2, a total of 19 recommendation items, categorized into 11 sections to address the main LN categories, were obtained. The percentage of those who agreed with the recommendations (ranks 7–9) ranged from 90.5 to 100%. The phrasing of all 19 clinical standards identified by the scientific committee was agreed upon (i.e., 75% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed).
Conclusion
These recommendations provide an updated consensus on the pharmacological treatment of lupus nephritis and strategies to reach optimal treat to target outcomes in common clinical scenarios, based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion. Best treatment decisions should be tailored to each individual patient situation.
Collapse
|
4
|
Zarbl J, Eimer E, Gigg C, Bendzuck G, Korinth M, Elling-Audersch C, Kleyer A, Simon D, Boeltz S, Krusche M, Mucke J, Muehlensiepen F, Vuillerme N, Krönke G, Schett G, Knitza J. Remote self-collection of capillary blood using upper arm devices for autoantibody analysis in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory rheumatic diseases. RMD Open 2022; 8:rmdopen-2022-002641. [PMID: 36104118 PMCID: PMC9476144 DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002641] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/04/2022] [Accepted: 08/31/2022] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Objectives To evaluate the feasibility, accuracy, usability and acceptability of two upper arm self-sampling devices for measurement of autoantibodies and C reactive protein (CRP) levels in patients with immune-mediated rheumatic diseases (IMRDs). Methods 70 consecutive patients with IMRD with previously documented autoantibodies were assigned to supervised and unsupervised self-collection of capillary blood with the Tasso+ or TAP II device. Interchangeability of 17 biomarkers with standard venesection was assessed by: concordance, correlation, paired sample hypothesis testing and Bland-Altman plots. Patients completed an evaluation questionnaire, including the System Usability Scale (SUS) and Net Promoter Score (NPS). Results While 80.0% and 77.0% were able to safely and successfully collect capillary blood using the Tasso+ and TAP II within the first attempt, 69 of 70 (98.6%) patients were successful in collecting capillary blood within two attempts. Concordance between venous and capillary samples was high; 94.7% and 99.5% for positive and negative samples, respectively. For connective tissue disease screen, anti-Ro52 and anti-proteinase 3 autoantibody levels, no significant differences were observed. Self-sampling was less painful than standard venesection for the majority of patients (Tasso+: 71%; TAP II: 63%). Both devices were well accepted (NPS; both: +28%), usability was perceived as excellent (SUS; Tasso+: 88.6 of 100; TAP II: 86.0 of 100) and 48.6 %/62.9% of patients would prefer to use the Tasso+/TAP II, respectively, instead of a traditional venous blood collection. Conclusions Remote self-collection of capillary blood using upper arm-based devices for autoantibody and CRP analysis in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases is feasible, accurate and well accepted among patients. Trial registration number WHO International Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS00024925).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joshua Zarbl
- Department of Internal Medicine 3, Rheumatology and Immunology, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.,Deutsches Zentrum für Immuntherapie, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Arnd Kleyer
- Department of Internal Medicine 3, Rheumatology and Immunology, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.,Deutsches Zentrum für Immuntherapie, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany
| | - David Simon
- Department of Internal Medicine 3, Rheumatology and Immunology, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.,Deutsches Zentrum für Immuntherapie, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Sebastian Boeltz
- Department of Internal Medicine 3, Rheumatology and Immunology, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.,Deutsches Zentrum für Immuntherapie, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany
| | | | - Johanna Mucke
- Policlinic and Hiller Research Unit for Rheumatology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - Felix Muehlensiepen
- Centre for Health Services Research Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Neuruppin, Germany.,Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France
| | | | - Gerhard Krönke
- Department of Internal Medicine 3, Rheumatology and Immunology, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.,Deutsches Zentrum für Immuntherapie, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Georg Schett
- Department of Internal Medicine 3, Rheumatology and Immunology, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.,Deutsches Zentrum für Immuntherapie, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Johannes Knitza
- Department of Internal Medicine 3, Rheumatology and Immunology, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany .,Deutsches Zentrum für Immuntherapie, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.,Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France
| |
Collapse
|