Current treatment recommendations for lupus nephritis

Pharmacotherapy of lupus nephritis: time for a consensus?

BACKGROUND

The optimal therapy for lupus nephritis has been the subject of considerable debate.

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence- and expert-based recommendations.

METHODS

To review the literature and the European League Against Rheumatism recommendations.

RESULTS

Risk stratification based on histological, demographical, clinical and laboratory characteristics allows the identification of patients at high risk for loss of renal function, and thus more likely to benefit from more aggressive therapy. Achieving remission within the first months of treatment, irrespective of the agent used, correlates with good long-term renal outcomes; maintenance of remission can be achieved with less toxic therapies. Aggressive management of atherosclerosis risk factors and renoprotective therapy for those patients with chronic renal disease improve long-term survival and prognosis.

[Renal manifestations of systemic autoimmune disease: diagnosis and therapy]

Renal involvement is relatively common in certain systemic autoimmune diseases, but can be clinically silent. Active surveillance is, therefore, essential because the early recognition of renal involvement may influence the extent of renal recovery. Blood pressure control is also essential, regardless of the underlying disease. In systemic lupus erythematosus, therapy usually depends on the renal biopsy findings as not all forms of renal involvement respond in the same way. Typically, for aggressive disease, therapy is with steroids and a cytotoxic agent, usually cyclophosphamide initially and then azathioprine. In systemic vasculitis with renal involvement, a similar approach is adopted, therapy including steroids and cyclophosphamide initially and then steroids and azathioprine. With severe fulminant disease, plasma exchange or pulsed intravenous methylprednisolone is added initially. Scleroderma renal crises are managed by blood pressure control using angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and other agents as required. Dialysis and transplantation can be successful in these conditions.

Azathioprine/methylprednisolone versus cyclophosphamide in proliferative lupus nephritis. A randomized controlled trial

Until recently, intravenous cyclophosphamide pulses with oral corticosteroids were regarded standard therapy for proliferative lupus nephritis (LN). Azathioprine, a less toxic alternative, was never proven to be inferior. In the first Dutch lupus nephritis study (enrollment between 1995 and 2001), we randomized 87 proliferative LN patients to either cyclophosphamide pulses (750 mg/m(2), 13 pulses in 2 years) combined with oral prednisone (CY) or to azathioprine (2 mg/kg/day in 2 years) combined with intravenous pulses of methylprednisolone (3 x 3 pulses of 1000 mg) and oral prednisone (AZA). After a median follow-up of 5.7 years (interquartile range 4.1-7.2 years), doubling of serum creatinine was more frequent in the AZA group, although not statistically significant (relative risk (RR): 4.1, with 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.8-20.4). Relapses occurred more often in the AZA group (RR: 8.8, 95% CI: 1.5-31.8). Creatinine and proteinuria at last visit did not differ between the two treatment arms. Moreover, 88.4% of the patients in the AZA arm were still free of cyclophosphamide treatment. During the first 2 years, the frequency of remission was not different, but infections, especially herpes zoster virus infections (HZV) were more frequent in the AZA group. Parameters for ovarian function did not differ between the two groups. In conclusion, in this open-label randomized controlled trial, cyclophosphamide was superior to azathioprine with regard to renal relapses and HZV. At last follow-up, there were no differences in serum creatinine or proteinuria between the two groups. However, since our study lacked sufficient power, longer follow-up is needed to reveal putative differences.

Withdrawal of therapy in patients with proliferative lupus nephritis: long-term follow-up

BACKGROUND

Whether corticosteroid and immunosuppressive therapy may be safely withdrawn in patients with proliferative lupus nephritis is still unclear.

METHODS

In 32 patients with biopsy-proven proliferative lupus nephritis previously put into remission, therapy was gradually tapered off.

RESULTS

When immunosuppressive therapy was stopped (median: 38 months; 25th-75th percentile: 24-81 months, after biopsy), 24 patients were in complete remission and eight had a median proteinuria of 1.05 g/24 h (25th-75th percentile: 0.91-1.1 g/24 h) with normal renal function. After stopping therapy, patients were followed for a median of 203 months (25th-75th percentile: 116-230 months). Fifteen patients (Group 1) never developed lupus activity. The other 17 patients (Group 2) developed lupus exacerbations in a median of 34 months (25th-75th percentile: 29-52 months) after stopping therapy and were re-treated. The only significant differences between the two groups were the longer median durations of treatment, 57 months (25th-75th percentile: 41.5-113.5 months) vs 30 months (25th-75th percentile: 18-41 months; P<0.009), and remission, 24 months (25th-75th percentile: 18-41) vs 12 months (25th-75th percentile: 7-20 months; P<0.02), before stopping therapy in Group 1 than in Group 2. At last follow-up, 12 patients of Group 1 were in complete remission, two had mild proteinuria and one had died. In Group 2, one patient died, 14 were in complete remission, one had mild proteinuria and in another patient serum creatinine doubled.

CONCLUSIONS

Some patients with severe lupus nephritis who enter stable remission can be maintained without any specific treatment for many years. Those patients who have new flares can again go into remission with an appropriate treatment. The longer the treatment and remission before withdrawal, the lower the risk of relapse.

Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a chronic, multiple-organ system inflammatory disorder associated with immune system dysfunction. Autoantibodies are produced that react with self-antigens in cell membranes and nuclear and cytoplasmic constituents to produce tissue damage. Commonly observed clinical manifestations include arthritis, myalgia, fever, cutaneous lesions, cytopenia, and renal, CNS, and cardiopulmonary involvement. Minor manifestations can be managed with relatively nontoxic agents such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, topical corticosteroids, and antimalarials. Severe disease involving the kidneys, CNS, and cardiopulmonary systems requires the aggressive use of more toxic agents such as high-dose corticosteroids, azathioprine, and cyclophosphamide. Other supportive and ancillary therapies are also required to manage the complications frequently associated with SLE.

Immunosuppressive therapy of lupus nephritis

Aggressive immunosuppressive therapy should be considered for patients with proliferative lupus nephritis as the risk for progression to end stage renal disease is high. Intermittent intravenous cyclophosphamide therapy improves renal survival; longer duration of therapy is associated with fewer relapse of nephritis and decreased risk of diminished renal function. While azathioprine therapy does not differ statistically from steroids alone in prolonging renal survival, this therapy may be considered in patients with few risk factors for progression to renal insufficiency. Methylprednisolone as a single therapy does not prolong renal survival compared with regimens including cyclophosphamide. Plasmapheresis remains under study but has not shown additional benefit in treatment of severe lupus nephritis. The potential roles for cyclosporin A and mycophenylate mofetil in the therapy of proliferative lupus nephritis remain to be defined. Supportive care including rigorous control of hypertension, consideration of angiotensin receptor inhibition or blockade to reduce proteinuria and prolong renal function, control of hyperlipidemia, prevention of osteoporosis, and prevention of pregnancy remain important clinical goals. Current research efforts focus on genetic and socioeconomic factors involved in racial differences in expression of lupus nephritis, hormonal manipulation to preserve gonadal function during cyclophosphamide therapy, and the potential impact on lupus activity of estrogen-containing oral contraceptives or postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy.

Flares in lupus nephritis: incidence, impact on renal survival and management

One of the characteristics of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is the large inter- and intra-individual variability of the clinical course. Lupus nephritis is no exception. Some patients with kidney involvement may show rapid progression to renal failure, others may enter complete and stable remission after adequate therapy while a number of other patients, with similar clinical and histological pattern at presentation, may alternate periods of clinical quiescence with renal exacerbations of different severity. In this paper we focus on the incidence, the prognostic significance and the treatment of renal flares in patients with SLE nephritis.

[Treatment of lupus glomerulonephritis with intravenous cyclophosphamide]

The treatment of severe lupus nephritis remains problematic. We have analysed retrospectively 17 patients with corticoresistant lupus nephritis treated with pulse cyclophosphamide. Single monthly doses (500 mg/m2) were given by intravenous infusion with a mean of 10.4 infusions per patient (3 to 18). A comparison of parameters at entry and at the end of the treatment revealed an improvement in proteinuria (4.8 vs 1.9 g/24 h; p < 0.013) whereas mean serum creatinine level and SLAM (Systemic Lupus Activity Measure) remained stable. The results were identical at follow up (mean: 14.5 months). Most of the therapeutic effect was achieved as soon as the 6th pulse. Further treatment was beneficial for four patients only. None of the studied parameters (serum creatinine level, renal biopsy, SLAM) was predictive of a response to an extended course of pulse cyclophosphamide. The infusions were definitively stopped in one patient and delayed in two others because of serious adverse effects. The data indicate that, in mean term, monthly intravenous cyclophosphamide was associated with a substantial amelioration of 24 hours urinary protein level. An amelioration of the renal function was however, uncommon.

A controlled trial of pulse cyclophosphamide versus pulse methylprednisolone in severe lupus nephritis

We carried out a prospective randomized trial comparing pulse cyclophosphamide and pulse methylprednisolone in 29 patients with severe lupus nephritis in activity. Patients were assigned to one of two regimens: monthly pulse cyclophosphamide (0.5-1.0 g/m2 body surface area) for 4 months, followed by bimonthly doses for 4 months and quarterly doses for 6 months (14 patients) or pulse methylprednisolone (10-20 mg/kg weight) initially for 3 consecutive days and thereafter in the same intervals as the alternative regimen (15 patients). The mean follow-up was 15 months. Two patients in the cyclophosphamide group and three in the methylprednisolone group died. Renal failure (doubling of serum creatinine) developed in four patients in the cyclophosphamide group compared with five patients in the methylprednisolone group. Cumulative probability of not doubling serum creatinine was similar for cyclophosphamide and methylprednisolone groups (0.66 vs 0.69, respectively, P > 0.20, after 18 months). Cumulative probability of survival without renal failure was also not significantly different (0.61 and 0.63, respectively, P > 0.20, after 18 months). These results suggest that pulse cyclophosphamide is as effective as pulse methylprednisolone in preserving renal function in patients with severe lupus nephritis.

Clinical renal involvement in Afro-Caribbean lupus patients

This study reports the severity of clinical lupus nephritis (LN), defined as the sustained presence of proteinuria and/or cellular casts, in a group of 68 newly diagnosed patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in Curaçao. Fifty-four patients (78%) developed clinical signs of LN, of whom 31 (54%) had clinical LN at the time of SLE diagnosis. The probability of developing clinical LN reached 80% in the first 3 years after SLE diagnosis and hardly increased later. No clinical or serological differences existed at the time of SLE diagnosis or at onset of LN between patients with early-or late-onset LN. Survival in patients without LN was 100% at 5 years, while for patients with clinical LN these rates at 1 and 5 years were 91% and 59%, respectively (P = 0.0001); male LN patients had a worse prognosis than females (P = 0.012), while time of LN onset did not influence survival. Six patients (11%) developed end-stage renal failure; all were female, five had early LN and one had late-onset LN (P = 0.17). Renal survival was 97% and 80% at 1 and 5 years, with decreased rates for patients with nephrotic-range proteinuria (P = 0.02). Hypertension was present in 13% of LN patients, but had no influence on patient or renal survival. Thus, clinical LN was a frequent complication, which carried a poor prognosis in these Afro-Caribbean lupus patients.

Controlled trial of pulse methylprednisolone versus two regimens of pulse cyclophosphamide in severe lupus nephritis

Pulse cyclophosphamide is more effective than prednisone alone in preventing renal failure in lupus nephritis. We undertook a randomised, controlled trial to find out whether pulse methylprednisolone could equal pulse cyclophosphamide in preserving renal function in patients with lupus nephritis, and whether there was a difference between long and short courses of pulse cyclophosphamide in preventing exacerbations. 65 patients (60 female, 5 male; median [range] age 29 [10-48] years) with severe lupus nephritis were assigned randomly to monthly pulse methylprednisolone for 6 months (25 patients), monthly pulse cyclophosphamide for 6 months (20), or monthly cyclophosphamide for 6 months followed by quarterly pulse cyclophosphamide for 2 additional years (20). Patients treated with pulse methylprednisolone had a higher probability of doubling serum creatinine than those treated with long-course cyclophosphamide (p less than 0.04). Risk of doubling creatinine was not significantly different between short and long course cyclophosphamide. However, patients treated with short-course cyclophosphamide had a higher probability of exacerbations than those treated with long-course cyclophosphamide (p less than 0.01). An extended course of pulse cyclophosphamide is more effective than 6 months of pulse methylprednisolone in preserving renal function in patients with severe lupus nephritis. Addition of a quarterly maintenance regimen to monthly pulse cyclophosphamide reduces the rate of exacerbations.