A novel approach to rapid induction of remission in primary membranous nephropathy

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Aim. То evaluate the effectiveness of a novel multi-targeted treatment approach including rituximab (RTX), cyclophosphamide (CPH) and steroids (S) to the induction of remission in patients with primary membranous nephropathy (PMN) compared to standard immunosuppression (IST).

Materials and methods. An open-label prospective comparative study included 56 PMN patients (pts) with nephrotic syndrome (NS) and high serum level of antibodies to the phospholipase A2 receptor – anti-PLA2R (mean age 51±12 years, men – 70%). We recorded demographic and clinical parameters at the time of kidney biopsy, data from light-optical and immunomorphological studies. All pts were on stable doses of the renin-angiotensin systems blockers. We compared the effectiveness of different treatments in the inductions of clinical and immunological remissions in pts who received experimental treatment with RTX, CPH and S (RTX+CPH+S group, n=14) and two control groups: high-dose RTX therapy (group RTX, n=12), cyclosporine and steroids (group CsA+S, n=30).

Results. In the RTX+CPH+S group, remission was achieved in 100% of cases (of which complete remissions – CR in 21.4%). The median time-to-remission (2.5 [1.0; 3.5] months) was significantly lower compared to both control groups: RTX (8.7 [6.6; 14.0] months, p=0.005) and CsA+S (12.4 [6.5; 19.9] months, p<0.001). The cumulative incidence of clinical and immunological remissions was also significantly higher in the RTX+CPH+S group than in the control groups. These results were confirmed in comparative analyzes in the same treatment groups after propensity score matching. The cumulative incidence of clinical and immunological remissions in the RTX+CPH+S group was higher than in the combined group of patients who received other therapies (p<0.001). The incidence of serious adverse events was low and did not differ between groups.

Conclusion. The use of multi-targeted therapy with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and steroids seems to be an effective approach for the rapid induction of PMN remission and prevention of NS complications.

About the authors

Vladimir A. Dobronravov

Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University

Author for correspondence.
Email: dobronravov@nephrolog.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7179-5520

д-р мед. наук, проф., зам. дир. по научной работе НИИ нефрологии, проф. каф. пропедевтики внутренних болезней с клиникой

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Olga B. Bystrova

Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University

Email: dobronravov@nephrolog.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6527-6962

врач-нефролог нефрологического отд-ния №2 НИИ нефрологии

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Zinaida Sh. Kochoyan

Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University

Email: zinshak@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8433-876X

клин. ординатор каф. пропедевтики внутренних болезней

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Evgeniya N. Fomicheva

Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University

Email: dobronravov@nephrolog.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5725-8254

врач-нефролог нефрологического отд-ния №2 НИИ нефрологии

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

References

  1. Glassock RJ. The pathogenesis of idiopathic membranous nephropathy: a 50-year odyssey. Am J Kidney Dis. 2010;56:157-67. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2010.01.0082
  2. Beck LH Jr, Bonegio RG, Lambeau G, et al. M-type phospholipase A2 receptor as target antigen in idiopathic membranous nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:11-21. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810457
  3. Schlumberger W, Hornig N, Lange S, et al. Differential diagnosis of membranous nephropathy with autoantibodies to phospholipase A2 receptor 1. Autoimmun Rev. 2014;13:108-13. doi: 10.1038/srep08803
  4. Ma H, Sandor DG, Beck LH Jr. The role of complement in membranous nephropathy. Semin Nephrol. 2013; 33:6:531-42. doi: 10.1016/j.semnephrol.2013.08.004
  5. Passerini P, Ponticelli C. Membranous nephropathy. In: Treatment of Primary Glomerulonephritis. Eds. C Ponticelli, R Glassock. 2nd edn. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009; p. 261-312. doi: 10.1093/med/9780199552887.001.0001
  6. Chen Y, Schieppati A, Chen X, et al. Immunosuppressive treatment for idiopathic membranous nephropathy in adults with nephrotic syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;10:CD004293. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004293.pub3
  7. Zou PM, Li H, Cai JF, et al. Therapy of Rituximab in Idiopathic Membranous Nephropathy with Nephrotic Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Chin Med Sci J. 2018;33(1):9-19. doi: 10.24920/21803
  8. Lu W, Gong S, Li J, et al. Efficacy and safety of rituximab in the treatment of membranous nephropathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;99(16):e19804. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019804
  9. Ren S, Wang Y, Xian L, et al. Comparative effectiveness and tolerance of immunosuppressive treatments for idiopathic membranous nephropathy: A network meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12(9):e0184398. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184398
  10. Fervenza FC, Appel GB, Barbour SJ, et al. Rituximab or Cyclosporine in the Treatment of Membranous Nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(1):36-46. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814427
  11. Добронравов В.А., Майер Д.А., Бережная О.В., и др. Мембранозная нефропатия в российской популяции. Терапевтический архив. 2017;89(6):21-9 [Dobronravov VA, Majer DA, Berezhnaja OV, et al. Membranous nephropathy in a Russian population. Terapevticheskii Arkhiv (Ter. Arkh.). 2017;89(6):21-9 (in Russian)]. doi: 10.17116/terarkh201789621-29
  12. Churg J, Ehrenreich T. Membranous nephropathy. Perspect Nephrol Hypertens. 1973;1:443-8
  13. Levey AS, Stevens LA, Schmid CH, et al. CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration). A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(9):604-12. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-150-9-200905050-00006
  14. U.S. Food and Drug Administration What is a Serious Adverse Event? Available at: https://www.fda.gov/safety/reporting-serious-problems-fda/what-serious-adverse-event. Accessed: 04.03.2021.
  15. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41-55. doi: 10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
  16. Cattran DC, Feehally J, Cook HT, et al. Kidney disease: Improving global outcomes (KDIGO) glomerulonephritis work group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for glomerulonephritis. Kidney Int Suppl. 2012;2(2):186-97. doi: 10.1038/kisup.2012.20
  17. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline On Glomerular Diseases. Public Review Draft. June 2020. Available at: https://kdigo.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/KDIGO-GN-GL-Public-Review-Draft_1-June-2020.pdf. Accessed: 04.07.2020.
  18. Huang L, Dong QR, Zhao YJ, et al. Rituximab for the management of idiopathic membranous nephropathy: a meta-analysis. Int Urol Nephrol. 2021;53(1):111-9. doi: 10.1007/s11255-020-02633-5
  19. Wu W, Shang J, Tao C, et al. The prognostic value of phospholipase A2 receptor autoantibodies on spontaneous remission for patients with idiopathic membranous nephropathy: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(23):e11018. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000011018
  20. Dong D, Fan TT, Wang YY, et al. Relationship between renal tissues phospholipase A2 receptor and its serum antibody and clinical condition and prognosis of idiopathic membranous nephropathy: a meta-analysis. BMC Nephrol. 2019;20(1):444. doi: 10.1186/s12882-019-1638-x
  21. Waldman M, Beck LH Jr, Braun M, et al. Membranous nephropathy: Pilot study of a novel regimen combining cyclosporine and Rituximab. Kidney Int Rep. 2016;1(2):73-84. doi: 10.1016/j.ekir.2016.05.002
  22. Liu D, Yang Y, Kuang F, et al. Risk of infection with different immunosuppressive drugs combined with glucocorticoids for the treatment of idiopathic membranous nephropathy: A pairwise and network meta-analysis. Int Immunopharmacol. 2019;70:354-61. doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2019.03.002
  23. Zheng Q, Yang H, Liu W, et al. Comparative efficacy of 13 immunosuppressive agents for idiopathic membranous nephropathy in adults with nephrotic syndrome: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2019;9(9):e030919. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030919

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2. Fig. 1. Cumulative rates of complete and partial clinical remissions (a) and immunologic remissions (b) in different induction therapies (solid line – rituximab+cyclophosphamide+steroids; broken line – rituximab; dotted line – cyclosporine A+steroids); circles – censored cases; p-values are indicated (in compare to rituximab+cyclophosphamide+steroids group).

Download (145KB)
Indexing metadata
3. Fig. 2. Comparative analysis of treatment efficacy in propensity score matched groups: a – the period to the clinical remission; b – the period to the immunological remission; c – cumulative rate of clinical remissions; d – cumulative rate of immunological remissions; a–d – p values for differences between groups (in comparison with the RTX+сyclophosphamidum+steroids group); a, b – the numbers indicate the median time to remission.

Download (317KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2021 Consilium Medicum

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
 
 


This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies