Association between kinetic of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA), renal survival and relapse risk in ANCA glomerulonephritis.

BACKGROUND: Anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) kinetic in ANCA-associated vasculitis with glomerulonephritis (AAV-GN) has been suggested to be associated with AAV relapse. Few studies have focused on its association with renal prognosis. Thus we aimed to investigate the relationship between ANCA specificity and the evolutive profile and renal outcomes. METHODS: This multicentric retrospective study included patients diagnosed with ANCA-GN since 1 January 2000. Patients without ANCA at diagnosis and with fewer than three ANCA determinations during follow-up were excluded. We analysed estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) variation, renal-free survival and relapse-free survival according to three ANCA profiles (negative, recurrent and persistent) and to ANCA specificity [myeloperoxidase (MPO) or proteinase 3 (PR3)]. RESULTS: Over a follow-up of 56 months [interquartile range (IQR) 34-101], a median of 19 (IQR 13-25) ANCA determinations were performed for the 134 included patients. Patients with a recurrent/persistent ANCA profile had a lower relapse-free survival (P = .019) and tended to have a lower renal survival (P = .053) compared with those with a negative ANCA profile. Patients with a recurrent/persistent MPO-ANCA profile had the shortest renal survival (P = .015) and those with a recurrent/persistent PR3-ANCA profile had the worst relapse-free survival (P = .013) compared with other profiles. The negative ANCA profile was associated with a greater eGFR recovery. In multivariate regression analysis, it was an independent predictor of a 2-fold increase in eGFR at 2 years [odds ratio 6.79 (95% confidence interval 1.78-31.4), P = .008]). CONCLUSION: ANCA kinetic after an ANCA-GN diagnosis is associated with outcomes. MPO-ANCA recurrence/persistence identifies patients with a lower potential of renal recovery and a higher risk of kidney failure, while PR3-ANCA recurrence/persistence identifies patients with a greater relapse risk. Thus ANCA kinetics may help identify patients with a smouldering disease.

Humoral response to a third injection of BNT162b2 vaccine in patients on maintenance haemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Humoral response against sudden acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) after two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) has been proven to be less intense in maintenance dialysis patients as compared with healthy subjects, leading the French authorities to recommend a third injection in this population. Here we investigated the response to the third injection in two cohorts of haemodialysis (HD) patients. METHODS: Data from two prospective observational cohorts were collected. In the first ('systematic') cohort, patients from two HD centres (n = 66) received a third injection of BNT162b2, regardless of the response after two injections. In the second ('conditional') cohort, the injection was only prescribed to patients (n = 34) with no or low response to the previous two doses. In both cohorts, the third dose was injected 1-2 months after the second dose. Serology was performed after the second and third doses to assess anti-Spike immunoglobulin G (S IgG) antibody titre. RESULTS: In the systematic cohort, anti-S IgG was found in 83.3 and 92.4% of patients after the second and third doses of BNT162b2, respectively. In this cohort, 6/11 (54.5%) and 20/21 (95.2%) patients switched from non-responder to low responder and from low responder to high responder, respectively. In low and high responders to two doses, 50/55 (90.9%) at least doubled their anti-S IgG titre. Similar trends were observed in the conditional cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In maintenance HD patients, humoral response against SARS-CoV-2 was boosted after a third dose of BNT162b2, allowing seroconversion in more than half of non-responders. These data may support an intensified vaccination protocol with a third dose of BNT162b2 in dialysis patients.

Apheresis in Adult With Refractory Idiopathic Nephrotic Syndrome on Native Kidneys.

BACKGROUND: Apheresis is the gold standard for idiopathic nephrotic syndrome (INS) relapse after transplantation, but it remains unknown whether such treatment is useful for adults with refractory INS on native kidneys. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients older than 16 years with biopsy-proven refractory (persistent nephrotic syndrome on corticosteroids plus at least 1 immunosuppressive drug) INS treated by apheresis and followed for at least 3 months. RESULTS: Between September 1997 and January 2020, 21 patients (focal segmental glomerulosclerosis: 12, minimal change nephrotic syndrome: 9, men: 67%, median age: 34 years) were identified. At last follow-up (12 months), 7 of 21 patients were in complete or partial remission. Remission was associated with older age (51 vs. 30 years, P = 0.05), lower proteinuria (3.9 vs. 7.3 g/d, P = 0.03), and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (28.0 vs. 48.5 ml/min per 1.73 m2, P = 0.05) at apheresis. The need for dialysis before apheresis (odds ratio [OR] 22.0 [1.00-524], P = 0.026), age ≥50 years (OR: 22.6 [1.00-524], P = 0.006), a marked (>4.5 g/d) decrease in proteinuria (OR: 9.17 [1.15-73.2], P = 0.041), and a short (<12 months) time between diagnosis and apheresis (OR: 10.8 [1-117], P = 0.043) were significantly associated with remission. Three of 7 patients in remission who were initially on dialysis became dialysis-free; by contrast, none of the 14 patients without remission was initially on dialysis, but 5 of 14 had become dialysis-dependent (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Apheresis may result in remission in adult patients with refractory INS, particularly in those at risk of renal failure, with limited sensitivity to medical treatments, if apheresis is initiated within a year of diagnosis.

Comparison of survival outcomes between Expanded Criteria Donor and Standard Criteria Donor kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In 2002, the United Network for Organ Sharing proposed increasing the pool of donor kidneys to include Expanded Criteria Donor (ECD). Outside the USA, the ECD definition remains the one used without questioning whether such a graft allocation criterion is valid worldwide. We performed a meta-analysis to quantify the differences between ECD and Standard Criteria Donor (SCD) transplants. We paid particular attention to select studies in which the methodology was appropriate and we took into consideration the geographical area. Thirty-two publications were included. Only five studies, all from the USA, reported confounder-adjusted hazard ratios comparing the survival outcomes between ECD and SCD kidney transplant recipients. These five studies confirmed that ECD recipients seemed to have poorer prognosis. From 29 studies reporting appropriate survival curves, we estimated the 5-year pooled nonadjusted survivals for ECD and SCD recipients. The relative differences between the two groups were lower in Europe than in North America, particularly for death-censored graft failure. It is of primary importance to propose appropriate studies for external validation of the ECD criteria in non-US kidney transplant recipients.