Cryoglobulinemic Vasculitis in Disguise: Cryofibrinogenemia as Variant of Monoclonal Gammopathy of Renal Significance.

Monoclonal gammopathy with cryoactivity (ie, cryoglobulins) that causes glomerulonephritis is considered within the spectrum of monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance. Cryofibrinogenemia (cryoactivity of coagulation factors) is very rarely associated with glomerulonephritis. We present a 39-year-old woman with a relapsing nephrotic syndrome. Laboratory investigation detected cryofibrinogen; the precipitate consisted of fibrinogen and a monoclonal immunoglobulin (M-protein; IgG-λ), and the latter was also detected in serum (4g/L). Initial conventional immunosuppressive therapy resulted in temporary renal remission. In view of the M-protein, subsequent therapy consisted of bortezomib/dexamethasone and high-dose melphalan followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and resulted in a very good partial hematological response and temporary renal remission. However, after hematological and renal relapse, we performed unique experiments to clarify the role of the M-protein. Mixing patient serum with donor plasma resulted in cryoactivity, composed of M-protein+fibrinogen. Patient plasma deprived of M-protein did not have cryoactivity. Therefore, cryoactivity was dependent on the M-protein. We started lenalidomide, which resulted in very good partial hematological and renal remission. Thus, cryofibrinogenemia can be the consequence of an M-protein, which we suggest should be defined as monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance.

Predictive performance of renal function equations in renal transplant recipients: an analysis of patient factors in bias.

Creatinine-based equations are available to estimate GFR. After renal transplantation body composition usually changes, thus specific validation is required for transplant recipients. Nine equations were compared with iothalamate glomerular filtration rate (GFR) at 1 year after transplantation in 798 recipients. Equations were analyzed for precision, bias and accuracy. Sources of bias were analyzed by univariate and multivariate analysis, with body mass index (BMI), age and sex as independent variables and bias as dependent variable. Four hundred and seventy-eight patients were studied to assess whether the equations can be used to monitor renal function over time. Predictive performance was modest for all equations. MDRD and Jelliffe 2 were the best predictors of GFR. Bias was significantly related to BMI, age and gender in most equations. Multivariate analysis confirmed their independent contribution to the bias of MDRD, Jelliffe 2 and most other equations. Over time, bias was relatively stable at group level, but predictive performance in individuals was modest. The predictive performance of renal function equations is modest in renal transplants, which hampers their use for accurate assessment of renal function in the individual. The role of patient factors in the systematic error suggests that development of better equations should be feasible by better incorporation of these factors.

Body mass index is associated with altered renal hemodynamics in non-obese healthy subjects.

BACKGROUND: Weight excess is associated with increased renal risk. Data in overt obesity suggest a role for altered renal hemodynamics. Whether body mass index (BMI) is also relevant to renal function in non-obese subjects is unknown. METHODS: We studied the relation between BMI and renal hemodynamics in 102 healthy, non-obese (BMI <30 kg/m2) subjects [59 males, 43 females, mean age 39 (18-69) years] in a post-hoc analysis of subjects evaluated as prospective kidney donors or as healthy volunteers in renal hemodynamic studies. RESULTS: Mean (+/-SD) BMI was 24.0 +/- 2.8 kg/m2, mean arterial pressure (MAP) 93 +/- 11 mm Hg, glomerular filtration rate (GFR, iothalamate clearance) 111 +/- 19 mL/min/1.73 m2, effective renal plasma flow (ERPF, hippuran clearance) 458 +/- 108 mL/min/1.73 m2, FF (GFR/ERPF) 0.25 +/- 0.04. On univariate analysis, BMI correlated negatively with ERPF/1.73 m2 body surface area (BSA) (r=-0.46; P < 0.001), GFR/1.73 m2 BSA (r=-0.24, P= 0.013) and positively with FF (r= 0.45, P < 0.001), and age (r= 0.47, P < 0.001). On multivariate analysis both BMI and age were independent predictors of ERPF/1.73 m2 BSA (negative) and FF (positive, all P < 0.05). Age was the only predictor of GFR/1.73 m2 BSA (negative). Analyzed for renal function indexed for height (h), BMI correlated negatively with ERPF/h (r=-0.274, P= 0.005), but not with GFR/h (r= 0.13, P= 0.899). On multivariate analysis both BMI (positive) and age (negative) were independent predictors for GFR/h (both P < 0.001). Age was the only predictor for ERPF/h (negative). Predictors for FF (BMI and age, both positive) were by definition unaltered. CONCLUSION: The impact of BMI on renal function is not limited to overt obesity, as in subjects with BMI <30 kg/m2 a higher BMI is associated with higher FF, that is, a higher GFR relative to ERPF. This suggests an altered afferent/efferent balance and higher glomerular pressure (i.e., a potentially unfavorable renal hemodynamic profile) that may confer enhanced renal susceptibility when other factors, such as hypertension or diabetes are superimposed.