Durga Kanigicherla

Thromboembolism is one of the most serious complications of nephrotic syndrome, including both arterial and venous thromboembolic events. Rates of thromboembolism depend on a multitude of factors, including the severity and cause of nephrotic syndrome, with primary membranous nephropathy having the highest reported rates. In relation to arterial thromboembolism, the risk can be as high as 8 times that of an age- and sex-matched population. However, extrapolating risks is challenging, with published studies not being homogeneous, several being single center and retrospective, and including different causes of primary nephrotic syndrome. Determining thromboembolic risk in nephrotic syndrome is essential to enable decision making on preventive strategies. However, lack of proven strategies to help estimate risk-benefit aspects underpins variations in clinical practice. Although the use of anticoagulation following a thrombotic event is clear, this still leaves us with a clinical dilemma as to if, and who, should receive prophylactic anticoagulation, with what agent, and for how long. In the absence of clear evidence to answer these questions, prophylactic anticoagulation strategies for nephrotic syndrome currently rely on expert consensus opinion, such as in the recently published 2021 Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes glomerular disease guidelines. In the mainstay, these recommendations relate to patients with membranous nephropathy. Here, we detail the current controversies still faced by clinicians around the risk of thromboembolism in nephrotic syndrome, use of prophylactic anticoagulation in nephrotic syndrome and propose ways of advancing existing knowledge and practice in this field to unravel the conundrum.

BACKGROUND: Primary membranous nephropathy is associated with variable clinical course ranging from spontaneous remission to slow progression to end stage renal failure. Achieving remission confers better renal survival in primary membranous nephropathy (PMN). Longer term outcomes such as patient survival and relapse of active disease remain poorly understood. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 128 consecutive adult patients diagnosed with biopsy proven PMN at a single UK centre between 1980 and 2010. These patients were followed prospectively over a median of 128 months. We assessed impact of persistent disease and relapse on Stage 5 chronic kidney disease (CKD-5) and patient survival and present longer term cumulative incidences of different end points. RESULTS: One hundred patients achieved partial remission (PartRem) and 28 patients did not achieve remission (NoRem). Nine per cent of patients achieving first remission developed CKD-5 and 75% of those with NoRem developed CKD-5 [hazard ratio (HR) 0.07, 95% confidence interval 0.03-0.19). Relapse following PartRem occurred in 31 patients (31%) during follow-up and was significantly associated with progression to CKD-5. Progression to CKD-5 was strongly associated with death (47 versus 6%, HR 23.4; P < 0.01). Cumulative incidence at 15 years following first presentation included: death, 14%; CKD-5, 28%; and relapse 40% (in patients who achieved first remission). CONCLUSIONS: Our data strongly suggest that mortality in PMN is seen in patients with disease progression to CKD-5. Achieving remission is strongly associated with improved renal survival after first presentation and following relapse. We suggest that patients who achieve remission should be followed up in longer term, and better strategies to help improve outcomes are needed in clinical practice.

Background: Membranous nephropathy is among the most common causes of nephrotic syndrome worldwide, with a high healthcare burden. Treatment using the modified Ponticelli regimen (mPR) has remained the standard of care for decades, but newer therapies such as rituximab offer promising results with reduced side effects. The cost of this treatment, however, is perceived as a barrier to widespread use, especially in resource limited healthcare systems. Methods: We developed a decision-analytic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of rituximab versus the mPR from the perspective of the National Health Service in the UK over a 1 year, 5 year and lifetime horizon. Primary outcome is the cost-effectiveness of rituximab versus mPR at 5 years post-treatment. Secondary outcomes are cost-effectiveness at 1 and 10 years post-treatment and over a lifetime. Results: At 1-year post-treatment, rituximab therapy dominates mPR. At 5 years post-treatment, rituximab therapy is cheaper than the Ponticelli regimen but at a loss of 0.014 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £95 494.13. Over a lifetime, rituximab remains the cheaper option with an incremental cost of -£5251.03 but with a reduced quality of life (incremental QALY of -0.512) giving an ICER of £10 246.09. Conclusions: Our analysis indicates that rituximab has the potential to be a cost-effective treatment in the short and medium terms despite the high single-dose cost. This evaluation suggests that further research is warranted and highlights the need for a high-quality clinical trial to confirm the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of rituximab versus the current standard of care.

ABSTRACT Aim Primary membranous nephropathy is associated with progression to end stage renal diseasein some patients. Standard therapy with cyclical cyclophosphamide and corticosteroids can be associated with significant adverse effects. We aimed to assess immunological and clinical response with intravenous pulse cyclophosphamide and oral steroids in patients with severe nephrotic syndrome – in a prospective observational cohort study. Methods A total of 17 consecutive patients (nine new‐incident and eight relapses) with severe nephrotic syndrome received monthly intravenous pulse cyclophosphamide and oral steroids after failure to achieve remission with supportive therapy. Immunosuppressive therapy was discontinued at 6 months or earlier if proteinuria regressed to &lt;100 mg/mmol and patients were followed for 12 months. Achievement of partial remission was primary outcome; changes in clinical parameters and anti‐PLA 2 R were secondary outcomes. Results Dose of cyclophosphamide received was 5.4 g in New‐incident patients and 4.2 g in patients with relapses. All 17 patients achieved partial remission within 6 months: proteinuria improved from 656 to 102 mg/mmol at 6 months and 55 mg/mmol at 12 months ( P &lt; 0.001); eGFR improved from 31 to 48 mL/min per 1.73 m 2 at 6 months and 45 mL/min per 1.73 m 2 at 12 months ( P &lt; 0.05). Anti‐PLA 2 R levels reduced from 244 to 10 U/L at 6 months and 10 U/L at 12 months ( P &lt; 0.001). Two out of nine patients in the New‐incident group developed subsequent relapse. Cumulative doses of cyclophosphamide and steroids that patients received was about half of the standard regime. Conclusion Pulse cyclophosphamide with oral steroids induced immunological and clinical partial remission at significantly reduced doses in primary membranous nephropathy.