Ghamrawi, Ranine

Abstract Citations are an important, but often overlooked, part of every scientific paper. They allow the reader to trace the flow of evidence, serving as a gateway to relevant literature. Most scientists are aware of citations’ errors, but few appreciate the prevalence of these problems. The purpose of the present study was to examine how often frequently cited papers in biomedical scientific literature are cited inaccurately. The study included an active participation of the first authors of included papers; to first-hand verify the citations accuracy. Findings from feasibility study, where we reviewed 1540 articles containing 2526 citations of 14 most cited articles in which the authors were affiliated with the Faculty of Medicine University of Belgrade, were further evaluated for external confirmation in an independent verification set of articles. Verification set included 4912 citations identified in 2995 articles that cited 13 most cited articles published by authors affiliated with the Mayo Clinic Division of Nephrology and Hypertension. A citation was defined as being accurate if the cited article supported or was in accordance with the statement by citing authors. At least one inaccurate citation was found in 11 and 15% of articles in the feasibility study and verification set, respectively, suggesting that inaccurate citations are common in biomedical literature. The most common problem was the citation of nonexistent findings (38.4%), followed by an incorrect interpretation of findings (15.4%). One-fifth of inaccurate citations were due to chains of inaccurate citations. Based on these findings, several actions to reduce citation inaccuracies have been proposed.

Background The objective of this case cohort study was to describe our experience in the care of patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor–related acute interstitial nephritis (ICI-AIN) including rechallenge. Methods A descriptive case series of patients that received an ICI and had an AKI (defined as a ≥1.5-fold increase in serum creatinine) as an immune-related adverse event (irAE), with biopsy-proven or clinically suspected ICI-AIN from January 1, 2014 to December 1, 2018 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. We studied details regarding diagnosis, clinical course, management, and outcomes of rechallenge of immunotherapy. Complete response (CR) was defined as return of kidney function back to baseline or <0.3 mg/dl above baseline creatinine; partial response (PR) was defined as creatinine >0.3 mg/dl from baseline, but less than twofold above the baseline by the end of steroid course. Results A total of 14 cases of biopsy-proven (35%) or clinically suspected (65%) ICI-AIN was identified. All patients had their ICI withheld and 12 patients received steroids. Steroid regimens were highly variable. The starting equivalent dose of prednisone was higher in those that had a CR versus a PR (median 0.77 mg/kg versus 0.66 mg/kg). Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) were used in 11 patients and were stopped in eight (73%) patients at the time of the AKI event. A CR was seen in five (63%) of the eight patients who discontinued PPIs. Rechallenge was attempted in four of the 14 patients: three were successful with no recurrence of AKI, but one patient had recurrent AKI and fatal pneumonitis. Conclusions Careful review, withholding ICI and concomitant known AIN-inducing medications, along with prompt initial steroid management were the key in complete renal kidney recovery. A kidney biopsy should be strongly considered. Rechallenge of immunotherapy after a kidney irAE, although challenging, is possible and would need careful evaluation on an individual basis. Podcast This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/K360/2020_01_30_KID0000152019.mp3

Abstract Background Microhematuria is common in immunoglobulin A nephropathy (IgAN). However, current prognostication is based on proteinuria and mesangial hypercellularity, endocapillary hypercellularity, segmental sclerosis, tubulointerstitial fibrosis and crescent (MEST-C) scores. Methods In this retrospective study, we evaluated whether MEST-C score components are associated with the presence of microhematuria at biopsy and whether the degree of microhematuria during follow-up is associated with change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), after adjusting for clinical and histological parameters. We identified 125 patients with biopsy-proven IgAN and MEST-C scoring who were not on immunosuppressive therapy at biopsy. Microhematuria was defined as ≥3 red blood cells (RBCs)/high-power field (hpf). Results Of the 125 patients, 97 had microhematuria at baseline and were more likely to have M1, E1 and C ≥ 1 lesions (P &lt; 0.05 for all) compared with patients without microhematuria. Of the 125 patients, 72 had follow-up data available. An increase in the degree of microhematuria was significantly associated with an eGFR decline of −0.81 mL/min/1.73 m2 [95% confidence interval (CI) −1.44 to −0.19, P = 0.01], after adjusting for follow-up time, proteinuria and T score. Severe microhematuria (≥21 RBCs/hpf) was associated with an even larger decline in eGFR (−3.99 mL/min/1.73 m2; 95% CI −6.9411 to −1.0552, P = 0.008), after similar adjustments. Conclusion Degree of microhematuria during follow-up is an independent predictor of eGFR decline after adjusting for clinical and histological parameters. Therefore, monitoring the degree of microhematuria as well as proteinuria is important when evaluating patients with IgAN. Additional studies using improvement in microhematuria as a primary surrogate outcome are needed.

e16067 Background: Metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is largely incurable, and its treatment remains challenging. Sunitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is one of the current standard-of-care options for treatment-naïve patients with metastatic RCC. Despite the proven efficacy of Sunitinib, prolonged treatment with some tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has been associated with significant adverse events (AEs). Therefore, we aimed to calculate the exact efficacy in addition to the prevalence of all AEs of Sunitinib in a pooled analysis from all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: A comprehensive electronic database search was conducted for all RCTs comparing the clinical outcomes and adverse events of Sunitinib versus all other available treatments for treatment-naïve advanced/metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. We then calculated the pooled outcomes and prevalence of the most common reported side effects of Sunitinib. All statistical analyses were performed using R Statistical Software v3.4.0 (R Foundation, Vienna, Austria). Results: We included 8 RCTs, with a total of 4106 patients. The mean age was62, with 66.44% males.The efficacy of Sunitinib was reported as 3 main outcomes: Median progression free survival at 10.73 [7.76, 13.7] months, median overall survival at 23.28 [16.74, 29.81] months and the estimated objective response rate at 25[13, 37] %. Any grade AEs were reported in 72% of patients with the following frequencies: fatigue 44%, diarrhea 38%, nausea 31%, hand-foot syndrome 30%, hypertension 27%, dysgeusia 25%, hypothyroidism25%, constipation 20%, stomatitis 20%, inflammation of the mucosa 18%, dyspepsia 16%, vomiting 14%, rash 12%, asthenia 11%, and epistaxis10%.Grade 3&4 (severe) AEs were reported in 52% of patients with the following frequencies: hypertension 9%, fatigue 8%, hand-foot syndrome 5%, asthenia 5%, diarrhea 4%, and inflammation of the mucosa 2%. Conclusions: Despite Sunitinib being one of the current standard treatments for patients with metastatic/advanced clear-cell RCC, with well-described efficacy, its safety profile is still concerning with a significant prevalence of reported grade 3-4 AEs of 52% of the treated patients in the included RCTs. These findings underscore the importance of the emergence of newer drugs and treatment plans for patients with metastatic RCC, not only to achieve similar or better clinical outcomes but also to decrease the percentage of grade 3-4 AEs.