Vijayan, Anitha

Abstract High-dose methotrexate (MTX) results in high rates of acute kidney injury (AKI), neutropenia, and hepatotoxicity. Glucarpidase is a recombinant enzyme that cleaves MTX, but clinical data supporting its use are scarce. We examined the association between glucarpidase administration and outcomes in adults with MTX-AKI from 28 cancer centers across the United States using a sequential target trial emulation framework. The primary end point was kidney recovery at hospital discharge, defined as survival to discharge with serum creatinine <1.5-fold baseline and without dialysis dependence. Key secondary end points were time to kidney recovery, neutropenia, and transaminitis on day 7, and time to death. Using multivariable logistic and Cox regression models, we compared outcomes in patients who received glucarpidase within 4 days following MTX initiation with those in patients who did not. Among 708 patients with MTX-AKI, 209 (29.5%) received glucarpidase. Overall, 183 (25.8%) had a primary end point event. Glucarpidase receipt was associated with a 2.70-fold higher adjusted odds of kidney recovery (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.69–4.31) compared with no glucarpidase receipt. Patients treated with glucarpidase also had faster time to kidney recovery (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.18–3.33) and lower risks of grade ≥2 neutropenia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28–0.91) and grade ≥2 transaminitis (aOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28–0.91) on day 7. There was no difference in time to death (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.49–1.18). These data suggest glucarpidase may improve both renal and extrarenal outcomes in patients with MTX-AKI.

ABSTRACT Background and hypothesis The MENTOR trial (MEmbranous Nephropathy Trial Of Rituximab) showed that rituximab was noninferior to cyclosporine in inducing complete or partial remission of proteinuria and was superior in maintaining proteinuria remission. However, the cost of rituximab may prohibit first-line use for some patients and health-care payers. Methods A Markov model was used to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of rituximab compared with cyclosporine for the treatment membranous nephropathy from the perspective of a health-care payer with a lifetime time horizon. The model was informed by data from the MENTOR trial where possible; additional parameters including cost and utility inputs were obtained from the literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of reduced-cost biosimilar rituximab. Results Rituximab for the treatment of membranous nephropathy was cost effective (assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained; in $US 2021) compared with cyclosporine, with an ICER of $8373/QALY over a lifetime time horizon. The incremental cost of rituximab therapy was $28 007 with an additional 3.34 QALYs compared with cyclosporine. Lower cost of rituximab biosimilars resulted in a more favorable ICER, and in some cases resulted in rituximab being dominant (lower cost and great benefit) compared to cyclosporine. Conclusions Despite the greater cost of rituximab, it may be a cost-effective option for the treatment of membranous nephropathy when compared with cyclosporine. The cost-effectiveness of rituximab is further improved with the use of less expensive biosimilars.

Background Up to one third of survivors of AKI that required dialysis (AKI-D) during hospitalization remain dialysis dependent at hospital discharge. Of these, 20%–60%, depending on the clinical setting, eventually recover enough kidney function to stop dialysis, and the remainder progress to ESKD. Methods To describe the challenges facing those still receiving dialysis on discharge, the AKINow Committee conducted a group discussion comprising 59 participants, including physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, pharmacists, and patients. The discussion was framed by a patient who described gaps in care delivery at different transition points and miscommunication between care team members and the patient. Results Group discussions collected patient perspectives of ( 1 ) being often scared and uncertain about what is happening to and around them and ( 2 ) the importance of effective and timely communication, a comfortable physical setting, and attentive and caring health care providers for a quality health care experience. Provider perspectives included ( 1 ) the recognition of the lack of evidence-based practices and quality indicators, the significant variability in current care models, and the uncertain reimbursement incentives focused on kidney recovery and ( 2 ) the urgency to address communication barriers among hospital providers and outpatient facilities. Conclusions The workgroup identified key areas for future research and policy change to ( 1 ) improve communication among hospital providers, dialysis units, and patients/care partners; ( 2 ) develop tools for risk classification, subphenotyping, and augmented clinical decision support; ( 3 ) improve education to providers, staff, and patients/care partners; ( 4 ) identify best practices to improve relevant outcomes; ( 5 ) validate quality indicators; and ( 6 ) assess the effect of social determinants of health on outcomes. We urge all stakeholders involved in the process of AKI-D care to align goals and work together to fill knowledge gaps and optimize the care to this highly vulnerable patient population.

Key Points AKI survivors experience gaps in care that contribute to worse outcomes, experience, and cost. Challenges to optimal care include issues with information transfer, education, collaborative care, and use of digital health tools. Research is needed to study these challenges and inform optimal use of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions to promote recovery AKI affects one in five hospitalized patients and is associated with poor short-term and long-term clinical and patient-centered outcomes. Among those who survive to discharge, significant gaps in documentation, education, communication, and follow-up have been observed. The American Society of Nephrology established the AKINow taskforce to address these gaps and improve AKI care. The AKINow Recovery workgroup convened two focus groups, one each focused on dialysis-independent and dialysis-requiring AKI, to summarize the key considerations, challenges, and opportunities in the care of AKI survivors. This article highlights the discussion surrounding care of AKI survivors discharged without the need for dialysis. On May 3, 2022, 48 patients and multidisciplinary clinicians from diverse settings were gathered virtually. The agenda included a patient testimonial, plenary sessions, facilitated small group discussions, and debriefing. Core challenges and opportunities for AKI care identified were in the domains of transitions of care, education, collaborative care delivery, diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, and digital health applications. Integrated multispecialty care delivery was identified as one of the greatest challenges to AKI survivor care. Adequate templates for communication and documentation; education of patients, care partners, and clinicians about AKI; and a well-coordinated multidisciplinary posthospital follow-up plan form the basis for a successful care transition at hospital discharge. The AKINow Recovery workgroup concluded that advancements in evidence-based, patient-centered care of AKI survivors are needed to improve health outcomes, care quality, and patient and provider experience. Tools are being developed by the AKINow Recovery workgroup for use at the hospital discharge to facilitate care continuity.

The American Society of Nephrology has established a new initiative, AKI!Now , with the goal of promoting excellence in the prevention and treatment of AKI by building a foundational program that transforms education and delivery of AKI care, aiming to reduce morbidity and associated mortality and to improve long-term outcomes. In this article, we describe our current efforts to improve early recognition and management involving inclusive interdisciplinary collaboration between providers, patients, and their families; discuss the ongoing need to change some of our current AKI paradigms and diagnostic methods; and provide specific recommendations to improve AKI recognition and care. In the hospital and the community, AKI is a common and increasingly frequent condition that generates risks of adverse events and high costs. Unfortunately, patients with AKI may frequently have received less than optimal quality of care. New classifications have facilitated understanding of AKI incidence and its impact on outcomes, but they are not always well aligned with AKI pathophysiology. Despite ongoing research efforts, treatments to promote or hasten kidney recovery remain ineffective. To avoid progression, the current approach to AKI emphasizes the promotion of early recognition and timely response. However, a lack of awareness of the importance of early recognition and treatment among health care team members and the heterogeneity of approaches within the health care teams assessing the patient remains a major challenge. Early identification is further complicated by differences in settings where AKI occurs (the community or the hospital), and by differences in patient populations and cultures between the intensive care unit and ward environments. To address these obstacles, we discuss the need to improve education at all levels of care and to generate specific guidance on AKI evaluation and management, including the development of a widely applicable education and an AKI management toolkit, engaging hospital administrators to incorporate AKI as a quality initiative, and raising awareness of AKI as a complication of other disease processes.

Significance Statement Kidney toxicity from use of immune checkpoint inhibitors is being recognized as an increasingly frequent complication of treatment. However, existing data on immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated AKI have been limited to small, mostly single-center studies. In this multicenter study of 138 patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated AKI and 276 controls, the authors characterize the clinical features of this complication and identify risk factors associated with its development, clinicopathologic features, and determinants of kidney recovery after an episode. Failure to achieve kidney recovery was associated with worse overall survival, and a minority (23%) of patients who were retreated with immune checkpoint inhibitors had a recurrence of AKI. The study provides insights into immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated AKI, although further study is needed to inform the care of affected patients. Background Despite increasing recognition of the importance of immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated AKI, data on this complication of immunotherapy are sparse. Methods We conducted a multicenter study of 138 patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated AKI, defined as a ≥2-fold increase in serum creatinine or new dialysis requirement directly attributed to an immune checkpoint inhibitor. We also collected data on 276 control patients who received these drugs but did not develop AKI. Results Lower baseline eGFR, proton pump inhibitor use, and combination immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy were each independently associated with an increased risk of immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated AKI. Median (interquartile range) time from immune checkpoint inhibitor initiation to AKI was 14 (6–37) weeks. Most patients had subnephrotic proteinuria, and approximately half had pyuria. Extrarenal immune-related adverse events occurred in 43% of patients; 69% were concurrently receiving a potential tubulointerstitial nephritis–causing medication. Tubulointerstitial nephritis was the dominant lesion in 93% of the 60 patients biopsied. Most patients (86%) were treated with steroids. Complete, partial, or no kidney recovery occurred in 40%, 45%, and 15% of patients, respectively. Concomitant extrarenal immune-related adverse events were associated with worse renal prognosis, whereas concomitant tubulointerstitial nephritis–causing medications and treatment with steroids were each associated with improved renal prognosis. Failure to achieve kidney recovery after immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated AKI was independently associated with higher mortality. Immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge occurred in 22% of patients, of whom 23% developed recurrent associated AKI. Conclusions This multicenter study identifies insights into the risk factors, clinical features, histopathologic findings, and renal and overall outcomes in patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated AKI.