Ankawi, Ghada

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.

ABSTRACT Adsorption-based extracorporeal therapies have been subject to technical developments and clinical application for close to five decades. More recently, new technological developments in membrane and sorbent manipulation have made it possible to deliver more biocompatible extracorporeal adsorption therapies to patients with a variety of conditions. There are several key rationales based on physicochemical principles and clinical considerations that justify the application and investigation of such therapies as evidenced by multiple ex vivo, experimental and clinical observations. Accordingly, unspecific adsorptive extracorporeal therapies have now been applied to the treatment of a wide array of conditions from poisoning to drug overdoses, to inflammatory states and sepsis, and acute or chronic liver and kidney failure. In response to the rapidly expanding knowledge base and increased clinical evidence, we convened an Acute Disease Quality Initiative consensus conference dedicated to such treatment. The data show that hemoadsorption has clinically acceptable short-term biocompatibility and safety, technical feasibility and experimental demonstration of specified target molecule removal. Pilot studies demonstrate potentially beneficial effects on physiology and larger studies of endotoxin-based hemoadsorption have identified possible target phenotypes for larger randomized controlled trials. Moreover, in a variety of endogenous and exogenous intoxications, removal of target molecules has been confirmed in vivo. However, some studies have raised concerns about harm, or failed to deliver benefits. Thus, despite many achievements, modern hemoadsorption remains a novel and experimental intervention with limited data, and a large research agenda.

Background The 2021 Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guidelines recommend following anti-phospholipase A2 receptor (PLA2R) antibody levels as a marker of treatment response in membranous nephropathy; however, the optimal timing to evaluate antibody levels and how to combine them with other clinical variables are currently unknown. Methods We used a cohort of 85 patients from the Membranous Nephropathy Trial Of Rituximab (MENTOR) with anti-PLA2R antibodies ≥14 RU/ml to identify risk factors for not experiencing proteinuria remission after 12 months of treatment with cyclosporine or rituximab. Three landmark times were considered: at baseline and after 3 and 6 months of treatment. Logistic regression model performance was evaluated using C-statistics and model fit (Akaike information criterion [AIC], R 2 ). Results The model at baseline that best predicted no remission included anti-PLA2R antibodies >323 RU/ml and creatinine clearance; the best model after 3 months included the change from baseline in both antibody and albumin levels; and the best model after 6 months included antibody levels >14 RU/ml, creatinine clearance, and the change from baseline in albumin. Compared with the model at baseline, the model at 3 months had better model fit (AIC 70.9 versus 96.4, R 2 51.8% versus 30.1%) and higher C-statistic (0.93 versus 0.83, P = 0.008). The model at 6 months had no difference in performance compared with the model at 3 months (AIC 68.6, R 2 53.0%, C-statistic 0.94, P = 0.67). Conclusions In patients with membranous nephropathy treated with cyclosporine or rituximab in the MENTOR trial, we found that the optimal method to evaluate risk factors for the probability of treatment response was to use anti-PLA2R antibody levels combined with albumin levels after 3 months of treatment, which was significantly better than using antibody levels alone or risk factor evaluation at baseline, with no added benefit of waiting until 6 months of treatment. Podcast This article contains a podcast at https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2023_10_09_CJN0000000000000237.mp3