Greco, Jessica

Objective To assess the impact of renal replacement therapy in people with lupus nephritis (LN)–associated end‐stage kidney disease (ESKD) and support the development of the 2024 American College of Rheumatology LN treatment guidelines. Methods We conducted a systematic literature review and meta‐analysis to address three Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) questions related to renal replacement therapy for ESKD due to LN, including comparisons of kidney transplant versus dialysis, hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis, and preemptive kidney transplant versus no preemptive kidney transplant. Outcomes of interest included mortality, cardiovascular (CV) events, infections, lupus flares, disease‐related damage, graft failure, and quality of life. We conducted a meta‐analysis and analyzed hazard ratios for time‐to‐event analyses and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes, as well as absolute risk estimates. Results Sixteen comparative observational studies addressed at least one of the three PICO questions. Kidney transplant was found to reduce the risks of all‐cause mortality, CV mortality, infection‐related mortality, and CV events compared with dialysis (high certainty). Dialysis modality (peritoneal vs hemodialysis) was not associated with mortality (high certainty) or with other outcomes of infection, CV complications, and systemic lupus erythematosus flares (low certainty). Preemptive kidney transplant was associated with lower risks of graft failure and mortality (low certainty). Conclusion This systematic review identified improved outcomes with kidney transplant versus dialysis for people with LN‐associated ESKD and potential benefits of preemptive kidney transplant. This evidence supports the use of kidney transplant as a preferred renal replacement therapy for people with LN‐ESKD.

ObjectiveThe objective is to provide evidence‐based and expert guidance for the screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis.MethodsThe Core Team developed clinical questions for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis using the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were completed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the quality of evidence and to formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus ≥70% on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation.ResultsWe present 28 graded recommendations (7 strong, 21 conditional) and 13 ungraded, consensus‐based good practice statements for the screening and management of lupus nephritis. Our recommendations focus on the unifying principle that lupus nephritis therapy is continuous and ongoing, rather than consisting of discrete induction/initial and maintenance/subsequent therapies. Therapy should include pulse glucocorticoids followed by oral glucocorticoid taper and two additional immunosuppressive agents for 3–5 years for those achieving complete renal response.ConclusionThis guideline provides direction for clinicians regarding screening and treatment decisions for management of lupus nephritis. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies, as treatment decisions may vary due to the unique clinical situation and personal preferences of each individual patient.

Objective The objective is to provide evidence‐based and expert guidance for the screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis. Methods The Core Team developed clinical questions for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis using the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were completed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the quality of evidence and to formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus ≥70% on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation. Results We present 28 graded recommendations (7 strong, 21 conditional) and 13 ungraded, consensus‐based good practice statements for the screening and management of lupus nephritis. Our recommendations focus on the unifying principle that lupus nephritis therapy is continuous and ongoing, rather than consisting of discrete induction/initial and maintenance/subsequent therapies. Therapy should include pulse glucocorticoids followed by oral glucocorticoid taper and two additional immunosuppressive agents for 3–5 years for those achieving complete renal response. Conclusion This guideline provides direction for clinicians regarding screening and treatment decisions for management of lupus nephritis. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies, as treatment decisions may vary due to the unique clinical situation and personal preferences of each individual patient.

Key Points A computable phenotype combines routinely collected data elements from the EHR with logic elements to identify a condition of interest. This validated computable phenotype has strong classification characteristics to identify individuals with primary nephrotic syndrome. This computable phenotype for primary nephrotic syndrome can facilitate future research of these rare diseases. Background Primary nephrotic syndromes are rare diseases which can impede adequate sample size for observational patient-oriented research and clinical trial enrollment. A computable phenotype may be powerful in identifying patients with these diseases for research across multiple institutions. Methods A comprehensive algorithm of inclusion and exclusion ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes to identify patients with primary nephrotic syndrome was developed. The algorithm was executed against the PCORnet CDM at three institutions from January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2018, where a random selection of 50 cases and 50 noncases (individuals not meeting case criteria seen within the same calendar year and within 5 years of age of a case) were reviewed by a nephrologist, for a total of 150 cases and 150 noncases reviewed. The classification accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, F1 score) of the computable phenotype was determined. Results The algorithm identified a total of 2708 patients with nephrotic syndrome from 4,305,092 distinct patients in the CDM at all sites from 2009 to 2018. For all sites, the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve of the algorithm were 99% (95% CI, 97% to 99%), 79% (95% CI, 74% to 85%), and 0.9 (0.84 to 0.97), respectively. The most common causes of false positive classification were secondary FSGS (nine out of 39) and lupus nephritis (nine out of 39). Conclusion This computable phenotype had good classification in identifying both children and adults with primary nephrotic syndrome utilizing only ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes, which are available across institutions in the United States. This may facilitate future screening and enrollment for research studies and enable comparative effectiveness research. Further refinements to the algorithm including use of laboratory data or addition of natural language processing may help better distinguish primary and secondary causes of nephrotic syndrome.