Iyer, Priyanka

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.

Objective To provide evidence‐based and expert guidance for the treatment and management of non‐renal systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); treatment and management of lupus nephritis are addressed in a separate guideline. Methods Clinical questions for treatment and management of SLE were developed in the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were developed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess evidence quality and formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus of ≥70% agreement on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation. Results We present recommendations and ungraded, consensus‐based good practice statements for the treatment and management of SLE that are applicable to pediatric and adult patients. Recommendations emphasize uniform treatment with hydroxychloroquine, limiting duration of glucocorticoid use, and early introduction of conventional and/or biologic immunosuppressive therapies to achieve and maintain control of SLE inflammation (remission or a low level of disease activity), reduce SLE‐related morbidity and mortality, and minimize medication‐related toxicities. Conclusion This guideline presents direction regarding treatment and management of SLE and provides a foundation for well‐informed, shared clinician–patient decision‐making. 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 person with SLE.

Objective To provide evidence‐based and expert guidance for the treatment and management of non‐renal systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); treatment and management of lupus nephritis are addressed in a separate guideline. Methods Clinical questions for treatment and management of SLE were developed in the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were developed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess evidence quality and formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus of ≥70% agreement on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation. Results We present recommendations and ungraded, consensus‐based good practice statements for the treatment and management of SLE that are applicable to pediatric and adult patients. Recommendations emphasize uniform treatment with hydroxychloroquine, limiting duration of glucocorticoid use, and early introduction of conventional and/or biologic immunosuppressive therapies to achieve and maintain control of SLE inflammation (remission or a low level of disease activity), reduce SLE‐related morbidity and mortality, and minimize medication‐related toxicities. Conclusion This guideline presents direction regarding treatment and management of SLE and provides a foundation for well‐informed, shared clinician–patient decision‐making. 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 person with SLE.

6008 Background: ATC patients present with advanced, often surgically unresectable disease with historically dismal prognosis. Median PFS and OS of DT without pembrolizumab were 6.7 and 13.5 months, respectively, in the ROAR trial. Neoadjuvant DTP achieved locoregional control without radical surgery in a retrospective series of BRAF m-ATC patients, providing rationale to evaluate efficacy and safety in a phase 2 prospective trial. Methods: In this single-arm multicenter phase 2 trial, patients with BRAF m-ATC stage IVB/IVC were enrolled in 5 US centers. Following a 3-6 week run-in with D (150 mg BID) and T (2 mg daily), P (200 mg Q3W) was added, with restaging every three (21-day) cycles. Post-operatively, patients continued P (or DTP) with radiotherapy or transitioned directly to adjuvant DTP (up to 26 cycles). Primary endpoints included R0/R1 resection rate (historically 5%) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included RECIST 1.1 response after DTP and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Between 9/2021-1/2025, 42 patients were enrolled; 36 are included in the current analysis (3 not evaluable, 3 pending surgery) (Table). Patients received median 4 (range: 2-7) neoadjuvant DTP cycles, with 26 (72%) achieving radiographic PR/CR. 30 patients (83%) had surgery after neoadjuvant DTP, achieving R0/R1 resection in 29/30 (97%). Mean surgical morbidity score (0-4 scale, 4=unresectable) improved from 3.3 to 1.6 after DTP (p<0.01). Complete ATC pathologic response occurred in 20/30 patients (67%), while 10/30 (33%) had residual ATC in the surgical specimen. Postoperatively, 11/30 (37%) received adjuvant neck radiation, and 28/36 (78%) completed a median of 11 (range: 1-26) adjuvant DTP cycles. With median follow up 18 months, 15/36 (42%) patients died. Median OS was 20 months (95% CI: 12.6-NR); 1- and 2-year OS were 71% and 48%. Complete pathologic responders had better 2-year OS than those with residual ATC (69% vs. 22%, p=0.02). Median PFS was 13.9 months (95% CI, 7.5-NR); 1- and 2-year PFS were 57% and 36%. Grade 5 adverse events occurred in 8 patients (22%), including one possible (duodenal perforation), one probable (kidney injury with sepsis), and 6 unlikely/unrelated treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: Neoadjuvant DTP enables surgical resection in BRAF m-ATC compared with historical controls, and leads to improved PFS and OS. This approach should now be considered a standard of care for BRAF m-ATC. Clinical trial information: NCT04675710 . Total N=36 Age (y), median (range) 67 (46-86) Stage IVB/IVC, n (%) 15 (42%)/21 (58%) Best RECIST response neoadjuvant phase, n (%) CR 2 (6%) PR 24 (67%) SD 6 (17%) PD 4 (11%) Percent change target lesion diameter, mean (95% CI) -44% (-54%, -34%) Surgical morbidity score change, mean (95% CI) -1.7 (-2.1, -1.3)

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.