Thompson, Gwen E

Objective Proteinase 3 (PR3) is the major antigen for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCAs) in the systemic autoimmune vasculitis, granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA). PR3‐targeting ANCAs (PR3‐ANCAs) recognize different epitopes on PR3. This study was undertaken to study the effect of mutations on PR3 antigenicity. Methods The recombinant PR3 variants, iPR3 (clinically used to detect PR3‐ANCAs) and iHm5 (containing 3 point mutations in epitopes 1 and 5 generated for epitope mapping studies) immunoassays and serum samples from patients enrolled in ANCA‐associated vasculitis (AAV) trials were used to screen for differential PR3‐ANCA binding. A patient‐derived monoclonal ANCA 518 (moANCA518) that selectively binds to iHm5 within the mutation‐free epitope 3 and is distant from the point mutations of iHm5 was used as a gauge for remote epitope activation. Selective binding was determined using inhibition experiments. Results Rather than reduced binding of PR3‐ANCAs to iHm5, we found substantially increased binding of the majority of PR3‐ANCAs to iHm5 compared to iPR3. This differential binding of PR3‐ANCA to iHm5 is similar to the selective moANCA518 binding to iHm5. Binding of iPR3 to monoclonal antibody MCPR3‐2 also induced recognition by moANCA518. Conclusion The preferential binding of PR3‐ANCAs from patients, such as the selective binding of moANCA518 to iHm5, is conferred by increased antigenicity of epitope 3 on iHm5. This can also be induced on iPR3 when captured by monoclonal antibody MCPR2. This previously unrecognized characteristic of PR3‐ANCA interactions with its target antigen has implications for studying antibody‐mediated autoimmune diseases, understanding variable performance characteristics of immunoassays, and design of potential novel treatment approaches. image

Significance Statement Efficacy of rituximab (RTX) in ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) in patients with severe renal involvement (eGFR<30 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 ) has not been addressed in clinical trials. This observational study did not find statistically significant differences between RTX and cyclophosphamide (CYC) for remission-induction therapy or any apparent benefit from the addition of plasma exchange (PLEX) to standard remission-induction therapy for patients with AAV and severe renal involvement. Although our analyses suggest that the benefits and risks of these therapeutic choices (RTX versus CYC with and without PLEX) are balanced, a randomized, controlled trial is needed to confirm these findings. Background Treatment of patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) and severe renal involvement is not established. We describe outcomes in response to rituximab (RTX) versus cyclophosphamide (CYC) and plasma exchange (PLEX). Methods A retrospective cohort study of MPO- or PR3-ANCA–positive patients with AAV (MPA and GPA) and severe kidney disease (eGFR <30 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 ). Remission, relapse, ESKD and death after remission-induction with CYC or RTX, with or without the use of PLEX, were compared. Results Of 467 patients with active renal involvement, 251 had severe kidney disease. Patients received CYC ( n =161) or RTX ( n =64) for remission-induction, and 51 were also treated with PLEX. Predictors for ESKD and/or death at 18 months were eGFR <15 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 at diagnosis (IRR 3.09 [95% CI 1.49 to 6.40], P =0.002), renal recovery (IRR 0.27 [95% CI 0.12 to 0.64], P =0.003) and renal remission at 6 months (IRR 0.40 [95% CI 0.18 to 0.90], P =0.027). RTX was comparable to CYC in remission-induction (BVAS/WG=0) at 6 months (IRR 1.37 [95% CI 0.91 to 2.08], P =0.132). Addition of PLEX showed no benefit on remission-induction at 6 months (IRR 0.73 [95% CI 0.44 to 1.22], P =0.230), the rate of ESKD and/or death at 18 months (IRR 1.05 [95% CI 0.51 to 2.18], P =0.891), progression to ESKD (IRR 1.06 [95% CI 0.50 to 2.25], P =0.887), and survival at 24 months (IRR 0.54 [95% CI 0.16 to 1.85], P =0.330). Conclusions The apparent benefits and risks of using CYC or RTX for the treatment of patients with AAV and severe kidney disease are balanced. The addition of PLEX to standard remission-induction therapy showed no benefit in our cohort. A randomized controlled trial is the only satisfactory means to evaluate efficacy of remission-induction treatments in AAV with severe renal involvement.