AbstractBackgroundBiomarkers of eosinophilic disease activity, especially in the context of novel therapies that reduce blood eosinophil counts, are an unmet need. Absolute eosinophil count (AEC) does not accurately reflect tissue eosinophilia or eosinophil activation. Therefore, the aims of this study were to compare the reliability of plasma and urine eosinophil major basic protein 1, eosinophil cationic protein, eosinophil‐derived neurotoxin (EDN), and eosinophil peroxidase measurement and to evaluate the usefulness of eosinophil granule protein (EGP) measurement for the assessment of disease activity in patients with eosinophil‐associated diseases treated with mepolizumab, benralizumab, or dexpramipexole.MethodsEosinophil granule protein concentrations were measured in serum, plasma, and urine from healthy volunteers and patients with hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES), eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), and eosinophilic asthma using a multiplex assay.ResultsUrine EGP concentrations remained stable, whereas serum and plasma EGP concentrations increased significantly with delayed processing. Plasma (p) EDN, but not urine (u) EDN, concentration correlated with AEC and negatively correlated with prednisone dose. Both pEDN and uEDN decreased significantly following treatment of HES patients with benralizumab and EGPA patients with mepolizumab. uEDN appeared to increase with clinical relapse in both patient groups.ConclusionsMeasurement of EGP in urine is noninvasive and unaffected by cellular lysis. Although plasma and urine EDN concentrations showed a similar pattern following benralizumab and mepolizumab treatment, the lack of correlation between AEC or prednisone dose and uEDN concentrations suggests that measurement of uEDN may provide a potential biomarker of disease activity in patients with HES and EGPA.
Kidney Histopathology in ANCA-Associated Vasculitides Treated with Plasma Exchange
Background Membranous nephropathy (MN) is a common cause of proteinuria in patients receiving a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). The target antigen in HSCT-associated MN is unknown. Methods We performed laser microdissection and tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) of glomeruli from 250 patients with PLA2R-negative MN to detect novel antigens in MN. This was followed by immunohistochemical (IHC)/immunofluorescence (IF) microscopy studies to localize the novel antigen. Western blot analyses using serum and IgG eluted from frozen biopsy specimen to detect binding of IgG to new 'antigen'. Results MS/MS detected a novel protein, protocadherin FAT1 (FAT1), in nine patients with PLA2R-negative MN. In all nine patients, MN developed after allogeneic HSCT (Mayo Clinic discovery cohort). Next, we performed MS/MS in five patients known to have allogeneic HSCT-associated MN (Cedar Sinai validation cohort). FAT1 was detected in all five patients by MS/MS. The total spectral counts for FAT1 ranged from 8 to 39 (mean±SD, 20.9±10.1). All 14 patients were negative for known antigens of MN, including PLA2R, THSD7A, NELL1, PCDH7, NCAM1, SEMA3B, and HTRA1. Kidney biopsy specimens showed IgG (2 to 3+) with mild C3 (0 to 1+) along the GBM; IgG4 was the dominant IgG subclass. IHC after protease digestion and confocal IF confirmed granular FAT1 deposits along the GBM. Lastly, Western blot analyses detected anti-FAT1 IgG and IgG4 in the eluate obtained from pooled frozen kidney biopsy tissue and in the serum of those with FAT1-asssociated MN, but not from those with PLA2R-associated MN. Conclusions FAT1-associated MN appears to be a unique type of MN associated with HSCT. FAT1-associated MN represents a majority of MN associated with HSCT.
Efficacy of Rituximab and Plasma Exchange in Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody–Associated Vasculitis with Severe Kidney Disease
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.