Rovin, Brad H.

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 A patient‐centered approach for chronic disease management, including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), aligns treatment with patients’ values and preferences, leading to improved outcomes. This paper summarizes how patient experiences, perspectives, and priorities informed the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2024 Lupus Nephritis (LN) and 2025 SLE screening, treatment guidelines. Methods We completed a cross‐sectional qualitative study using content analysis of two Patient Panel meetings for the ACR LN and SLE guidelines. Key themes were presented by Patient Panel representatives during Voting Panel Meetings along with evidence for each recommendation, to ensure comprehensive discussions and align treatment recommendations with patients’ priorities and values. Results Nineteen people (90% women) with diagnoses of SLE and/or LN participated in the Patient Panels and 17 consented to use their feedback for analysis. Thematic analysis of their discussions revealed nine patient‐reported key themes in three domains: (1) treatment and monitoring of LN and SLE: medication side effects, daily function, treatment goals, and monitoring and screening; (2) clinical communication: strategies to optimize communication and provider and structural impediments to effective communication; and (3) improving transparency and information sharing: clinical trial participation, and medical costs and insurance coverage. These themes were actively incorporated into discussions during the Voting Panels for the ACR LN and SLE guidelines. Conclusion This work supported the integration of patient experiences in the clinical practice guideline development process and aligned recommendations with real‐world patient experiences and priorities, thereby enhancing the clinical applicability of the ACR LN and SLE guidelines. image

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.

ObjectiveOur objective was to evaluate the effect of glucocorticoid regimens on renal response, infections, and mortality among patients with lupus nephritis (LN).MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the control arms of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We included RCTs of biopsy‐proven LN that used a protocolized regimen of glucocorticoids in combination with mycophenolic acid analogs or cyclophosphamide and reported the outcomes of complete response (CR), serious infections, and death. The starting dosage of glucocorticoids, tapering method, and administration of glucocorticoid pulses were abstracted. Meta‐analysis of proportions, meta‐regression, and subgroup meta‐analysis were performed at 6 and 12 months for all outcomes.ResultsFifty RCT arms (3,231 patients with LN) were included. The predicted rates of CR, serious infections, and death when starting on oral prednisone at 25 mg/day without pulses were 19.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.3–31.5), 3.2% (95% CI 2.4–4.0), and 0.2% (95% CI 0.0–0.4), respectively. Starting on prednisone at 60 mg/day (without pulses) increased the rates to 34.6% (95% CI 16.9–52.3), 12.1% (95% CI 9.3–14.9), and 2.7% (95% CI 0.0–5.3), respectively. Adding glucocorticoid pulses increased the rates of CR and death but not serious infections. We observed a dose–response gradient between the initial glucocorticoid dosage and all the outcomes at six months after accounting for the administration of glucocorticoid pulses, underlying immunosuppressant, and baseline proteinuria.ConclusionA higher exposure to glucocorticoids during the initial therapy of LN was associated with better renal outcomes at the cost of increased infections and death.

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.

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

ObjectiveWe aimed to develop readily measurable digital quality measure statements for clinical care in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) using a multistep process guided by consensus methods.MethodsUsing a modified Delphi process, an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) workgroup of SLE experts reviewed all North American and European guidelines from 2000 to 2020 on treatment, monitoring, and phenotyping of patients with lupus. Workgroup members extracted quality constructs from guidelines, rated these by importance and feasibility, and generated evidence‐based quality measure statements. The ACR Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) Registry was queried for measurement data availability. In 3 consecutive Delphi sessions, a multidisciplinary Delphi panel voted on the importance and feasibility of each statement. Proposed measures with consensus on feasibility and importance were ranked to identify the top 3 measures.ResultsReview of guidelines and distillation of 57 quality constructs resulted in 15 quality measure statements. Among these, 5 met high consensus for importance and feasibility, including 2 on treatment and 3 on laboratory monitoring measures. The 3 highest‐ranked statements were recommended for further measure specification as SLE digital quality measures: 1) hydroxychloroquine use, 2) limiting glucocorticoid use >7.5 mg/day to <6 months, and 3) end‐organ monitoring of kidney function and urine protein excretion at least every 6 months.ConclusionThe Delphi process selected 3 quality measures for SLE care on hydroxychloroquine, glucocorticoid reduction, and kidney monitoring. Next, measures will undergo specification and validity testing in RISE and US rheumatology practices as the foundation for national implementation and use in quality improvement programs.image