The American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) Journal of Clinical Apheresis (JCA) Special Issue Writing Committee is charged with reviewing, updating, and categorizing indications for the evidence-based use of therapeutic apheresis in human disease. Since the 2007 JCA Special Issue (Fourth Edition), the Committee has incorporated systematic review and evidence-based approaches in the grading and categorization of apheresis indications. This Seventh Edition of the JCA Special Issue continues to maintain this methodology and rigor to make recommendations on the use of apheresis in a wide variety of diseases/conditions. The JCA Seventh Edition, like its predecessor, has consistently applied the category and grading system definitions in the fact sheets. The general layout and concept of a fact sheet that was used since the fourth edition has largely been maintained in this edition. Each fact sheet succinctly summarizes the evidence for the use of therapeutic apheresis in a specific disease entity. The Seventh Edition discusses 87 fact sheets (14 new fact sheets since the Sixth Edition) for therapeutic apheresis diseases and medical conditions, with 179 indications, which are separately graded and categorized within the listed fact sheets. Several diseases that are Category IV which have been described in detail in previous editions and do not have significant new evidence since the last publication are summarized in a separate table. The Seventh Edition of the JCA Special Issue serves as a key resource that guides the utilization of therapeutic apheresis in the treatment of human disease. J. Clin. Apheresis 31:149-162, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Guidelines on the Use of Therapeutic Apheresis in Clinical Practice—Evidence-Based Approach from the Writing Committee of the American Society for Apheresis: The Sixth Special Issue

Mycophenolate mofetil versus oral cyclophosphamide in scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease (SLS II): a randomised controlled, double-blind, parallel group trial

https://www.ajkd.org/article/S0272-6386(13)00903-7/pdf

KDOQI US Commentary on the 2012 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline for Glomerulonephritis

Background In adults with active lupus nephritis, the efficacy and safety of intravenous belimumab as compared with placebo, when added to standard therapy (mycophenolate mofetil or cyclophosphamide-azathioprine), are unknown. Methods In a phase 3, multinational, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 104-week trial conducted at 107 sites in 21 countries, we assigned adults with biopsy-proven, active lupus nephritis in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous belimumab (at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight) or matching placebo, in addition to standard therapy. The primary end point at week 104 was a primary efficacy renal response (a ratio of urinary protein to creatinine of ≤0.7, an estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] that was no worse than 20% below the value before the renal flare (pre-flare value) or ≥60 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area, and no use of rescue therapy), and the major secondary end point was a complete renal response (a ratio of urinary protein to creatinine of Results A total of 448 patients underwent randomization (224 to the belimumab group and 224 to the placebo group). At week 104, significantly more patients in the belimumab group than in the placebo group had a primary efficacy renal response (43% vs. 32%; odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0 to 2.3; P = 0.03) and a complete renal response (30% vs. 20%; odds ratio, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.7; P = 0.02). The risk of a renal-related event or death was lower among patients who received belimumab than among those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.77; P = 0.001). The safety profile of belimumab was consistent with that in previous trials. Conclusions In this trial involving patients with active lupus nephritis, more patients who received belimumab plus standard therapy had a primary efficacy renal response than those who received standard therapy alone. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; BLISS-LN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01639339.).

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2001180

Two-Year, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Belimumab in Lupus Nephritis

Objective. To determine nephritis outcomes in a prospective multi-ethnic/racial SLE inception cohort.

Methods. Patients in the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics inception cohort (≤15 months of SLE diagnosis) were assessed annually for estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), proteinuria and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Health-related quality of life was measured by the Short Form (36 questions) health survey questionnaire (SF-36) subscales, mental and physical component summary scores.

Results. There were 1827 patients, 89% females, mean (s.d.) age 35.1 (13.3) years. The mean (s.d.) SLE duration at enrolment was 0.5 (0.3) years and follow-up 4.6 (3.4) years. LN occurred in 700 (38.3%) patients: 566/700 (80.9%) at enrolment and 134/700 (19.1%) during follow-up. Patients with nephritis were younger, more frequently men and of African, Asian and Hispanic race/ethnicity. The estimated overall 10-year incidence of ESRD was 4.3% (95% CI: 2.8%, 5.8%), and with nephritis was 10.1% (95% CI: 6.6%, 13.6%). Patients with nephritis had a higher risk of death (HR = 2.98, 95% CI: 1.48, 5.99; P = 0.002) and those with eGFR <30 ml/min at diagnosis had lower SF-36 physical component summary scores (P < 0.01) and lower Physical function, Physical role and Bodily pain scores. Over time, patients with abnormal eGFR and proteinuria had lower SF-36 mental component summary (P ≤ 0.02) scores compared to patients with normal values.

Conclusion. LN occurred in 38.3% of SLE patients, frequently as the initial presentation, in a large multi-ethnic inception cohort. Despite current standard of care, nephritis was associated with ESRD and death, and renal insufficiency was linked to lower health-related quality of life. Further advances are required for the optimal treatment of LN.

The frequency and outcome of lupus nephritis: results from an international inception cohort study

In the United States, approximately 35% of adults with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) have clinical evidence of nephritis at the time of diagnosis; with an estimated total of 50–60% developing nephritis during the first 10 years of disease [1–4]. The prevalence of nephritis is significantly higher in African Americans and Hispanics than in Caucasians, and is higher in men than in women. Renal damage is more likely to develop in non-Caucasian groups [2–4]. Overall survival in patients with SLE is approximately 95% at 5 years after diagnosis and 92% at 10 years [5, 6]. The presence of lupus nephritis significantly reduces survival, to approximately 88% at 10 years, with even lower survival in African Americans [5, 6].

The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) last published guidelines for management of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in 1999 [7]. That publication was designed primarily for education of primary care physicians and recommended therapeutic and management approaches for many manifestations of SLE. Recommendations for management of lupus nephritis (LN) consisted of pulse glucocorticoids followed by high dose daily glucocorticoids in addition to an immunosuppressive medication, with cyclophosphamide viewed as the most effective immunosuppressive medication for diffuse proliferative glomerulonephritis. Mycophenolate mofetil was not yet in use for lupus nephritis and was not mentioned. Since that time, many clinical trials of glucocorticoids-plus-immunosuppressive interventions have been published, some of which are high quality prospective trials, and some not only prospective but also randomized. Thus, the ACR determined that a new set of management recommendations was in order. A combination of extensive literature review and the opinions of highly qualified experts, including rheumatologists, nephrologists and pathologists, has been used to reach the recommendations. The management strategies discussed here apply to lupus nephritis in adults, particularly to those receiving care in the United States of America, and include interventions that were available in the United States as of April 2011.

While these recommendations were developed using rigorous methodology, guidelines do have inherent limitations in informing individual patient care; hence the selection of the term “recommendations.” While they should not supplant clinical judgment or limit clinical judgment, they do provide expert advice to the practicing physician managing patients with lupus nephritis.

/pdf/american-college-of-rheumatology-guidelines-for-screening-4d97m7oefx.pdf

Justin Peng

Papers

American College of Rheumatology guidelines for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis