Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Membranous Nephropathy

8,323 views

Published on

Dr Rusnawati Yahya
Consultant Nephrologist
Hospital Kuala Lumpur

Published in: Health & Medicine

Membranous Nephropathy

  1. 1. Membranous Nephropathy
  2. 2. Epidemiology <ul><li>Uncommon in children. </li></ul><ul><li>2-12% (< 5%) of pediatric patients undergoing biopsy for nephrotic syndrome. </li></ul><ul><li>Adults </li></ul><ul><li>Most common cause of nephrotic syndrome in adults </li></ul><ul><li>30% all biopsies for nephrotic syndrome </li></ul><ul><li>Older population </li></ul><ul><li>50% of all biopsies for nephrotic syndrome </li></ul>
  3. 3. Epidemiology <ul><li>Because of its frequency ,2 nd /3 rd common cause of ESRD within 1 o GN group </li></ul><ul><li>USRDS 1991-95: </li></ul><ul><li>0.5% ESRD was due to idiopathic Membranous GN </li></ul><ul><li>Has been reported in < 1 year old and > 90 years old. </li></ul><ul><li>Uncommon in < 30 years old </li></ul><ul><li>Peak age 30-40 and 50-60 </li></ul><ul><li>Men:women- 2-3:1 </li></ul>
  4. 4. Membranous Nephropathy Clinical Manifestations <ul><li>Presentation: </li></ul><ul><li>Nephrotic : 60-70% </li></ul><ul><li>Asymptomatic proteinuria : 30-40% </li></ul><ul><li>Associated findings: </li></ul><ul><li>Hypertension : 10-20% </li></ul><ul><li>Renal insufficiency : 10% </li></ul><ul><li>Microhematuria : 50% </li></ul><ul><li>Renal vein thrombosis : 5-30% </li></ul>
  5. 5. Aetiology <ul><li>Systemic disease </li></ul><ul><ul><li>SLE </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Diabetes mellitus </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Infections </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hep B /C </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Drugs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Gold </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Penicillamine </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NSAID’s </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Malignancies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Solid Organ tumors </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Transplant </li></ul><ul><li>Uncommon </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Autoimmune disease eg: Rheumatoids arthritis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Infections: syphilis, filariasis, malaria, leprosy, schistosomiasis. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sarcoidosis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sickle cell disease </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Drugs: mercury, captopril, hydrocarbons </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Pathogenesis <ul><li>Heymann nephritis in rats: </li></ul><ul><li>Podocytes is the target of injury. </li></ul><ul><li>Research has focused on : </li></ul><ul><li>1. Responsible antigen </li></ul><ul><li>2. Subsequent immune response </li></ul><ul><li>3. The role of complement </li></ul><ul><li>4. Delineation of the injury process </li></ul>
  7. 7. Pathogenesis <ul><li>Antigen target </li></ul><ul><li>Antigenic target has been localized to the membrane of glomerular epithelial cell, specifically a 515 kD glycoprotein called MEGALIN </li></ul><ul><li>MEGALIN: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A polyspecific receptor related to LDL receptor family </li></ul></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Pathogenesis <ul><li>Immune response </li></ul><ul><li>CD4+ T cell dependent and humoral response results in glomerular immunoglobulin deposition and complement activation. </li></ul><ul><li>The CD4+ help for antibody response is a function of Th2 cells which produce IL-4, 5, 6, 10 and 13. </li></ul><ul><li>A role of cell mediated injury is supported by observation: </li></ul><ul><li>- depletion of CD8+ cell reduces injury </li></ul><ul><li>- monoclonal anti CD4 and CD8 modifies the disease </li></ul>
  9. 9. Pathogenesis <ul><li>Immune response </li></ul><ul><li>Complement involvement: </li></ul><ul><li>Complement C5b-9 :Membrane attack complex (MAC) present within the immune deposits </li></ul><ul><li>Depletion of complement by cobra venom serum prevent subsequent proteinuria confirm role of complement . </li></ul><ul><li>Podocytes ? Retrieves MAC from the immune deposits by endocytosis, transport them across the cells and exocytosed to the urinary space--- Therefore detectable in the urine </li></ul>
  10. 10. Pathogenesis <ul><li>Subsequent injury process </li></ul><ul><li>Podocytes response to injury is not proliferative but hypertrophy and increased matrix production and finally glomeruloslerosis and interstitial fibrosis </li></ul>
  11. 11. Pathology Light microscopy-H&E <ul><li>GBM becomes thickened thru the accumulation of additional matrix material along the outer surface of GBM </li></ul><ul><li>Later immune deposits becomes surrounded by GBM material </li></ul>
  12. 12. Pathology Light microscopy-silver stain <ul><li>Spikes formation </li></ul>
  13. 13. Pathology Immnunoflurescence <ul><li>Subepithelial immune complex of Ig G and complement along the outer surface of capillary wall. </li></ul>
  14. 14. Pathology Electron Microscopy <ul><li>Electron dense deposit on the subepithelial surface of GBM </li></ul>
  15. 15. Membranous Nephropathy Management controversy <ul><li>Debate regarding its management continues since early 1970’s….. </li></ul><ul><li>Marked variability in its natural history </li></ul><ul><li>?accurately predicts which patients is going to progress to ESRD </li></ul><ul><li>? Ability to identify it early enough ,so the kidney retain the ability to improve with treatment but late enough to avoid therapy in patient that remits spontaneously </li></ul><ul><li>Do we have effective treatment?? </li></ul>
  16. 16. Idiopathic Membranous Nephropathy Natural History <ul><li>1/3 patients achieved spontaneous complete remission within 3 to 5 years. </li></ul><ul><li>25% who enter remission suffer subsequent relapse. </li></ul><ul><li>1/3 have partial remission (24HUP< 2g) with persistent proteinuria but no loss of GFR </li></ul><ul><li>1/3 progress to ESRD over 5 to 10 years period </li></ul><ul><li>Patients that achieved remission/ maintain normal GFR for > 3 years , prognosis is excellent. </li></ul>
  17. 17. Untreated Membranous Nephropathy Natural History Schieppati et al , NEJM 1993,329(2):85
  18. 18. Idiopathic Membranous Nephropathy Natural history <ul><li>50% with persistent nephrotic range proteinuria has a progressive course </li></ul><ul><li>15% of all patients are dead/on dialysis in 5 years. </li></ul><ul><li>35% of all patients are dead/on dialysis in 10 years </li></ul><ul><li>>40% of all patients are dead/on dialysis in 15 years </li></ul><ul><li>Mean time to doubling in serum Cr is 30 months </li></ul>
  19. 19. Membranous Nephropathy Management controversy <ul><li>Generally good prognosis but 25% end stage at 8 years </li></ul><ul><li>Some authors recommend conservative approach given high rates of spontaneous remission and long term good prognosis </li></ul><ul><li>Some use immunosuppressive drugs to all patients with NS since several RCT demonstrated superior outcome with this regime </li></ul>
  20. 20. Membranous Nephropathy Management controversy <ul><li>The aggressive approach has been criticized as many patients who would evolved into spontaneous remission are exposed to the risk of immunosuppression </li></ul><ul><li>The conservative approach,would leave considerable amount of patients with progressive renal failure </li></ul><ul><li>Balance: select patients at high risk of progression for immunosupressive therapy. </li></ul>
  21. 21. Membranous Nephropathy <ul><li>Can we predicts those patients who will progress to end stage renal disease? </li></ul>
  22. 22. Idiopathic Membranous Nephropathy Poor Prognostic Factors Reichert et al, AJKD 1998(31),1:1-11 <ul><li>Clinical features: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Age </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sex </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>race </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>HLA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hypertension </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Serum albumin </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Serum cholesterol </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Serum creatinine at presentation </li></ul></ul>
  23. 23. Idiopathic Membranous Nephropathy Poor Prognostic Factors(cont) Reichert et al, AJKD 1998(31),1:1-11 <ul><li>Urine protein </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Nephrotic syndrome </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>24HUP > 8g for > 6 months. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>C5b-9 excretion </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Biopsy appearances </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Focal sclerosis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tubulointerstitial disease </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Electron microscopy (stages III and IV) </li></ul></ul>
  24. 24. Predicting CRI in IMN Pei et al, KI 1992(42):960 <ul><li>Level of persistent proteinuria over time improve PPV of predicting renal insufficiency </li></ul>92 79 30 62 25 X=8, Y=12 88 88 66 66 47 X=8, Y =6 77 87 49 42 55 X=8, Y at biopsy 86 83 50 55 42 X=6, Y=12 78 90 75 54 65 X=6, Y= 6 64 84 66 38 80 X=6, at biopsy 75 84 58 44 61 X=4, Y=12 62 92 85 44 92 X=4 , Y=6 37 89 87 32 127 X=4 at biopsy spec NPV sens PPV n PP (> x g/day, >y month)
  25. 25. Membranous Nephropathy <ul><li>Do we lose ability to effectively treat by waiting?? </li></ul>
  26. 26. Conservative vs immunosuppression in IMN Torres et al KI 2002 (61): p 219-227 <ul><li>Retrospective study </li></ul><ul><li>Biopsy proven MN who developed progressive renal insufficiency (1975-2000) </li></ul><ul><li>Secondary membranous excluded. </li></ul><ul><li>Renal insufficiency: </li></ul><ul><li>SCr > 1.5 mg/dl + Cr Cl ,60 ml/min in at least3 consecutive determination </li></ul><ul><li>Renal insufficiency was progressive in all patients. Other causes of renal failure ruled out before attributing to glomerular disease </li></ul>
  27. 27. Conservative vs immunosuppression in IMN Torres et al KI 2002 (61): p 219-227 <ul><li>Therapeutic approaches: </li></ul><ul><li>First period 1975-1989: </li></ul><ul><li> conservative Mx for all. </li></ul><ul><li>Second period 1990-2000: </li></ul><ul><li>immunosuppressive to new patients with renal insufficiency of recent onset. </li></ul><ul><li>Prednisolone 1mg/kg/d x1/12 </li></ul><ul><li>0.5 mg/kg/d x 1/12 </li></ul><ul><li>0.5 mg/kg/eod x 4/12 </li></ul><ul><li>chlorambucil 0.15 mg/kg x 14 weeks. </li></ul>
  28. 28. Conservative vs immunosuppression in IMN Torres et al KI 2002 (61): p 219-227 <3g/dl >3.5 Nephrotic syndrome Normal normal 0.5-2.5 or 50% red fr baseline Partial remission normal Normal <0.5 Complete remission Renal function Serum albumin 24 HUP (g)
  29. 29. Conservative vs immunosuppression in IMN Torres et al KI 2002 (61): p 219-227 NS 15.7% 68% 15.7% 0% 10% 75% 15% 0 Stage of MN I II III IV NS 51.8 + 36.5 46.8 + 37.5 Follow-up (months) NS 14 + 18.6 10.8 + 11.8 Interval between bx and renal insufficiency NS 102 + 13 103 + 12 MAP NS 8.9 + 3.6 6.9 + 3.1 Proteinuria NS 11:8 15:5 Sex (M:F) NS 55 + 20 53 + 16 Age Treated(n=19) Nontreated(n=20)
  30. 30. Conservative vs immunosuppression in IMN Torres et al KI 2002 (61): p 219-227
  31. 31. Conservative vs immunosuppression in IMN Torres et al KI 2002 (61): p 219-227 treated Non-treated
  32. 32. Conservative vs immunosuppression in IMN Torres et al KI 2002 (61): p 219-227 Clinical status at end of follow-up 2 (10%) 5 (25%) Death 2 (10%) 13 (65%) Dialysis 4 (21%) 2 (10%) CRF 5 (26%) 0 24HUP>2.5g but N f(x) 2 (10%) 0 Partial remission 5 (26%) 0 Complete remission Treated (n=19) Non-treated (n=20)
  33. 33. Conservative vs immunosuppression in IMN Torres et al KI 2002 (61): p 219-227 Probability of renal survival (censoring death) Non-treated treated
  34. 34. Conservative vs immunosuppression in IMN Torres et al KI 2002 (61): p 219-227 <ul><li>No patients received immunosuppression until serum Cr 1.5 mg/dl or Cr Cl < 60 ml/min (mean 2.3 + 0.94) </li></ul><ul><li>Time to reach this point was 14 months after biopsy </li></ul><ul><li>Only 30% went to develop CRF compared to 75% if treated conservatively </li></ul><ul><li>Suggest that we can safely wait and observe the patient before beginning treatment and still alter the natural history </li></ul>
  35. 35. Risk of Progression Categories <ul><li>Low risk </li></ul><ul><li>normal renal function </li></ul><ul><li>Proteinuria < 4g/day for 6/12 </li></ul><ul><li>Medium risk </li></ul><ul><li>normal renal function </li></ul><ul><li>proteinuria > 4g/d < 8g/d for 6/12 </li></ul><ul><li>High risk </li></ul><ul><li>abnormal renal function or/and </li></ul><ul><li>persistent proteinuria >8g/d for >6/12 </li></ul>
  36. 36. Treatment Strategies <ul><li>Specific immunosuppression </li></ul><ul><li>Non-specific –reduction of proteinuria </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Dietary protein restriction </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>BP control </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ACE inhibitor/AARB </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Treatment of secondary effect </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Control of oedema - diuretics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hyperlipidaemia-statin </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Treatment prophylaxis </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Anticoagulation: against deep/renal vein thrombosis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PCP prophylaxis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Osteoporosis prophylaxis: high dose corticosteroid therapy </li></ul></ul>
  37. 37. Idiopathic Membranous Nephropathy Specific Immunosuppression <ul><li>Steroid alone </li></ul><ul><li>Steroid & cytotoxic </li></ul><ul><li>Cyclosporine. </li></ul>
  38. 38. Idiopathic Membranous Nephropathy Trials on Steroids RCT RCT RCT 77 51 38 placebo Pred 45 mg/m2 Pred 125 mg EOD x 8/52 Pred 100-125 mg EOD x8/52 and taper rx steroid N publications Author 81 158 NEJM 1989 (320):210 Cattran 52 103 QJM 1990 (74):133 Cameron 34 72 NEJM 1979 (301):1301 CSAINS
  39. 39. Idiopathic Membranous Nephropathy Trials on Steroids Secondary membranous Impaired GTT Use of cytotoxic within 6/12 Cr Cl < 30 ml/min Secondary membranous Exclusion criteria Inclusion criteria Author 24HUP > 0.3g/day Cr Cl > 0.25 ml/sec Cattran adult >15, <65 NS(alb<30,24HUP >3.5) Cameron Proteinuria > 3.5 g/1.73m 2 on > 2 occasion CSAINS
  40. 40. Idiopathic Membranous Nephropathy Trials on Steroids Definition (urine prot in g/24 hrs) Nephrotic syndrome Partial remisson Complete remission Author > 3.0 Reduction of more than 50% initial value <0.3 Cattran >3.5 Alb <30 0.0-3.5 0.0 Cameron > 2.0 0.2 -2.0 < 0.2 CSAINS
  41. 41. Steroids CSAINS 1979 0.008 0.008 NS NS 0.052 NS NS
  42. 42. Steroids Cattran et al, 1989
  43. 43. Steroids Cattran et al, 1989 P=0.4
  44. 44. Steroids Cameron et al. QJM 1990 ,74(27) :133-156
  45. 45. Steroids alone MRC Trial Cameron et al. QJM 1990 ,74(27) :133-156
  46. 46. Steroids alone MRC Trial Cameron et al. QJM 1990 ,74(27) :133-156 <ul><li>At 36 months, there were no significant difference between control and treatment group in: </li></ul><ul><li>Plasma Cr </li></ul><ul><li>Cr CL </li></ul><ul><li>24 hr urine protein excretion </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusion: </li></ul><ul><li>no significant benefit of high dose short term steroid treatment in the medium term </li></ul>
  47. 47. Steroid Alone Meta analysis Hogan et al, AJKD 1995(25): pg862 Outcome :Rate of complete remission 0.48-13.21 2.25 0.75 0.33 24 Kobayashi 0.99-2.44 1.55 total 0.75 1.75 5.33 RR 0.44-1.27 0.27 0.36 36 Cattran 0.54-5.65 0.15 0.08 36 Cameron 0.67-42.01 0.33 0.06 24 CSAIN 95% CI steroid Non-treated Follow-up (months) Study
  48. 48. Idiopathic Membranous Nephropathy Steroid alone :summary <ul><li>Therapy with corticosteroid alone does not: </li></ul><ul><li>increase the odds of complete remission </li></ul><ul><li>Influence renal survival. </li></ul>
  49. 49. Trials in IMN Cytotoxic + steroid Steroid alone Steroid +CBL 91 NEJM1992(327):599 Ponticelli conservative conservative Conservative comparison Active treatment N publications Author Cycloph+ warfarin + dipyridamole 40 Clin Nephrol, 1992(37):229 Murphy cycloph 22 KI 1974, 6: 431 Donadio Steroid +CBL 92 KI 1995(48): 1600 Ponticelli
  50. 50. IMN Steroids & cytotoxics versus conservative/no treatment Ponticelli, 1995(48):1600 PR: 24HUP: 0.21- 2.0 g, CR: 24HUP < 0.20 g Renal dysf(x): increase plasma Cr 50% fr baseline Later: renal survival and death End-points 10 years follow-up age<14 and > 65, Cr> 150umol/l,previous steroid or cytotoxic treatment, secondary membranous Exclusion criteria Nephrotic syndrome (24HUP > 3.5 g in 2 specimen, alb < 25g/L) – Inclusion criteria Conservative treatment Control gp N=39 methypred 1g x3/7 at month 0, 2, 4 then oral 0.4 mg/kg/d x27 days chlorambucil 0.2 mg/kg x 6/12 Treatment gp N=42
  51. 51. IMN Steroids & cytotoxics versus conservative treatment Ponticelli, 1995(48):1600 Schieppati 10 YRS =0.72 Ponticelli 10 YRS untreated 0.70
  52. 52. IMN Steroids & cytotoxics versus conservative treatment Ponticelli, 1995(48):1600 Probability of complete and partial remission Of nephrotic syndrome treated control
  53. 53. IMN Steroids & cytotoxics versus conservative/no treatment Ponticelli, 1995(48):1600 Clinical status at end of follow-up 9 2 Dialysis 3 1 death 8 4 Renal dysfunction 6 9 Nephrotic syndrome 11 9 Partial remission 2 17 Complete remission 39 42 Total Conservative treated
  54. 54. IMN Steroids & cytotoxics versus steroid alone Ponticelli NEJM1992(327):599-603 PR: 24HUP: 0.21- 2.0 g, CR: 24HUP < 0.20 g Renal dysf(x): increase plasma Cr 50% fr baseline End-points 2-4 years follow-up age<14 and > 65, Cr> 150umol/l,previous steroid or cytotoxic treatment, secondary membranous Exclusion criteria Nephrotic syndrome (24HUP > 3.5 g in 2 specimen, alb < 25g/L) Inclusion criteria Methylpred alone Control gp N=47 Cyclical –ponticelli regime Treatment gp N=45
  55. 55. IMN Steroids & cytotoxics versus steroid alone Ponticelli 1992(327):599-603 0.002 0.029 0.011 0.102
  56. 56. IMN Steroids & cytotoxics versus steroid alone Ponticelli 1992(327):599-603 Steroid + CBL steroid
  57. 57. IMN: Cytotoxics versus conservative/no treatment Murphy, Clin Nephrol, 1992(37):229 24HUP, Cr ,albumin outcome Diuretics and antihypertensives Conservative treatment Cyclophosphamide 1.5 mg/kg/day for 6/12 Dipyridamole100-400 mg daily Warfarin for 2 years Specific treatment N=19 Open randomized study Secondary membranous, proven RVT Prior cytotoxic treatment Exclusion >18 with histological diagnosis of IMN within 3 months of biopsy Proteinuria > 0.5 g/24 hr Inclusion
  58. 58. IMN:Cytotoxics versus conservative/no treatment Murphy Clin Nephrol, 1992(37):229 p<0.05
  59. 59. IMN:Cytotoxics versus conservative/no treatment Murphy Clin Nephrol, 1992(37):229 <ul><li>No effect on renal f(x) </li></ul><ul><li>Reduction in proteinuria </li></ul><ul><li>Significant increase in remission of NS </li></ul><ul><li>Short follow-up </li></ul>Remission of nephrotic syndrome <0.05 P value 9 4 total 2 1 Complete Remis. 7 3 Partial Remis. treatment N=13 conservative N=13
  60. 60. IMN:Cytotoxics versus conservative/no treatment Donadio, KI 1974 (6): 431 24HUP, Cr ,albumin outcome Diuretics and antihypertensives Conservative treatment Cyclophosphamide 1.5 -2.5 mg/kg/day for 1 year Specific treatment N=19 Open randomized study Secondary membranous, proven RVT Prior cytotoxic treatment Exclusion >18 with histological diagnosis of IMN within 3 months of biopsy Proteinuria > 2 g/24 hr Inclusion
  61. 61. IMN:Cytotoxics versus conservative/no treatment Donadio, KI 1974 (6): 4 <ul><li>Downward trend in proteinuria </li></ul><ul><li>No significant difference in the 2 groups </li></ul><ul><li>4/9 of treated gp had partial remission </li></ul><ul><li>2/9 of non-treated gp had partial remission </li></ul>Treatment gp Proteinuria
  62. 62. IMN:Cytotoxics versus conservative/no treatment Donadio, KI 1974 (6): 4 <ul><li>No changes in GFR </li></ul><ul><li>Inulin Cl : increased by 8 ml/min/1.73 m2 in treated gp </li></ul><ul><li> : increased by 2 ml/min/1.73 m2 in non-treated gp </li></ul><ul><li> : p=0.2 </li></ul>Cr Clearance
  63. 63. Idiopathic Membranous Nephropathy Trials on chlorambucil vs cyclophosphamide Ponticelli but monthly pulsed iv CYCL Ponticelli regime CBL 0.15 mg/kg 18 Annals int med 1994, 72(4):277 Reichert Similar but CBL substituted with cyclophos 2.5 mg/kg Ponticelli regime but chlorambucil 0.2 mg/kg 87 JASN 1998, 9(3):444 Ponticelli CBL substituted with cyclophos 1.5-2.0 mg/kg Ponticelli regime. CBL 0.15 mg/kg 32 QJM 1998 91(5):359 Branten Steroid & cyclophospha Steroid & chlorambucil N Publication Author
  64. 64. Idiopathic Membranous Nephropathy Trials on chlorambucil vs cyclophosphamide Cr>150 umol/l,Age <18 Secondary membranous DM , RVT IMN . NS with deteriorating renal f(x) Reichert N=18 IMN with nephrotic syndrome Ponticelli Cr>150 umol/l,Age <18 Secondary membranous DM , RVT IMN . NS with deteriorating renal f(x) Branten N=32 Exclusion Inclusion criteria Author
  65. 65. Steroids/cyclophosphamide vs steroid/chlorambucil Branten, QJM 1998 91(5):359 Greater efficacy with cyclophosphamide with better tolerability 26 (5-68) 38 (8-71) F/up (median ,range) <0.01 6/17 11/15 Adverse event <0.01 -121 - 6.3 Change in S Cr (umol/l) <0.05 1/17 4/15 Proportion of pt dev ESRD 15/17 164 + 86 to 274 + 126 cyclophosph <0.05 5/15 Remission of proteinuria 148 + 50 to 219 + 73 Serum Cr 6/12 preceeding rx P value chlorambucil
  66. 66. Steroids/cyclophosphamide vs steroid/chlorambucil Reichert et al. QJM 1994 121(5): 328 Pulsed iv cyclophosphamide is ineffective in treating IMN <0.05 -3.1 -2.6 Urine prot: Cr index (g/10 mmol) at 6/12 <0.05 +322 -38.0 Change Serum Cr at 12/12(umol/l0 <0.05 +79.0 -74.0 Change Serum Cr at 6/12(umol/l) 4/9 1/9 Patient reaching ESRD NS -2.9 -2.8 Urine prot: Cr index (g/10 mmol) at 12/12 P value Cyclophosph Chlorambucil
  67. 67. Steroids/cyclophosphamide vs steroid/chlorambucil Ponticelli JASN 1998, 9(3):444 Both treatment are effective in inducing remission and preserving renal function, ? Cyclophosphamide more effective and better tolerated 2 did not complete 0 zoster 6 did not complete 4 zoster Side effect NS 10/40 (25%) 11/36 (30.5%) Relapse between 6-30 months 0.116 40 (93%) 36 (82%) Remission (comp/part) P value Cyclophosphamide (n= 43) Chlorambucil (n=44)
  68. 68. Steroids & cytotoxics :meta-analysis Imperial et al, JASN 1995,5:1553-1558 <ul><li>5 controlled studies(4 randomized) </li></ul><ul><li>Treatment: </li></ul><ul><li>Chloramucil & prednisolone(6 months) or cyclophosphamide(6-12 months) </li></ul><ul><li>Outcome: </li></ul><ul><li>complete resolution of nephrotic syndrome 4x more likely with cytotoxic therapy </li></ul>
  69. 69. IMN: Trials on Cyclosporin RCT 64 KI 1995, 47(4):1130 Cattran Prednisolone 0.15mg/kg/D & placebo Prednisolone 0.15mg/kg/D & cyclosporine (3.5mg/kg/day) CSA level of 125-225 RCT 51 KI 2001, 59(4):1484 Cattran Control gp Study gp n publications Author
  70. 70. Cyclosporin Cattran 1995, KI Membranous n=64 Low protein diet <0.9g/kg/day Prog of renal failure Decrease in Cr Cl 8ml/min/year And persistent nephrosis Stable renal f(x) Placebo N=8 Cyclosporin N=9 for 12/12
  71. 71. Cyclosporin Cattran KI 1995, 47(4):1130 Slope of Cr Clearance (ml/min/month) 49 8 9 N - - -0.5 Non-randomized NS -2.1 -2.2 Placebo <0.02 -0.7 -2.4 Cyclosporin P value Part 2 Part 1
  72. 72. Cyclosporin Cattran KI 1995, 47(4):1130 cyclosporin placebo
  73. 73. Cyclosporin Cattran KI 1995, 47(4):1130 P=0.02 P=0.03
  74. 74. Cyclosporin Cattran et al, KI 2001,59(4):1484-90. Randomized double blind placebo controlled Study Complete remission (<0.3 g/day) Partial remission (50% reduction from baseline, and < 3.5 g/day with stable renal function) Stable f(x): Cr Cl within 15% of baseline) Outcome CSA at 3.5 mg/kg/day. Blood level 125 – 225 umol/l Pred 0.15 mg/kg/day Treatment Female unwilling to take effective birth control Comorbid condition with expected survival < 2 years Secondary membranous, DM malignancy Exclusion criteria Age 18-70, failure to achieve remission after 8 weeks of pred I mg/kg.proteinuria > 3.5g/day, Cr Cl> 42ml/min and BP< 135/85 Inclusion criteria
  75. 75. Cyclosporin Cattran et al, KI 2001,59(4):1484-90 . P=0.001 P=0.004 P=0.007

×