Interventions for renal vasculitis in adults. A systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Renal vasculitis presents as rapidly progressive glomerulonephritis and comprises of a group of conditions characterised by acute kidney failure, haematuria and proteinuria. Treatment of these conditions involves the use of steroid and non-steroid agents with or without adjunctive plasma exchange. Although immunosuppression has been successful, many questions remain unanswered in terms of dose and duration of therapy, the use of plasma exchange and the role of new therapies. This systematic review was conducted to determine the benefits and harms of any intervention for the treatment of renal vasculitis in adults.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Renal Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE to June 2009. Randomised controlled trials investigating any intervention for the treatment of adults were included. Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using a random effects model and results expressed as risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals for dichotomous outcomes or mean difference for continuous outcomes.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Twenty two studies (1674 patients) were included. Plasma exchange as adjunctive therapy significantly reduces the risk of end-stage kidney disease at 12 months (five studies: RR 0.47, CI 0.30 to 0.75). Four studies compared the use of pulse and continuous administration of cyclophosphamide. Remission rates were equivalent but pulse treatment causes an increased risk of relapse (4 studies: RR 1.79, CI 1.11 to 2.87) compared with continuous cyclophosphamide. Azathioprine has equivalent efficacy as a maintenance agent to cyclophosphamide with fewer episodes of leukopenia. Mycophenolate mofetil may be equivalent to cyclophosphamide as an induction agent but resulted in a higher relapse rate when tested against Azathioprine in remission maintenance. Rituximab is an effective remission induction agent. Methotrexate or Leflunomide are potential choices in remission maintenance therapy. Oral co-trimoxazole did not reduce relapses significantly in Wegener's granulomatosis.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Plasma exchange is effective in patients with severe ARF secondary to vasculitis. Pulse cyclophosphamide results in an increased risk of relapse when compared to continuous oral use but a reduced total dose. Whilst cyclophosphamide is standard induction treatment, rituximab and mycophenolate mofetil are also effective. Azathioprine, methotrexate and leflunomide are effective as maintenance therapy. Further studies are required to more clearly delineate the appropriate place of newer agents within an evidence-based therapeutic strategy.</p

Rituximab in Combination with Corticosteroids for the Treatment of Anti-Neutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody-Associated Vasculitis: A NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of rituximab (Roche Products) to submit evidence of the clinical and cost effectiveness of rituximab in combination with corticosteroids for treatment of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, based upon the manufacturer’s submission to NICE. The evidence was derived mainly from a double-blind, phase III, placebo-controlled trial of rituximab in patients with new or relapsed ‘severe’ AAV, which compared a rituximab treatment regimen with an oral cyclophosphamide treatment regimen. Intravenous cyclophosphamide is also commonly used but was not included in the pivotal trial. The evidence showed that rituximab is noninferior to oral cyclophosphamide in terms of induction of remission in adults with AAV and de novo disease, and is superior to oral cyclophosphamide in terms of remission in adults who have relapsed once on cyclophosphamide. The ERG concluded that the results of the manufacturer’s economic evaluation could not be considered robust, because of errors and because the full range of relevant treatment sequences were not modelled. The ERG amended the manufacturer’s model and demonstrated that rituximab was likely to represent a cost-effective addition to the treatment sequence if given after cyclophosphamide treatment

Benefits of an expanded use of plasma exchange for anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis within a dedicated clinical service

BACKGROUND: Current recommendations for ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) support its management within a dedicated clinical service. Therapies for AAV are imperfect with many patients failing to achieve disease control and others experiencing disease relapse. Plasma exchange (PEX) may be beneficial especially when the kidney is involved. METHODS: Within a new, dedicated service we retrospectively assessed, over a 6-year period, the benefits of PEX in two patient cohorts, discriminated by PEX treatment alone. Patients received PEX alongside standard of care if they fulfilled any of the following criteria: 1. serum creatinine >500 μmol/l or dialysis-requiring renal failure, 2. alveolar haemorrhage, 3. renal biopsy showing ≥30 % focal and necrotising lesions ± cellular crescents. Outcome measures included disease remission and relapse, cumulative immunosuppression, and morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Of 104 new patients, 58 patients received PEX at presentation, 46 did not. Cyclophosphamide and/or rituximab dosing was similar for both groups. Although patients receiving PEX had poorer renal function, a higher C-reactive protein and disease activity score at presentation disease remission rate was similar in both groups (no PEX vs. PEX: 96 % vs. 98 %). The PEX group entered remission quicker (no PEX vs. PEX: 3.9 ± 4.0 vs. 2.8 ± 1.3 months, p < 0.05), with a lower 3-month cumulative glucocorticoid dose (no PEX vs. PEX: 2.5 ± 0.4 vs. 2.3 ± 0.2 g, p < 0.001). Relapse was similar between groups but adverse events lower in the PEX group. CONCLUSIONS: PEX may be of benefit in AAV. Larger, longer randomised controlled trials are now needed. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-015-0796-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users