Complement Activation and Thrombotic Microangiopathies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome is a form of thrombotic microangiopathy caused by dysregulation of the alternative complement pathway. There is evidence showing complement activation in other thrombotic microangiopathies. The aim of this study was to evaluate complement activation in different thrombotic microangiopathies and to monitor treatment response. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Complement activation was assessed by exposing endothelial cells to sera or activated-patient plasma-citrated plasma mixed with a control sera pool (1:1)-to analyze C5b-9 deposits by immunofluorescence. Patients with atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (n=34) at different stages of the disease, HELLP syndrome (a pregnancy complication characterized by hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelet count) or severe preeclampsia (n=10), and malignant hypertension (n=5) were included. RESULTS: Acute phase atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome-activated plasma induced an increased C5b-9 deposition on endothelial cells. Standard and lower doses of eculizumab inhibited C5b-9 deposition in all patients with atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome, except in two who showed partial remission and clinical relapse. Significant fibrin formation was observed together with C5b-9 deposition. Results obtained using activated-plasma samples were more marked and reproducible than those obtained with sera. C5b-9 deposition was also increased with samples from patients with HELLP (all cases) and preeclampsia (90%) at disease onset. This increase was sustained in those with HELLP after 40 days, and levels normalized in patients with both HELLP and preeclampsia after 6-9 months. Complement activation in those with malignant hypertension was at control levels. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed methodology identifies complement overactivation in patients with atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome at acute phase and in other diseases such as HELLP syndrome and preeclampsia. Moreover, it is sensitive enough to individually assess the efficiency of the C5 inhibition treatment

Complement Activation and Thrombotic Microangiopathies

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome is a form of thrombotic microangiopathy caused by dysregulation of the alternative complement pathway. There is evidence showing complement activation in other thrombotic microangiopathies. The aim of this study was to evaluate complement activation in different thrombotic microangiopathies and to monitor treatment response. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Complement activation was assessed by exposing endothelial cells to sera or activated-patient plasma-citrated plasma mixed with a control sera pool (1:1)-to analyze C5b-9 deposits by immunofluorescence. Patients with atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (n=34) at different stages of the disease, HELLP syndrome (a pregnancy complication characterized by hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelet count) or severe preeclampsia (n=10), and malignant hypertension (n=5) were included. RESULTS: Acute phase atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome-activated plasma induced an increased C5b-9 deposition on endothelial cells. Standard and lower doses of eculizumab inhibited C5b-9 deposition in all patients with atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome, except in two who showed partial remission and clinical relapse. Significant fibrin formation was observed together with C5b-9 deposition. Results obtained using activated-plasma samples were more marked and reproducible than those obtained with sera. C5b-9 deposition was also increased with samples from patients with HELLP (all cases) and preeclampsia (90%) at disease onset. This increase was sustained in those with HELLP after 40 days, and levels normalized in patients with both HELLP and preeclampsia after 6-9 months. Complement activation in those with malignant hypertension was at control levels. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed methodology identifies complement overactivation in patients with atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome at acute phase and in other diseases such as HELLP syndrome and preeclampsia. Moreover, it is sensitive enough to individually assess the efficiency of the C5 inhibition treatment

Reproducibility of the Oxford classification of immunoglobulin A nephropathy, impact of biopsy scoring on treatment allocation and clinical relevance of disagreements: Evidence from the VALidation of IGA study cohort

Background: The VALidation of IGA (VALIGA) study investigated the utility of the Oxford Classification of immunoglobulin A nephropathy (IgAN) in 1147 patients from 13 European countries. Methods. Biopsies were scored by local pathologists followed by central review in Oxford. We had two distinct objectives: to assess how closely pathology findings were associated with the decision to give corticosteroid/immunosuppressive (CS/IS) treatments, and to determine the impact of differences in MEST-C scoring between central and local pathologists on the clinical value of the Oxford Classification. We tested for each lesion the associations between the type of agreement (local and central pathologists scoring absent, local present and central absent, local absent and central present, both scoring present) with the initial clinical assessment, as well as long-term outcomes in those patients who did not receive CS/IS. Results: All glomerular lesions (M, E, C and S) assessed by local pathologists were independently associated with the decision to administer CS/IS therapy, while the severity of tubulointerstitial lesions was not. Reproducibility between local and central pathologists was moderate for S (segmental sclerosis) and T (tubular atrophy/interstitial fibrosis), and poor for M (mesangial hypercellularity), E (endocapillary hypercellularity) and C (crescents). Local pathologists found statistically more of each lesion, except for the S lesion, which was more frequent with central review. Disagreements were more likely to occur when the proportion of glomeruli affected was low. The M lesion, assessed by central pathologists, correlated better with the severity of the disease at presentation and discriminated better with outcomes. In contrast, the E lesion, evaluated by local pathologists, correlated better with the clinical presentation and outcomes when compared with central review. Both C and S lesions, when discordant between local and central pathologists, had a clinical phenotype intermediate to double absent lesions (milder disease) and double present (more severe). Conclusion: We conclude that differences in the scoring of MEST-C criteria between local pathologists and a central reviewer have a significant impact on the prognostic value of the Oxford Classification. Since the decision to offer immunosuppressive therapy in this cohort was intimately associated with the MEST-C score, this study indicates a need for a more detailed guidance for pathologists in the scoring of IgAN biopsies

Efficacy and safety of sparsentan versus irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy (PROTECT): 2-year results from a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial

BackgroundSparsentan, a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist, significantly reduced proteinuria versus irbesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, at 36 weeks (primary endpoint) in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy in the phase 3 PROTECT trial's previously reported interim analysis. Here, we report kidney function and outcomes over 110 weeks from the double-blind final analysis.MethodsPROTECT, a double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, was done across 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries throughout the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy-proven primary IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of at least 1·0 g per day despite maximised renin–angiotensin system inhibition for at least 12 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sparsentan (target dose 400 mg oral sparsentan once daily) or irbesartan (target dose 300 mg oral irbesartan once daily) based on a permuted-block randomisation method. The primary endpoint was proteinuria change between treatment groups at 36 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of change (slope) of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), changes in proteinuria, a composite of kidney failure (confirmed 40% eGFR reduction, end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality), and safety and tolerability up to 110 weeks from randomisation. Secondary efficacy outcomes were assessed in the full analysis set and safety was assessed in the safety set, both of which were defined as all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of randomly assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850.FindingsBetween Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 203 patients were randomly assigned to the sparsentan group and 203 to the irbesartan group. One patient from each group did not receive the study drug and was excluded from the efficacy and safety analyses (282 [70%] of 404 included patients were male and 272 [67%] were White) . Patients in the sparsentan group had a slower rate of eGFR decline than those in the irbesartan group. eGFR chronic 2-year slope (weeks 6–110) was −2·7 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·8 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·1 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI 0·1 to 2·1; p=0·037); total 2-year slope (day 1–week 110) was −2·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·0 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI −0·03 to 1·94; p=0·058). The significant reduction in proteinuria at 36 weeks with sparsentan was maintained throughout the study period; at 110 weeks, proteinuria, as determined by the change from baseline in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, was 40% lower in the sparsentan group than in the irbesartan group (−42·8%, 95% CI −49·8 to −35·0, with sparsentan versus −4·4%, −15·8 to 8·7, with irbesartan; geometric least-squares mean ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·50 to 0·72). The composite kidney failure endpoint was reached by 18 (9%) of 202 patients in the sparsentan group versus 26 (13%) of 202 patients in the irbesartan group (relative risk 0·7, 95% CI 0·4 to 1·2). Treatment-emergent adverse events were well balanced between sparsentan and irbesartan, with no new safety signals.InterpretationOver 110 weeks, treatment with sparsentan versus maximally titrated irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy resulted in significant reductions in proteinuria and preservation of kidney function

Sparsentan in patients with IgA nephropathy: a prespecified interim analysis from a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial

Background: Sparsentan is a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin and angiotensin receptor antagonist being examined in an ongoing phase 3 trial in adults with IgA nephropathy. We report the prespecified interim analysis of the primary proteinuria efficacy endpoint, and safety. Methods: PROTECT is an international, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled study, being conducted in 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries. The study examines sparsentan versus irbesartan in adults (aged ≥18 years) with biopsy-proven IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of 1·0 g/day or higher despite maximised renin-angiotensin system inhibitor treatment for at least 12 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sparsentan 400 mg once daily or irbesartan 300 mg once daily, stratified by estimated glomerular filtration rate at screening (30 to 1·75 g/day). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 36 in urine protein-creatinine ratio based on a 24-h urine sample, assessed using mixed model repeated measures. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were safety endpoints. All endpoints were examined in all participants who received at least one dose of randomised treatment. The study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings: Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 404 participants were randomly assigned to sparsentan (n=202) or irbesartan (n=202) and received treatment. At week 36, the geometric least squares mean percent change from baseline in urine protein-creatinine ratio was statistically significantly greater in the sparsentan group (-49·8%) than the irbesartan group (-15·1%), resulting in a between-group relative reduction of 41% (least squares mean ratio=0·59; 95% CI 0·51-0·69; p<0·0001). TEAEs with sparsentan were similar to irbesartan. There were no cases of severe oedema, heart failure, hepatotoxicity, or oedema-related discontinuations. Bodyweight changes from baseline were not different between the sparsentan and irbesartan groups. Interpretation: Once-daily treatment with sparsentan produced meaningful reduction in proteinuria compared with irbesartan in adults with IgA nephropathy. Safety of sparsentan was similar to irbesartan. Future analyses after completion of the 2-year double-blind period will show whether these beneficial effects translate into a long-term nephroprotective potential of sparsentan. Funding: Travere Therapeutics

Efficacy and safety of sparsentan versus irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy (PROTECT): 2-year results from a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background Sparsentan, a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist, significantly reduced proteinuria versus irbesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, at 36 weeks (primary endpoint) in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy in the phase 3 PROTECT trial's previously reported interim analysis. Here, we report kidney function and outcomes over 110 weeks from the double-blind final analysis. Methods PROTECT, a double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, was done across 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries throughout the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy-proven primary IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of at least 1·0 g per day despite maximised renin–angiotensin system inhibition for at least 12 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sparsentan (target dose 400 mg oral sparsentan once daily) or irbesartan (target dose 300 mg oral irbesartan once daily) based on a permuted-block randomisation method. The primary endpoint was proteinuria change between treatment groups at 36 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of change (slope) of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), changes in proteinuria, a composite of kidney failure (confirmed 40% eGFR reduction, end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality), and safety and tolerability up to 110 weeks from randomisation. Secondary efficacy outcomes were assessed in the full analysis set and safety was assessed in the safety set, both of which were defined as all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of randomly assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 203 patients were randomly assigned to the sparsentan group and 203 to the irbesartan group. One patient from each group did not receive the study drug and was excluded from the efficacy and safety analyses (282 [70%] of 404 included patients were male and 272 [67%] were White) . Patients in the sparsentan group had a slower rate of eGFR decline than those in the irbesartan group. eGFR chronic 2-year slope (weeks 6–110) was −2·7 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·8 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·1 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI 0·1 to 2·1; p=0·037); total 2-year slope (day 1–week 110) was −2·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·0 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI −0·03 to 1·94; p=0·058). The significant reduction in proteinuria at 36 weeks with sparsentan was maintained throughout the study period; at 110 weeks, proteinuria, as determined by the change from baseline in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, was 40% lower in the sparsentan group than in the irbesartan group (−42·8%, 95% CI −49·8 to −35·0, with sparsentan versus −4·4%, −15·8 to 8·7, with irbesartan; geometric least-squares mean ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·50 to 0·72). The composite kidney failure endpoint was reached by 18 (9%) of 202 patients in the sparsentan group versus 26 (13%) of 202 patients in the irbesartan group (relative risk 0·7, 95% CI 0·4 to 1·2). Treatment-emergent adverse events were well balanced between sparsentan and irbesartan, with no new safety signals. Interpretation Over 110 weeks, treatment with sparsentan versus maximally titrated irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy resulted in significant reductions in proteinuria and preservation of kidney function.</p