How to Assess Diabetic Kidney Disease Progression? From Albuminuria to GFR

Malaltia renal crònica; Diabetis mellitus; Malaltia renal diabèticaEnfermedad renal crónica; Diabetes mellitus; Enfermedad renal diabéticaChronic kidney disease; Diabetes mellitus; Diabetic kidney diseaseDiabetic kidney disease (DKD) is one of the most relevant complications of type 2 diabetes and dramatically increases the cardiovascular risk in these patients. Currently, DKD is severely infra-diagnosed, or its diagnosis is usually made at advanced stages of the disease. During the last decade, new drugs have demonstrated a beneficial effect in terms of cardiovascular and renal protection in type 2 diabetes, supporting the crucial role of an early DKD diagnosis to permit the use of new available therapeutic strategies. Moreover, cardiovascular and renal outcome trials, developed to study these new drugs, are based on diverse cardiovascular and renal simple and composite endpoints, which makes difficult their interpretation and the comparison between them. In this article, DKD diagnosis is reviewed, focusing on albuminuria and the recommendations for glomerular filtration rate measurement. Furthermore, cardiovascular and renal endpoints used in classical and recent cardiovascular outcome trials are assessed in a pragmatic way.The authors are current recipients of research grants from the Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria-Feder—Instituto de Salud Carlos III (PI17/00257) and REDinREN (RD16/0009/0030)

COVID-19 in Patients with Glomerular Disease: Follow-Up Results from the IRoc-GN International Registry

BACKGROUND: The acute and long-term effects of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection in individuals with GN are still unclear. To address this relevant issue, we created the International Registry of COVID-19 infection in GN. METHODS: We collected serial information on kidney-related and -unrelated outcomes from 125 GN patients (63 hospitalized and 62 outpatients) and 83 non-GN hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and a median follow-up period of 6.4 (interquartile range 2.3-9.6) months after diagnosis. We used logistic regression for the analyses of clinical outcomes and linear mixed models for the longitudinal analyses of eGFR. All multiple regression models were adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor use. RESULTS: After adjustment for pre-COVID-19 eGFR and other confounders, mortality and AKI did not differ between GN patients and controls (adjusted odds ratio for AKI=1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 3.60; P=0.64). The main predictor of AKI was pre-COVID-19 eGFR (adjusted odds ratio per 1 SD unit decrease in eGFR=3.04; 95% CI, 1.76 to 5.28; P<0.001). GN patients developing AKI were less likely to recover pre-COVID-19 eGFR compared with controls (adjusted 6-month post-COVID-19 eGFR=0.41; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.56; times pre-COVID-19 eGFR). Shorter duration of GN diagnosis, higher pre-COVID-19 proteinuria, and diagnosis of focal segmental glomerulosclerosis or minimal change disease were associated with a lower post-COVID-19 eGFR. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-COVID-19 eGFR is the main risk factor for AKI regardless of GN diagnosis. However, GN patients are at higher risk of impaired eGFR recovery after COVID-19-associated AKI. These patients (especially those with high baseline proteinuria or a diagnosis of focal segmental glomerulosclerosis or minimal change disease) should be closely monitored not only during the acute phases of COVID-19 but also after its resolution.Not heldUnknow

The STARMEN trial indicates that alternating treatment with corticosteroids and cyclophosphamide is superior to sequential treatment with tacrolimus and rituximab in primary membranous nephropathy

International audienc

Avacopan for the Treatment of ANCA-Associated Vasculitis

BACKGROUND: The C5a receptor inhibitor avacopan is being studied for the treatment of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis.METHODS: In this randomized, controlled trial, we assigned patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral avacopan at a dose of 30 mg twice daily or oral prednisone on a tapering schedule. All the patients received either cyclophosphamide (followed by azathioprine) or rituximab. The first primary end point was remission, defined as a Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS) of 0 (on a scale from 0 to 63, with higher scores indicating greater disease activity) at week 26 and no glucocorticoid use in the previous 4 weeks. The second primary end point was sustained remission, defined as remission at both weeks 26 and 52. Both end points were tested for noninferiority (by a margin of 20 percentage points) and for superiority.RESULTS: A total of 331 patients underwent randomization; 166 were assigned to receive avacopan, and 165 were assigned to receive prednisone. The mean BVAS at baseline was 16 in both groups. Remission at week 26 (the first primary end point) was observed in 120 of 166 patients (72.3%) receiving avacopan and in 115 of 164 patients (70.1%) receiving prednisone (estimated common difference, 3.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.0 to 12.8; P&lt;0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.24 for superiority). Sustained remission at week 52 (the second primary end point) was observed in 109 of 166 patients (65.7%) receiving avacopan and in 90 of 164 patients (54.9%) receiving prednisone (estimated common difference, 12.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 2.6 to 22.3; P&lt;0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.007 for superiority). Serious adverse events (excluding worsening vasculitis) occurred in 37.3% of the patients receiving avacopan and in 39.0% of those receiving prednisone.CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, avacopan was noninferior but not superior to prednisone taper with respect to remission at week 26 and was superior to prednisone taper with respect to sustained remission at week 52. All the patients received cyclophosphamide or rituximab. The safety and clinical effects of avacopan beyond 52 weeks were not addressed in the trial. (Funded by ChemoCentryx; ADVOCATE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02994927.)

Avacopan for the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis

BACKGROUND The C5a receptor inhibitor avacopan is being studied for the treatment of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis. METHODS In this randomized, controlled trial, we assigned patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral avacopan at a dose of 30 mg twice daily or oral prednisone on a tapering schedule. All the patients received either cyclophosphamide (followed by azathioprine) or rituximab. The first primary end point was remission, defined as a Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS) of 0 (on a scale from 0 to 63, with higher scores indicating greater disease activity) at week 26 and no glucocorticoid use in the previous 4 weeks. The second primary end point was sustained remission, defined as remission at both weeks 26 and 52. Both end points were tested for noninferiority (by a margin of 20 percentage points) and for superiority. RESULTS A total of 331 patients underwent randomization; 166 were assigned to receive avacopan, and 165 were assigned to receive prednisone. The mean BVAS at baseline was 16 in both groups. Remission at week 26 (the first primary end point) was observed in 120 of 166 patients (72.3%) receiving avacopan and in 115 of 164 patients (70.1%) receiving prednisone (estimated common difference, 3.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.0 to 12.8; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P = 0.24 for superiority). Sustained remission at week 52 (the second primary end point) was observed in 109 of 166 patients (65.7%) receiving avacopan and in 90 of 164 patients (54.9%) receiving prednisone (estimated common difference, 12.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 2.6 to 22.3; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P = 0.007 for superiority). Serious adverse events (excluding worsening vasculitis) occurred in 37.3% of the patients receiving avacopan and in 39.0% of those receiving prednisone. CONCLUSIONS In this trial involving patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, avacopan was noninferior but not superior to prednisone taper with respect to remission at week 26 and was superior to prednisone taper with respect to sustained remission at week 52. All the patients received cyclophosphamide or rituximab. The safety and clinical effects of avacopan beyond 52 weeks were not addressed in the trial. (Funded by ChemoCentryx; ADVOCATE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02994927.)

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 &lt;60 mL/min per 1·73 m2 and ≥60 mL/min per 1·73 m2) and urine protein excretion at screening (≤1·75 g/day and &gt;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&lt;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

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