Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lupus Nephritis Evidence Report PDF
Lupus Nephritis Evidence Report PDF
Guidelines for the Screening, Treatment and Monitoring of Lupus Nephritis in Adults
Working Group
UCLA
Bevra H. Hahn, MD (Rheum)
Jennifer M. Grossman, MD (Rheum)
Maureen McMahon, MD (Rheum)
W Dean Wallace, MD (Path)
Karandeep Singh, MD (Nephrology)
Soo-In Choi, MD (Rheum)
Justin Peng, MD (Rheum)
Mazdak Khalighi, MD (Path)
Maneesh Gogia, MD (Rheum)
John FitzGerald, MD (Rheum)
Alan Wilkinson, MD (Renal)
Suzanne Kafaja, MD (Rheum)
William J Martin, MD (Rheum)
Christine Lau, MD (Nephrology)
Sefali Parikh, MD (Nephrology)
Mohammad Kamgar, MD (Nephrology)
Anjay Rastogi, MD (Nephrology)
Weiling Chen, MA (Rheum)
Cheryl C Lee, BA (Rheum)
Rikke Ogawa (Librarian)
UCLA-Harbor
George A. Karpouzas, MD (Rheum)
Oklahoma
Joan T. Merrill, MD (Rheum)
UCSF
Jinoos Yazdany, MD (Rheum)
David Daikh, MD (Rheum)
Abbreviations
1. Introduction
APPENDICES
A. Search Strategy
B. Abstraction Tool – Abstracts
C. Abstraction Tool – RCT Articles
D. Abstraction Tool – Cohort Articles
E. Case Scenarios
REFERENCES
ABBREVIATIONS
Important clinical advances have been made since the last ACR guidelines on diagnosis and
management of SLE were published in 1999 (1). Those advances include a) improved histologic
classification of subsets in renal biopsies (2), b) better management strategies to reduce renal
damage (3), c) improved instruments to measure disease activity, damage, flare, and response
to therapies ACR response criteria 2004 (4-9) and d) introduction of new treatments with
evidence for equal or better response rates and less toxicity compared to the “standard”
therapies reviewed in the 1999 (1). The promise of biologic therapies is now on the near
horizon with very recent reports of successful clinical trials in lupus (e.g. Belimumab (10)) and
lupus nephritis (e.g. ALMS (11)). In addition, the methodology underlying guidelines for medical
therapy has improved dramatically (see for example the 2008 ACR guidelines for treatment of
rheumatoid arthritis (12). Therefore, it is timely for the ACR to issue updated guidelines for
screening, treatment and monitoring in people with lupus nephritis.
The purpose of this systematic review generated evidence-based report is to help develop
clinical scenarios to be used for guideline development utilizing a collaborative effort with a
working group (WG) and core expert panel (CEP) of clinicians and methodologists.
a. Methodology
Search Strategy
We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and large cohort studies for
the therapies identified by the CEP that have been used in treatment of Lupus Nephritis. The
therapies chosen were selected on the basis of their availability to be used in treatment of lupus
nephritis. Therapies currently in development and not yet available on the market were not
reviewed. The search strategy is outlined in Appendix A, and briefly, used Medline (through
PubMed) by applying MeSH headings and relevant keywords with references through 1/22/2010.
The search was updated on August 8, 2010.
For randomized clinical trial, articles were excluded if total number of lupus nephritis patients in
the study were less than 30.
For cohort studies, articles were included using the following criteria:
-if treatment has already been studied in randomized clinical trial, the cohort study must
have either higher number of patients and/or longer study duration
- if treatment has not been studied in randomized clinical trial but is or will anticipated to
be commercially available (e.g. rituximab, stem cell)
Accepted Randomized Clinical Trials, articles were then reviewed and the relevant data
abstracted using a standardized data abstraction forms (Appendix C). The full text of all the
articles was reviewed and data abstracted by two reviewers. For Cohort Studies, full text of all
the articles was reviewed and data abstracted by at least one reviewer with more than 50% of
the articles undergoing duplicate independent data abstraction and reconciliation to ensure
consistency and accuracy. (Appendix D – cohort study abstraction form). The principle
investigator adjudicated discrepant results in both.
Accepted articles in pathology, renal transplant and end stage renal disease articles, pregnancy,
biomarker, and socio-economic quality of life were sent to designated reviewers.
Quality Assessment
The quality of RCTs was assessed using the Jadad instrument (13). The Jadad scale ranges
from 0-5 based on points given for randomization, blinding, and accounting for withdrawals and
dropouts. The quality of the cohort Studies was assessed using the New Castle-Ottawa Quality
Assessment Scale (14). The New Castle-Ottawa scale ranges from 0 – 9 stars based on points
given for selection, comparability and exposure.
The anonymous ratings of the 1st round of ratings were reviewed with the panelists at each
meeting. Through discussion of definitions and scenario, the reasons for the uncertain category
were identified and resolution of discrepancies were attempted by modification of the scenarios,
clarification of definitions, or acknowledgement of discordance between clinical practice
experience and the medical literature.
Evidence for the Screening, Treatment and Monitoring of Lupus Nephritis in Adults.
The primary role of the renal biopsy is to provide information to guide treatment. Historically,
the proliferative lesions (class III and IV LN) have been regarded as clinically more severe and
require immunosuppressive therapy (26-28). It has been recognized that these classes have
wide variability in activity and chronicity and the exact point at which immunosuppression should
be started or increased has been widely investigated. A review of the literature demonstrates a
lack of consensus regarding which lesions respond to therapy and at what point treatment
should be initiated. Nevertheless, many studies have shown cellular crescents, glomerular
necrosis with karyorrhectic debris, subendothelial deposits, and tubulointerstitial inflammation all
correlate with acute renal insufficiency and demonstrate a response to immunosuppressive
therapy (29-34).
The corollary to the activity index is the chronicity index. Beyond a certain point, it is futile to
attempt aggressive therapy. The point at which renal scarring precludes improvement by
treatment has been investigated and should always be an important consideration in the
evaluation of the renal biopsy. Sclerosing lupus nephritis (class VI) with 90% or greater
glomerular sclerosis has consistently been shown to have poor prognosis or no response to
treatment (35). In one study, patients younger than 23 with any form of renal scarring have
been found to be at 50% risk for renal failure at 8 years (24). Furthermore, numerous studies
have found each chronicity marker, specifically global and/or segmental glomerulosclerosis,
fibrous crescents, tubular atrophy and interstitial fibrosis, to be individual risk factors for renal
failure and in combination indicate very high risk (29, 36-40). Chronic lesions have poor
prognostic implications even in the setting of normal renal function (41).
The specific lesions and threshold of activity that require treatment have been investigated.
Studies have shown no or limited response to immunosuppressive treatment in patients with
mesangial lupus nephritis (class I and class II). However this should be considered in light of
data revealing 50% of patients with class II lupus nephritis have no evidence of renal disease
(42). Patients with subepithelial deposits only (class V) have minimal improvement of serum
creatinine when treated with immunosuppressive therapy, but may improve proteinuria (43-45).
In the setting of combined proliferative LN (class III or IV) and membranous LN (class V), the
proliferative process dominates the clinical picture and is a better indicator of response to
treatment (46).
There are several findings on the renal biopsy that can strongly suggest lupus as the etiology of
the glomerulonephritis. These include “full house” deposition of immunoglobulins and
complements (IgG, IgA, IgM, C1q and C3) demonstrated by immunofluorescence microscopy
and tubuloreticular structures in endothelial cells seen by electron microscopy (47).
Nevertheless, there are no features that are pathognomonic for lupus nephritis and it is
recommended in the ISN/RPS classification system to defer the diagnosis of lupus nephritis in
the absence of collaborating clinical evidence (21). Of course, the renal biopsy is also an
important diagnostic tool to detect non lupus-related renal diseases or, rarely, subclinical lupus
nephritis (42).
Tubulointerstitial inflammation is most commonly present with class III or IV LN and associated
with immune complex deposits in 73% of cases (54). This suggests immune complex deposits
cause most but not all cases of tubulointerstitial inflammation. The role of tubulointerstitial
scarring as an independent risk factor for chronic renal failure has previously been discussed
(24, 41).
Data are compiled into an excel sheet that includes Intervention and Outcome (I-O) and a
separate sheet including Adverse Events (AEs). Yellow highlights indicate statistically
significant parameter within treatment arm from baseline to after treatment. Orange highlights
indicate statistically significant parameter between treatment arms.
Cohort Studies
In Cohort studies, 25 peer-reviewed articles were abstracted based on commercially available
therapies, large # cohorts or long duration of the study. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale is calculated
indicating the quality assessment of the article. Please see Table 6.
Data are compiled into an excel sheet that includes Intervention and Outcome (I-O) and a
separate sheet including Adverse Events (AEs). Yellow highlights indicate statistically
significant parameter within treatment arm from baseline to after treatment. Orange highlights
indicate statistically significant parameter between treatment arms.
When lupus nephritis results in end stage renal disease, dialysis must be given consideration.
There is some evidence to suggest that patients who receive peritoneal dialysis have better
post-transplant graft outcomes as compared to those receiving hemodialysis (56). However,
candidacy for peritoneal dialysis requires the presence of some residual kidney function, and as
that is lost hemodialysis is usually required to achieve sufficient clearance.
The timing for transplantation is not an issue for those without donors. However, if there is ready
access to a living related kidney donor, preemptive transplantation is generally a good option.
One small study found that dialysis greater than 25 months may be associated with worse graft
survival in transplant recipients (57), while other studies (58-59) found no association between
duration of dialysis and graft outcomes. A study reviewing USRDS data over a several-year
period (56) found no difference in recipient mortality in patients receiving hemodialysis prior to
transplant versus no dialysis prior to transplant, although there was a trend towards worse graft
outcomes in patients not receiving any dialysis (hazard ratio 1.3, p = 0.055).
One-, three-, and five-year rates of graft survival reported in the literature range from 68.8-
93.6%, 56-84%, and 33-89%, respectively. Weighted mean 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft survival
based on number of transplants per study was 85.1%, 60.9%, and 43.9%, respectively. One-,
three-, and five-year rates of kidney transplant recipient survival reported in the literature range
from 86.5-99.2%, 61-97.2%, and 36-96%, respectively. Weighted mean 1-, 3-, and 5-year
patient survival based on number of transplants per study was 93.3%, 70.1%, and 53.5%,
respectively.
Immunosuppressive medications
The use of calcineurin inhibitors, mycophenolate mofetil/mycophenolic acid, and azathioprine is
considered the mainstay of immunosuppressive therapy in all kidney transplant recipients.
Therefore, it is not surprising that the use of these drugs has been associated with improved
outcomes in kidney transplant recipients with lupus nephritis. Recipients with lupus nephritis
who were not treated with a calcineurin inhibitor had an 89% greater risk of graft failure and an
80% greater risk of death. Those who did not receive either mycophenolic acid or azathioprine
had a 41% increased risk of graft failure and a 66% increased risk of death (56).
Summary
In summary, kidney transplantation for lupus nephritis should be treated similarly to kidney
transplantation for other causes of renal failure. Ideally, lupus should be clinically quiescent at
the time of transplant. Peritoneal dialysis should be chosen over hemodialysis as a bridge to
transplantation if a living-related kidney donor is not readily available. Graft and patient survival
in kidney transplant recipients with lupus nephritis are generally on par with non-lupus-related
kidney transplant recipients. The presence of lupus should not influence choice of
immunosuppressive medications. Certain factors can be predictive of worse graft and recipient
outcomes. Please see Table 7 for Summary of End Stage Renal Disease/Renal
Transplantation Articles.
The most frequent maternal complications included lupus flare (25.6%), hypertension
(16.3%), nephritis (16.1%) (no specification given regarding frequency of new disease vs.
recurrence), and pre-eclampsia (7.6%). Severe complications, including eclampsia, stroke, and
maternal death were observed in <1% of subjects. Maternal deaths occurred because of
opportunistic infections, sepsis, flares of lupus nephritis, and renal impairment.
Random-effects meta-regression analysis was performed to assess the effects of
nephritis on pregnancy outcomes. Active nephritis was significantly associated with maternal
hypertension and preterm birth, whereas a history of nephritis was significantly associated with
hypertension and pre-eclampsia. After controlling for hypertension, the association between
active nephritis and preterm birth was still statistically significant.
Nine papers of thrity-seven correlated renal histology with maternal and/or fetal
outcomes. Among these studies, there was no statistically significant association seen between
histologic subclass and the rate of unsuccessful pregnancy or any pregnancy complication.
Relationship of Drugs Used to Treat Nephritis and Outcome of Pregnancy in Lupus Nephritis
We did not identify any randomized controlled studies that examined the use of medications to
treat lupus nephritis in pregnancy. We did identify one retrospective case series that
correlated outcomes of pregnancy with treatments of lupus (70). In this study, there were no
differences in outcome seen between patients treated with prednisolone alone, prednisolone
plus azathioprine, and those who received no treatment. 21/23 pregnancies in women taking
azathioprine were successful. A summary of data from MICROMEDEX regarding known
information about the teratogenic effects of commonly used medications in lupus nephritis is
presented in Table 8.
Articles for the evidence report came from four sources; recent reviews (72-74), the evidence
report for Quality Measures in SLE, kindly provided by Jinoos Yazdani, MD, expert identified
articles, and articles from the RCT, CCT and cohort searches as described in the methods
section.
A more recent randomized study by Tseng et al.(75) followed 154 patients monthly for up to 18
months. During follow-up, 41 patients were characterized as having serological flares (elevation
of both anti-dsDNA level by 25% and the C3a level by 50% over the previous 1-2 monthly visits).
Using a double-blind design, half of these patients received 30 mg/day of prednisone or a
placebo for two weeks, followed by a taper over the ensuing 2 weeks. A statistically significant
reduction in flares in the group receiving prednisone was observed. However, this study also
illustrated that the positive predictive value for these biomarkers for clinical flares in SLE was
suboptimal, and that many patients would be over-treated if the serological cutoffs used in this
study were used.
Anti-dsDNA
Anti-dsDNA antibodies have high specificity for SLE and are found in up to 70% of patients at
some point in the course of the disease. Several lines of indirect evidence support the utility of
checking anti-dsDNA antibodies at baseline (at a minimum) in patients with SLE. These
include:
3) Evidence that the presence of these antibodies may identify patients with an increased
chance of specific severe disease manifestations over time, such as glomerulonephritis.
As illustrated in Table 9, the positive likelihood ratios of 4.14 (disease activity), 1.7 (renal
involvement), and 1.7 (renal activity) show that the presence of anti-DNA can influence the
likelihood of important disease parameters. These overall effects are small, but significant. The
general conclusion from these data is that anti-DNA antibodies remain an important clinical tool
in the management of SLE. However, the specific weighted means are likely prone to error
given the immense heterogeneity in studies given different definitions of disease activity and
differing patient populations.
The systematic review of the literature performed by Yazdany and colleagues yielded a number
of other relevant studies as well:
Not all studies support the use of routine antiDNA testing. Esdaile and colleagues found the
sensitivity for anti-dsDNA detecting a flare as assessed by SLEDAI was 50% and the specificity
was less than 75% with positive and negative likelihood ratios near 1.0 (111).
Anti-C1Q
The use of anti-C1q as a biomarker in lupus nephritis was recently reviewed by Mok in 2010
(72). To summarize, anti-C1q antibodies are present in 20-44% of lupus patients with most
studies showing an association of these antibodies with renal disease. A review by Sinico et al
noted that anti-C1q correlated with active renal disease with a sensitivity ranging from 44%-
100% and a specificity of 70-92% (112).
Two recent prospective studies have been published. In one study of 70 patients with SLE prior
to a diagnosis of SLE , 15 developed renal disease all with positive anti-C1q, 93% with anti-
dsDNA while 45% without renal disease had anti-C1q and 73% were antiDNA positive (112).
The median follow up for patients who had not developed nephritis was 13 years (range 2-17).
In this study, anti-C1Q did not correlate with antiDNA.
Moroni and colleagues studied the relationship of antiC1q antibodies in SLE in 228 patients
followed for an average of 6 years (113). Elevation of anti-C1q predicted renal flares with a
sensitivity of 80.5% and specificity of 71%. This was only marginally better than antiDNA and
complement levels. This study suggested that all four tests combined together had a good
negative predictive value while antiC1q combined with C3 and C4 yielded the best results for
positive predictive value. Anti-C1q was not as informative in patients with membranous GN as
46% of flares occurred in anti-C1q negative patients.
Not all studies support the use of routine antiC1Q testing. Esdaile and colleagues found the
sensitivity for anti-C1q detecting a flare as assessed by SLEDAI was 50% and the specificity
was less than 75% with positive and negative likelihood ratios near 1.0 (111).
Anti-C1q antibodies are not necessarily specific for SLE as they can be seen in 0-3% in children
and up to 18% in elderly individuals (114). They can also be seen with infections.
Complement
The relationship of complement to SLE is complex and research in this area is ongoing.
Despite the limitations of applying this potential biomarker longitudinally to all SLE patients
(such as variations in synthesis, genetic deficiencies and varied extravascular distribution) (115-
116), evidence supports obtaining baseline values for complements with available assays as a
minimal standard of care.
Although not part of the diagnostic criteria for SLE, depressed complement levels may add to
the clinical information traditionally used to diagnose the disease. In addition, literature
spanning several decades points to the following generalizations:
1) Depressed complements or complement split products roughly correlate with some
aspects of disease activity in SLE (85, 115-116), such as renal disease (81, 117-119),
2) Decreasing complements and complement split products can predict flares in some
patients (94-96, 99-101, 120-121) and
3) Hypocomplementemia may also be associated with poorer outcomes over time (99, 122).
Not all studies support the use of routine complement testing. Esdaile and colleagues found the
sensitivity for C4 detecting a flare as defined by SLEDAI was 50% and the specificity was less
than 75% with positive and negative likelihood ratios near 1.0 (111). For C3, the likelihood ratio
for a positive test was near 2.0, suggesting that it may be more helpful.
Other preventable causes of decline in renal function include dehydration for any reason
(vomiting, diarrhea, infections, over-diuresis) and administration of potentially nephrotoxic drugs
(aminoglycoside antibiotics, NSAIDs, radiographic contrast materials including gadolinium, etc),
and these should be avoided when possible.
Metabolic disorders can accompany chronic kidney disease and cause organ damage, such as
metabolic acidosis, hyperphosphatemia, hyperparathyroidism, hyperkalemia, and malnutrition
due to anorexia. Guidelines for detection and management of these problems are available
(123-124).
Anemia of CKD may require treatment; see references (123) and (124).
Planning for renal replacement therapy, discussed in another section, should begin when GFR,
falling steadily, reaches a level below 30 mL/min/1.73 M2. Planning for placement of shunts
which require months to mature, for identifying and typing potential living donors, etc require
time and participation of multiple medical teams. Uremic symptoms are common when GFR
falls below 15 mL/min. Uremic symptoms usually requiring immediate dialysis include volume
overload that cannot be controlled medically, pericarditis/pleurisy, hypertension that cannot be
controlled medically, platelet dysfunction with active bleeding, acute peripheral neuropathy or
encephalopathy, and hyperkalemia that cannot be controlled medically.
Prevention of infection and screening for malignancies are additional concerns in managing
patients with lupus nephritis receiving chronic immunosuppression. Prospective studies of
immunization with influenza or pneumococcal vaccines suggest that they are safe and relatively
effective in terms of antibody titers induced (patients on high doses of immunosuppressives are
less likely to respond than those on lower doses). Otherwise, systematic prospective studies
addressing efficacy and safety of preventing infections and screening for malignancies in SLE
patients are not available. A recent USA study (126) showed that administration of
influenza/pneumococcal vaccines occurs in approximately 60% of SLE patients, as does routine
screening for malignancy (mammograms, cervical smears, colon screening).
Tubulointerstitial Abnormalities
1. Mononuclear-cell infiltration 1. Interstitial fibrosis
2. Tubular atrophy
AI = activity index, CI = chronicity index, RVL = renal vascular lesion, LN = lupus nephritis
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN ADULTS
RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS
MMF vs AZA
Article Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria Jadad
Score
Houssiau et Age >=14 years, SLE according to ACR Non-lupus related renal disease (such as 3
al, classification criteria, 24h proteinuria >= 500mg, microthrombotic disease associated with
MAINTAIN biopsy –proven WHO Class III, IV, Vc or Vd lupus antiphospholipid syndrome),treatment with
Nephritis glomerulonephritis (biopsy performed less than 1 glucocorticoids (GCs) (>15mg equivalent
Trial, 2010 month before entry to protocol), contraception (or prednisolone/day) in the last month before entry
(different sexual abstinence) intot he study (except a very short-course high-
cohort from dose oral GC treatment before referral), treatment
ELNT) (172) with CY, AZA, MMF, or cyclosporine A in the
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN ADULTS
RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS
MMF vs AZA
Article Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria Jadad
Score
previous year, pre-existing chronic renal failure
(defined as a serum creatinine value above the
upper normal value for the local laboratory) due to
a previous episode of LN or other cause,
pregnancy, breast feeding, previous malignancy
(except for skin and cervical intraepithelial
neoplasias), diabetes mellitus, previously
documented severe toxicity of
immunosuppressants, anticipated non-compliance
with the protocol.
Abstract 0
ALMS
Maintenance
(Wofsy et al,
2010)
Leflunomide vs CYC IV
Article Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria Jadad
Score
Wang et al, SLE according to 1997 ACR criteria; SLEDAI >= 8; Received cyclophosphamide within the previous 3 0
Leflunomid clinically evident renal disease and biopsy- months. Cerebral lupus, severe infection, liver
Lupus documented diffuse proliferative or focal disease, pregnancy, and anticipated poor
Nephritis proliferative lupus nephritis (ISN/RPS 2003 Type IV compliance with the protocol.
Study Group, A or A/C and Type III A or A/C) with or without
China, 2008 coincident membranous nephropathy and
(173) pathological activity index (AI) >=4.
Rituximab
Article Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria Jadad
Score
ABSTRACT Pts with Class III/IV LN and urine protein to
- Furie et al, creatinine ratio >1
LUNAR,
2009
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN ADULTS
RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS
Belimumab
Article Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria Jadad
Score
ABSTRACT Seropositive (ANA >=1:30 and/or anti-dsDNA >=30 No active LN
- Manzi et al, IU/mL) SLE with SELENA SLEDAI >=6 on stable
BLISS standard-of –care therapy ofr >=30d were enrolled
2010
Tocilizumab
Article Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria Jadad
Score
Age >18 years who fulfilled ACR classification Pregnancy, any therapy with human, murine 0
criteria for SLE, moderately active lupus defined by antibodies, or any experimental therapy within 3
1 of the 2 sets of criteria. Criteria set 1 – presence months, therapy with cyclophosphamide, pulse
of chronic glomerulonephritis with an inadequate methylprednisolone or IVIG within 4 weeks, or
response to at least 6 months of adequate azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, cyclosporine,
immunosuppressive therapy (with either or methotrexate within 2 weeks of the first dose of
methylprednisolone pulse doses, study medication. Serum creatinine level >3.0
cylcophosphamide, azathioprine, cyclosporine, mg/dl, white blood cell count <3500/microL,
mycophenolate mofetil, high-dose dialy absolute neutrophil count < 3000 microlL, absolute
corticosteroids, methotrexate, or intravenous lymphocyte count <= 500/microlL, hemoglobin
Illei, et al,
immunoglobulin, plus the following 4 features: less value <8.0 gm/dl, platelet count <50000/microlL,
USA, 2010
than a 30% increase in serum creatinine levels as AST or ALT levels >1.5 times the upper limits of
(174)
compared with the lowest level achived during normal, or >1000 Epstein-Barr virus genome
treatment; proteinuria at levels <=1.5 times the equivalents/10 6 preipheral blood mononuclear
value at baseline (before treatment); <= 2+ cellular cells.
casts in the urinary sediments; and extrarenal
disease activity not exceeding a score of 10 on the
nonrenal components of the SELENA version of
SLEDAI. Creiteria set 2 consisted of moderately
active extrarenal lupus, defined as extrarenal
SELENA-SLEDAI score in the range of 3-10.
SELENA-SLEDAI score must have been stable for
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN ADULTS
RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS
Tocilizumab
Article Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria Jadad
Score
at least 2 weeks prior to screening. Required
presence of at least 1 serological marker of
autoantibody production or systemic inflammation,
therefore 1 or more of the following 4 features had
to be present: serum anti-dsDNA antibody level >=
30IU, an IgG anticardiolipin antibody level >=20 igG
phospholipid units/ml, a C-reactive protein level
(CRP) > 0.8mg/dl, or an erythrocyte sedimentation
rate (ESR) >25 mm/h in men and >42 mm/h in
women. Stable dose of Prednisone <=0.3 mg/kg/d
for at least 2 weeks before the first dose of study
medication. Effective form f contraception.
x Please see enclosed excel sheet for Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) – Intervention-Outcome (I-O) and Adverse Event (AE)
data
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN ADULTS
COHORT STUDIES
Stem Cell
Article Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria Newcastle
Ottawa
Scale
Jayne et al, Retrospective data from the European Group for Blood and 4
UK, 2004 Marrow Transplantation and European League against
(178) Rheumatism Registry.
Burt et al, At least 4 of 11 ACR Criteria for SLE and required more than 4
USA, 2006 20mg/d of prednisone or its equivalent despite use of
(179) cyclophosphamide. WHO Class III or IV glomerulonephritis,
involvement of lthe lung, involvement of the central nervous
system, vasculitis, myositis, transfusion-dependent autoimmune
cytopenias, severe serositiis, ulcerative mucocutaneous disease,
or antiphospholipid syndrome (definied by Sapporo criteria).
Nephritis required failure of 6 or more monthly pulse of
cylcophosphamide. Nonrenal visceral organ involvement
required failure of at least 3 months of cyclophosphamide.
Liang et al, SLE refractory to standard therapies. All patients had at least 4 1
Nanjing, of 11 ACR criteria for SLE. Eligibility criteria include one of the
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN ADULTS
Stem Cell
Article Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria Newcastle
Ottawa
Scale
2010 (180) following features: progressive and active disease with SELENA
SLEDAI score >=8 despite continuous treatment with IV pulse
CYC with a total dosage of 400-800 mg every month for at least
6 months or oral MMF 1000-2000 mg/d for at least 3 months and
continued daily dosage of more than 20mg of prednisone or its
equivalent; refractory immune-mediated thrombocytopenia;
refractor LN defined either as proteinuria >=1000mg/24 h,
sercum creatinine >=1.5mg/dL or decreased Creatinine
clearance without end-stage renal failure in patients with WHO
Class IV/V glomerulonephritis despite 6 months of CYC or MMF.
Sun et al, All patients met at least 4 of the 11 ACR criteria for SLE. Uncontrolled infection, mean 3
Nanjing SLEDAI socre >=8, lack of response to treatment with monthly pulmonary artery pressure > 50mm
China, 2010 IV CYC 500-1000 mg/m2 for >= 6 months or lack of response to Hg, failure of one of the vital organs,
(181) treatment with oral MMF (2000 mg/day) for >=3 months, and were pregnant or lactating.
continued daily doses of >20mg of prednisone or its equivalent.
Also if they had refractory immune-mediated transfusion-
dependent thrombocytopenia or refractory lupus nephritis
defined as either proteinuria >= 1000mg/24 h or serum
creatinine >= 1.5mg/dL or decreased creatinine clearance
without end-stage renal failure in patients with WHOC IV/V
glomerulonephritis despite 6 months treatment of CYC or 3
months of treatment with MMF.
Antimalarial
Article Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria Newcastle
Ottawa
Scale
Siso et al, Single center. Fulfilled 1997 revised criteria for SLE 5
Spain, 2008 classification. Biopsy proven LN. Renal biopsies reviewed by 2
(182) pathologists and categorized according to ISN/RPS in 2004.
Pons-Estel Longitudinal observational cohort. Patients were >= 16 years of 4
et al, USA age and had disease duration of <= 5 years. Each patient had a
and Puerto baseline or enrollment visit (T0) followed by a 6 month visit
Rico, 2009 (T0.5) and subsequently yearly visit. Time of diagnosis (TD)
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN ADULTS
Antimalarial
Article Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria Newcastle
Ottawa
Scale
LUMINA was defined as the time when each patient met 4 ACR criteria.
study (183)
Cyclosporin
Article Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria Newcastle
Ottawa
Scale
Rihova et al, Retrospective charge review. Patient meet the 1982 ACR 2
Czech criteria for the diagnosis of SLE and have an active LN verified
Republic, and classified by a renal biopsy, treated with CsA.
2007 (184)
Cyclophosphamide (CYC)
Article Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria Newcastle
Ottawa
Scale
Renal biopsy diagnosis of SLE-DPGN from within the 0
Glomerular Disease Collaborative Network (GDCN) were eligible
Dooley et al,
for inclusion in this study. Patient fulfilled 4 or more criteria from
USA, 1996
the 1982 ACR revised criteria for classification of SLE.
(185)
Documentation of treatment or intention to treat with CYC IV was
required for study entry.
Ioannidis et All patients with biopsy-documented diagnosis of proliferative 1
al, USA and lupus nephritis (WHO type III or IV) treated with IVC.
Greece,
2000 (186)
Mok et al, SLE patients with biopsy proven DPGN initially treated with 3
Hong Kong, regimens that included CYC and corticosteroids between years
China, 2004 1988 and 2001. All fulfilled at least 4 of the ACR criteria for SLE
(187) classification.
de Castro et SLE classification by ACR classification criteria, treated and Histological class II or V according to 6
al, Brazil, followed from July 1988 to December 2003. 1995 WHO classification.
2007 (188)
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN ADULTS
Cyclophosphamide (CYC)
Article Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria Newcastle
Ottawa
Scale
Renal biopsy proven diffuse proliferative lupus 3
Mok et al,
glomerulonephritis (1995 WHO Class IV) treated in Hong Kong
Hong Kong
identified by clinical registries or renal biopsy databases. All
China, 2006
patients fulfilled at least 4 ACR criteria for SLE classifications
(189)
and were initially treated with corticosteroids and CYC.
Prospective randomized trial with 1:1 randomization. SLE Musculoskeletal lupus from the 4
patients met >= 4 of revised ACR criteria for SLE with moderate category of eligible organ involvement.
to severe activity in an organ as defined as BILAG A or a high
score for that organ on the SLAM or hospitalization for
Petri et al, involvement of that organ. Lack of response or expected lack of
USA, 2010 response to moderate- to high- dose corticosteroids, to the
(190) equivalent degree of immunosuppression, or to appropriate
other treatment. Combination therapy of both
hydroxychorologuine and quinacrine as well as
immunosuppression had to have failed for SLE patients with
cutaneous lupus.
High dose cyclophosphamide (CYC) vs Low dose cyclophosphamide followed by Azathioprine (AZA)
Article Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria Newcastle
Ottawa
Scale
SLE patients according to ACR criteria, age 14 years or older Patients who had taken CYC or AZA 3
with biopsy proven proliferative lupus glomerulonephritis (WHO during the previous year or had taken
Class III, IV, Vc, or Vd) and proteinuria >= 500mg/24 h. >=15mg/day prednisone (or equivalent)
Houssiau et during the previous month were
al, Europe, excluded (except for a course of
ELNT, 2004 glucocorticoids for a maximum of 10
Subanalysis days before the referral). Other
(193) exclusion criteria were renal thrombotic
microangiopathy, preexisting chronic
renal failure, pregnancy, previous
malignancy (except skin and cervical
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN ADULTS
High dose cyclophosphamide (CYC) vs Low dose cyclophosphamide followed by Azathioprine (AZA)
Article Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria Newcastle
Ottawa
Scale
intraepithelial neoplasis), diabetes
mellitus, previously documented severe
toxicity to immunosuppressive drugs,
and anticipated poor compliance with
the protocol.
Azathioprine (AZA)
Article Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria Newcastle
Ottawa
Scale
Mok et al, Open label - Renal biopsy-proven pure membranous lupus WHO Classification Vc and Vd. 3
Hong Kong, glomerulonephritis (WHO Va and Vb).
China, 2004
(197)
Leflunomide
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN ADULTS
Article Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria Newcastle
Ottawa
Scale
Fulfilled 1997 ACR classification criteria for SLE admitted as Severe insufficiency of organs besides 3
inpatients undergoing kidney biopsy. kidney, including heart failure, liver
Zhang et al,
failure, severe psychosis, leukocyte and
Harbin
platelet count less than 3 x 10 9/L and
China, 2009
50 x 10 9 respectively, pregnant
(198)
women, lactating women, children of
less than 16 age.
x Please see enclosed excel sheet for Cohort Trial – Intervention-Outcome (I-O) and Adverse Event (AE) data
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN ADULTS
Deegens JK, Artz Outcome of renal We studied the outcome of renal One patient developed renal failure with serological evidence of
MA, Hoitsma AJ, transplantation in transplantation in patients with SLE who SLE activity at 61 months after transplantation. In the absence of
Wetzels JF. patients with underwent transplantations in our center urine abnormalities we favored the diagnosis of rejection,
University Medical systemic lupus between 1968 and 2001. Patient and graft although recurrence of lupus nephritis could not formally be
Center of Nijmegen, erythematosus. survival were compared with a matched excluded. This was the only case of a possible recurrence of
The Netherlands. control group. We specifically looked for any lupus nephritis. Two other patients developed extra-renal
Transpl Int. 2003 evidence of recurrent disease. There were manifestations of SLE at 6 and 17 months after transplantation.
Jun;16(6):411-8. 23 patients (two male, 21 female) with a Patient and graft survival rates at 5 years after transplantation
Epub 2003 Mar 19. mean +/-SD age of 34+/-12 years at were 86% and 68%, respectively. Survival rates were not
transplantation. significantly different from those of a matched control group, 95%
and 78%, respectively. Recurrence of SLE after transplantation is
rare. The results of renal transplantation in patients with SLE do
not differ significantly from a matched control group. Renal
transplantation is a good alternative for renal replacement
therapy in patients with lupus nephritis.
Moroni G, Tantardini The long-term Between June 1982 and 2004, a total of 33 RESULTS: Mean follow-up after renal transplantation was 91 +/-
F, Gallelli B, Quaglini prognosis of renal adults with lupus nephritis received 35 59 months for patients with lupus and 90 +/- 64 months for
S, Banfi G, Poli F, transplantation in kidney allografts. Outcomes of these grafts controls. Actuarial 15-year patient (80% versus 83%) and death-
Montagnino G, patients with lupus and those of 70 controls matched for age, censored graft survival rates (69% versus 67%) were not
Meroni P, Messa P, nephritis. sex, and donor source who underwent significantly different between patients with lupus and controls.
Ponticelli C. Centro transplantation during the same period were Risks for acute and chronic rejection, arterial hypertension, and
Trasfusionale e di compared. infection were not different between the 2 groups. Mean serum
Immunologia dei creatinine levels also were similar in the 2 groups at the last
Trapianti IRCCS, follow-up visit. Intravascular thrombotic events occurred in 9
Ospedale Maggiore patients with SLE (26%) and 6 controls (8.6%; P = 0.038). In the
Milano, Italy Am J SLE group, 6 of 7 antiphospholipid (aPL) antibody-positive
Kidney Dis. 2005 versus 3 of 17 aPL antibody-negative patients experienced
May;45(5):903-11. thrombotic events ( P = 0.015). Recurrence of lupus nephritis
was documented in 3 renal grafts (8.6%), but no graft was lost
because of recurrent lupus nephritis. CONCLUSION: Long-term
patient and graft survival probabilities were similar in patients
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN ADULTS
END STAGE RENAL DISEASE / RENAL TRANSPLANTATION ARTICLES
Bunnapradist S, Outcomes of renal Here, we compared patient and graft Univariate analysis showed similar graft but better patient
Chung P, Peng A, transplantation for outcomes in lupus and non-lupus recipients survival rates for primary lupus and non-lupus transplant
Hong A, Chung P, recipients with lupus transplanted between 1996 to 2000 using recipients (5-year patient survival rates for lupus cohort 85.2% for
Lee B, Fukami S, nephritis: analysis of the United Network of Organ Sharing/Organ deceased donor transplants and 92.1% for living donor
Takemoto SK, Singh the Organ Procurement Transplant Network database. transplants as opposed to 82.1% and 89.8% respectively for the
AK. Transplantation. Procurement and We evaluated the impact of recipient and non-lupus cohort; P=0.05 and 0.03) but similar patient survival
2006 Sep Transplantation donor demographic factors, time on dialysis rates for deceased donor retransplant patients. After controlling
15;82(5):612-8. Network database. and the initial immunosuppression regimen for confounding factors, no differences in patient or graft survival
on rejection rates and transplant outcomes. were seen between the two groups. No difference in acute
rejection rates were observed in deceased donor transplants, but
there was a small but significant increase in the risk of acute
rejection in living donor lupus transplant recipients (hazard
ratio=1.19, P=0.05). Risk of graft failure was lower for deceased
donor recipients receiving MMF (five-year graft loss rate=29.6%
for MMF vs. 40.2% for those not receiving MMF, P<0.0001), but
no differences were seen among living donor recipients.
Outcomes were similar regardless of type of calcineurin inhibitor,
induction therapy, and time on dialysis. We conclude that lupus
transplant recipients have outcomes generally equivalent to non-
lupus transplant recipients.
Chelamcharla M, The outcome of We conducted the retrospective analysis RESULTS: The mean follow-up period of this study was 4.7 +/-
Javaid B, Baird BC, renal transplantation using data from USRDS and UNOS 2.4 years. While unadjusted analysis using Kaplan-Meier curves
Goldfarb- among systemic databases. Patients were divided into five demonstrated an association between SLE and improved
Rumyantzev AS. lupus erythematosus groups based on the cause of end-stage allograft survival compared with DM, in multivariate analysis the
University of Utah patients. renal disease (ESRD): diabetes mellitus SLE group had worse allograft [hazard ratio (HR) 1.09, P < 0.05]
Health Sciences (DM), SLE, glomerulonephritis, hypertension and recipient (HR 1.19, P < 0.05) survival compared with the DM
Center Nephrol Dial and other causes. Between 1990 and 1999, group. Subgroup analysis based on the type of donor showed
Transplant. 2007 2886 renal transplantation recipients with that SLE patients who received deceased donor allograft had
Dec;22(12):3623-30. ESRD due to SLE were identified from a worse allograft and recipient survival (HR 1.14, P = 0.002 and
Epub 2007 Jul 19. total of 92 844 patients. HR 1.30, P = 0.001, respectively) compared with non-SLE
deceased donor allograft recipients. Among living allograft
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN ADULTS
END STAGE RENAL DISEASE / RENAL TRANSPLANTATION ARTICLES
Tang H, Factors affecting Using the data from the United States Renal RESULTS: The number of pretransplant pregnancies
Chelamcharla M, kidney-transplant Data System of patients transplanted incrementally increased the risk of graft failure [hazard ratio (HR)
Baird BC, Shihab FS, outcome in between January 1, 1995 through 1.54, p < 0.05] in the entire subgroup of females and in the
Koford JK, Goldfarb- recipients with lupus December 31, 2002 (and followed through subgroup of recipients aged 25-35 yr. Recipient and donor age
Rumyantzev AS. nephritis. December 31, 2003) (n = 2882), we had an association with both the risk of graft failure (HR 0.96, p <
University of Utah performed a retrospective analysis of factors 0.001; HR 1.01, p < 0.005) and recipient death (HR 1.04, p <
School of Medicine associated with long-term death-censored 0.001; HR 1.01, p < 0.05). Greater graft-failure risk accompanied
Clin Transplant. 2008 graft survival and recipient survival. increased recipient weight (HR 1.01, p < 0.001); African
May-Jun;22(3):263- Americans compared with whites (HR 1.55, p < 0.001); greater
72. Charlson comorbidity index (HR 1.17, p < 0.05); and greater
panel reactive antibody (PRA) levels (HR 1.06, p < 0.001).
Pretransplant peritoneal dialysis as the predominant modality
had an association with decreased risk of graft failure (HR 0.49,
p < 0.001), while prior transplantation was associated with
greater risk of graft failure and recipient death (HR 2.29, p <
0.001; HR 3.59, p < 0.001, respectively) compared with
hemodialysis (HD). The number of matched human leukocyte
antigens (HLA) antigens and living donors (HR 0.92, p < 0.05;
HR 0.64, p < 0.001, respectively) was associated with decreased
risk of graft failure. Increased risk of graft failure and recipient
death was associated with nonuse of calcineurin inhibitors (HR
1.89, p < 0.005; HR 1.80, p < 0.005) and mycophenolic acid
(MPA) (including mycophenolate mofetil and MPA) or
azathioprine (HR 1.41, p < 0.05; HR 1.66, p < 0.01). Using both
cyclosporine and tacrolimus was associated with increased risk
of graft failure (HR 2.09, p < 0.05). Using MPA is associated with
greater risk of recipient death compared with azathioprine (HR
1.47, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In renal transplant recipients with
lupus nephritis, multiple pregnancies, multiple blood transfusions,
greater comorbidity index, higher body weight, age and African
American race of the donor or recipient, prior history of
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN ADULTS
END STAGE RENAL DISEASE / RENAL TRANSPLANTATION ARTICLES
Liang CC, Huang CC, Impact of renal This longitudinal study investigated whether There were no significant differences between patients with short
Wang IK, Chang CT, survival on the renal survival can affect the course and renal survival (<3 years) and long renal survival (>3 years) for the
Chen KH, Weng CH, course and outcome outcome of systemic lupus erythematosus various demographic variables such as age, sex, PD duration,
Lin JL, Hung CC, of systemic lupus (SLE) patients treated with chronic immunosuppressive drug administration, or exchange system (P
Yang CW, Yen TH. erythematosus peritoneal dialysis (PD). Thirty-five SLE > 0.05). Interestingly, before PD, patients with short renal
China Medical patients treated with patients, out of 1115 end-stage renal survival had lower serum complement levels than patients with
University Hospital, chronic peritoneal disease (ESRD) patients treated with long renal survival (C3, 40.2 +/- 14.4 vs 76.3 +/- 18.5 mg/dL, P <
Taichung, Taiwan dialysis. chronic PD, were seen between 1990 and 0.001; and C4, 14.8 +/- 4.7 vs 22.4 +/- 8.1 mg/dL, P < 0.05).
Ther Apher Dial. 2007 at the Chang Gung Memorial Hospital. However, the differences in complement levels between the
2010 Feb;14(1):35- Patients were followed up for a mean of groups disappeared after PD (C3, 76.5 +/- 27.3 vs 84.2 +/- 27.8
42. 38.8 +/- 22.9 months. mg/dL; and C4, 26.7 +/- 11.3 vs 22.6 +/- 10.8 mg/dL, both P >
0.05). Patients with short renal survival were more likely to have
a high peritoneal solute transporter rate (PSTR) than their long
renal survival counterparts (chi(2)-test, P = 0.02, and AUROC =
0.744 and P = 0.040); however, there were no significant
differences for other variables such as cardiothoracic ratio (CTR),
Kt/V, residual renal function, exit site infection, and peritonitis (P
> 0.05). Finally, Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that the two
groups did not differ in patient and technical survival (P > 0.05).
Therefore it was concluded that renal survival might be
associated with PSTR, but not with patient and technical survival
in SLE patients treated with PD.
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN ADULTS
END STAGE RENAL DISEASE / RENAL TRANSPLANTATION ARTICLES
Lochhead KM, Pirsch Risk factors for renal This study is a retrospective evaluation of Our results showed equivalent graft survival rates between lupus
JD, D'Alessandro allograft loss in each of these independent risk factors in 80 patients and the cohort at 1, 5 and 10 years (P = 0.56). However,
AM, Knechtle SJ, patients with renal transplants for ESRD secondary to an analysis of cyclosporine-era cadaver grafts revealed that the
Kalayoglu M, systemic lupus SLE done at our institution between 1971 lupus group had poorer 5-year graft survival than the cohort
Sollinger HW, Belzer erythematosus. and 1994. Our entire non-diabetic cohort of (41% vs. 71%, P = 0.02). Evaluation of cyclosporine-era lupus
FO. University of 1,966 renal transplants is used as a graft survival showed significantly improved outcome in living-
Wisconsin Hospital comparison group. related lupus recipients over cadaver grafts at five years (89%
and Clinics Kidney vs. 41%, P = 0.003). The majority of grafts lost in the lupus
Int. 1996 cadaver recipients were due to chronic rejection. Rejection was
Feb;49(2):512-7. increased in lupus recipients: 69% of lupus patients experienced
rejection in the first year compared to 58% of controls (P = 0.01).
Stratified for age, sex, race and cyclosporine use, this difference
remained significant (P = 0.003, relative risk 1.7). Nephrectomy,
splenectomy and 3 to 6 months of pretransplant dialysis did not
improve graft survival. A dialysis duration of greater than 25
months predicted worse graft survival (P = 0.01). Among lupus
patients, PRA did not correlate with graft outcome (P = 0.5), and
HLA-identical cadaver grafts had improved outcomes compared
to cadaver grafts. We conclude that acute and chronic rejection
are the major risk factors for graft loss in lupus patients. The
superior outcome of living-related over cadaver grafts in lupus
patients suggests an increased role for living-related grafts.
Pretransplant dialysis, nephrectomy and splenectomy are not
indicated.
Haubitz M, Kliem V, Renal Long-term graft survival and graft function of RESULTS: Renal transplant recipients with autoimmune
Koch KM, Nashan B, transplantation for renal transplant recipients with SLE, diseases such as vasculitis and SLE had a patient survival rate
Schlitt HJ, Pichlmayr patients with Wegener's granulomatosis, microscopic (94% after 5 years) and a graft survival rate (65% after 5 years)
R, Brunkhorst R. autoimmune polyangiitis, Goodpasture's syndrome, and comparable to those of patients with other causes of end-stage
Medical School diseases: single- Henoch-Schonlein purpura were evaluated renal disease (patient survival 88% and graft survival 71% after 5
Hannover, Germany. center experience in a single center. In addition, the incidence years). Graft losses due to the underlying disease were rare.
Transplantation. 1997 with 42 patients. of renal and extrarenal relapses and the Extrarenal relapses occurred in three patients with Wegener's
May 15;63(9):1251-7. impact of the immunosuppressive therapy granulomatosis, one patient with microscopic polyangiitis, and
on the course of the autoimmune disease three patients with SLE, but were less frequent compared with
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN ADULTS
END STAGE RENAL DISEASE / RENAL TRANSPLANTATION ARTICLES
Grimbert P, Lang P, Renal Between October 1971 and August 1993, 53 The population studied consisted mainly of young women (mean
Frappier J, transplantation in patients with SLE received 60 renal age, 33.2 years; range, 21 to 54, n = 48 [90%]). The duration of
Bedrossian J, patients with transplants in the different renal disease before transplant was 93.6 +- 6.2 months and the
Legendre C, Hiesse systemic lupus transplantation centers in Paris. All patients duration of dialysis before transplant was 48 _~ 6 months. At the
C, Bitker MO, Sraer erythematosus: a met the criteria of the American time of transplant, none of the patients had clinically active SLE,
JD, Antoine C. multicenter study. Rheumatism Association for SLE, and only four had hypocomplementemia, and 25 had positive anti-
Hopital Henri diagnoses were confirmed by renal biopsy DNA titers. Of the 60 transplants, 56 (93%) were cadaveric and 4
Mondor, Creteil, specimens in all patients. The long-term (7%) were from living related donors. Forty-six patients (86%)
France. Transplant outcome of renal transplantation in these had primary allografts, and 7 (14%) were given a second
Proc. 1997 patients was examined, including patient allograft. Donor age was 38 _+ 2.4 years. The number of HLA
Aug;29(5):2363-4. and graft survival, posttransplant lupus matches was 2.96 -+ 0.2. Panel-reactive antibody level was
activity, serum creatinine levels, rejection >80% in 19 cases (31%). Overall graft survival rates for lupus
episodes, and the causes of graft loss and patients were 83% and 69% at 1 and 5 years, respectively,
patient death. All charts were examined for similar to those of control graft survivals of 82.5% and 70% (P
any evidence of recurrent lupus nephritis. = .60). Of the 60 kidneys transplanted in SLE patients during this
These 60 renal transplants were compared 21.5-year period, 37 (62%) are still functioning, and the mean
with the patient and graft survival for 106 serum creatinine level is 15 _+ 2.5 mg/L. Fifteen grafts were lost
controls matched for age, gender, maximum due to chronic rejection, 3 to acute rejection, 3 to renal artery
panel-reactive antibody level, and date of thrombosis, 1 to ureteral necrosis, and 1 to thrombotic
transplant. icroangiopathy caused by cyclosporine. Fortyone (68%) of the
kidney transplants had at least one biopsy-documented episode
of acute rejection, and there was histological evidence of chronic
rejection in 36 (60%) kidney transplants. The survival of the lupus
patients was similar to the controls: it was 98% at 1 year and
96% at 5 years in the lupus group, and 97% and 93% at 1 and 5
years in the controls (P = .96). Two of the lupus patients died
from sepsis.
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN ADULTS
END STAGE RENAL DISEASE / RENAL TRANSPLANTATION ARTICLES
Grimbert P, Frappier Long-term outcome The patients received their transplants over RESULTS: No patient had clinically active systemic lupus
J, Bedrossian J, of kidney a 260-month period (21.5 years) between erythematosus (SLE) at the time of transplantation. The 1-year
Legendre C, Antoine transplantation in October 1971 and August 1993. The graft and patient survival rates were 83% and 98%, and the 5-
C, Hiesse C, Bitker patients with population was predominantly women year graft and patient survival rates were 69% and 96%.
MO, Sraer JD, Lang systemic lupus (90%), and the mean age at the time of the Actuarial graft and patient survival rates in SLE patients were not
P. Hôpital Henri erythematosus: a transplantation was 33.2 years (range: 21- significantly different from those of the matched control group.
Mondor, Créteil, multicenter study. 54 years). Fifty-six transplants (93%) were Chronic rejection was the major risk factor for graft loss. Lupus
France. Groupe Cooperatif from cadaveric donors, and 4 (7%) were nephritis recurred in the graft of one patient 3 months after
Transplantation. 1998 de Transplantation from living-related donors; 46 patients (86%) transplantation, and there were extrarenal manifestations of SLE
Oct 27;66(8):1000-3. d'île de France. had primary allografts, and 7 (14%) received in four others. CONCLUSIONS: The present study confirms that
a second allograft. The duration of disease patients with SLE can receive transplants with excellent graft and
before transplantation was 93.6+/-6.2 patient survival rates and a low rate of clinical recurrent lupus
months, and the duration of dialysis before nephritis.
transplantation was 48+/-6 months.
Azevedo LS, Romão Renal Forty-five patients with systemic lupus RESULTS: No differences in acute episodes of rejection, causes
JE Jr, Malheiros D, transplantation in erythematosus subjected to 48 kidney of kidney loss or patient death were observed. General as well as
Saldanha LB, Ianhez systemic lupus transplants were studied. For comparative infectious complications were similar. Pregnancy rates and
LE, Sabbaga E. erythematosus. A purposes, a case-control population was outcomes were similar with no deleterious effect on patients or
University of São case control study of selected, matched for gender, race, type of grafts. Actuarial 1- and 5-year patient survivals (97.7 and 91.1%
Paulo Medical 45 patients. donor, age, and time of transplantation. for SLE and 95.4 and 87% for controls, respectively) and graft
School, SP, Brazil. Patients with non-glomerulonephritis survivals (93.1 and 80.7% for SLE and 88.8 and 70.2% for
Nephrol Dial diseases were excluded. controls, respectively) were similar. Long-term renal function
Transplant. 1998 expressed by serum creatinine was the same. No differences in
Nov;13(11):2894-8. immunosuppressive drug (azathioprine, prednisone, and
cyclosporin) requirements were found. Clinical SLE recurrence
was suspected only once (a patient with thrombocytopenia,
hypocomplementaemia with low complement levels and positive
antiplatelet antibodies). Two SLE patients showed mesangial
proliferative glomerulonephritis compatible with recurrence. Both
grafts were lost. Two further patients showed membranous
glomerulonephritis with an immunofluorescence pattern
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN ADULTS
END STAGE RENAL DISEASE / RENAL TRANSPLANTATION ARTICLES
Nyberg G, Karlberg I, Renal The outcome of primary renal Patient survival did not differ, but graft survival at 6 and 12
Svalander C, transplantation in transplantation in 31 SLE patients was months post transplantation was significantly reduced in SLE
Hedman L, Blohmé I. patients with evaluated in relation to two contemporary patients (p less than 0.001). When divided into groups using
Sahlgrenska systemic lupus controls per patient, matched for age, sex either azathioprine and steroids or combinations including
Hospital, Göteborg, erythematosus: and immunosuppressive therapy. The cyclosporin A (14 and 17 SLE patients in each group), graft
Sweden. Scand J increased risk of proportion of living donors was one third in survival was significantly reduced for the azathioprine-treated
Urol Nephrol. early graft loss. both groups. SLE patients, 36% vs. 82% for their controls at one year. For
1990;24(4):307-13. cyclosporin-treated SLE patients, one-year graft survival was
59% vs. 85% for their controls, and 6 out of 17 grafts in the
cyclosporin-treated group were lost within the first month vs. only
4 out of 34 controls. These differences were, however, not
statistically different. Most failed grafts were lost from rejection,
with a high proportion of acute vascular rejection, isolated or in
combination with cellular rejection. There was no apparent
association between rejection and HLA-matched or presence of
HLA antibodies. Retransplantation was successful in 6 out of 7
cases. We conclude that SLE patients have an increased risk of
early graft rejection, but that this may be overcome by more
powerful immunosuppressive therapy.
el-Shahawy MA, Renal The outcome of renal transplantation in 64 For all 64 patients combined, the 1-year graft and patient survival
Aswad S, Mendez transplantation in patients with end-stage renal disease rates are 68.8 and 86.5%, respectively, whereas 5-year graft and
RG, Bangsil R, systemic lupus (ESRD) secondary to lupus nephritis is the patient survival rates are 60.9 and 85.9%, respectively. Patients
Mendez R, Massry erythematosus: a subject of this report. The patients were whose immunosuppressive regimen was CsA-based had a 1-
SG. University of single-center transplanted over a 150-month (12.5-year) year graft survival of 71.5 versus 63.6% in the AZA group.
Southern California experience with period (between July 5, 1979, and January However, this 7.9% difference did not reach statistical
School of sixty-four cases. 30, 1992). The study population is significance (p = 0.95). The 5-year graft survival of the CsA-
MedicineAm J predominantly made up of young females based group was 69.1 versus 45.5% for the AZA group, p < 0.05.
Nephrol. (mean age, 34.7 +/- 9 years, n = 54, 81.3%). One-year patient survival was 77.3% for the AZA group and
1995;15(2):123-8. Fifty-one transplants (79.7%) are cadaveric, 92.9% for the CsA group, p < 0.05). The data show that patients
and 13 (20.3%) are from living-related with ESRD secondary to lupus nephritis can undergo renal
donors. Fifty-eight patients (90.6%) had transplantation with satisfactory outcome. Immunosuppression
primary (first) allografts, and 6 (9.4%) based upon CsA improves first-year patient and allograft survival
received a second allograft. by 15.6 and 7.9%. respectively.
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN ADULTS
END STAGE RENAL DISEASE / RENAL TRANSPLANTATION ARTICLES
Reference Technique Sen Spec +LR -LR Sen Spec +LR -LR Sen Spec +LR -LR
REFERENCES
1. Guidelines for referral and management of systemic lupus erythematosus in adults. American College
of Rheumatology Ad Hoc Committee on Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Guidelines. Arthritis Rheum.
1999;42(9):1785-96.
2. Markowitz GS, D'Agati VD. The ISN/RPS 2003 classification of lupus nephritis: an assessment at 3
years. Kidney Int. 2007;71(6):491-5.
3. Bomback AS, Appel GB. Updates on the treatment of lupus nephritis. J Am Soc Nephrol.
2010;21(12):2028-35.
4. Griffiths B, Mosca M, Gordon C. Assessment of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and the
use of lupus disease activity indices. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2005;19(5):685-708.
5. Gordon C, Sutcliffe N, Skan J, Stoll T, Isenberg DA. Definition and treatment of lupus flares measured
by the BILAG index. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2003;42(11):1372-9.
6. Isenberg DA, Gordon C. From BILAG to BLIPS--disease activity assessment in lupus past, present and
future. Lupus. 2000;9(9):651-4.
7. Gladman DD, Goldsmith CH, Urowitz MB, Bacon P, Fortin P, Ginzler E, et al. The Systemic Lupus
International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology (SLICC/ACR) Damage Index for
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus International Comparison. J Rheumatol. 2000;27(2):373-6.
8. Gladman DD, Ibanez D, Urowitz MB. Systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity index 2000. J
Rheumatol. 2002;29(2):288-91.
9. Isenberg DA, Rahman A, Allen E, Farewell V, Akil M, Bruce IN, et al. BILAG 2004. Development and
initial validation of an updated version of the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group's disease activity index for
patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2005;44(7):902-6.
10. Furie R, Petri M, Zamani O, Cervera R, Wallace DJ, Tegzova D, et al. A phase III, randomized,
placebo-controlled study of belimumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits B lymphocyte stimulator, in patients
with systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum. 2011;63(12):3918-30.
11. Dooley MA, Jayne D, Ginzler EM, Isenberg D, Olsen NJ, Wofsy D, et al. Mycophenolate versus
azathioprine as maintenance therapy for lupus nephritis. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(20):1886-95.
12. Saag KG, Teng GG, Patkar NM, Anuntiyo J, Finney C, Curtis JR, et al. American College of
Rheumatology 2008 recommendations for the use of nonbiologic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic
drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59(6):762-84.
13. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality
of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17(1):1-12.
14. Wells G, Shea B, O'Connnell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale
(NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2010 [cited; Available from:
http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp
15. Hunt SA, Abraham WT, Chin MH, Feldman AM, Francis GS, Ganiats TG, et al. ACC/AHA 2005
Guideline Update for the Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Heart Failure in the Adult: a report of the
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN
ADULTS
American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing
Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Heart Failure): developed in
collaboration with the American College of Chest Physicians and the International Society for Heart and Lung
Transplantation: endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation. 2005;112(12):e154-235.
16. Shekelle PG, Woolf SH, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Clinical guidelines: developing guidelines. BMJ.
1999;318(7183):593-6.
17. Zhang W, Doherty M, Arden N, Bannwarth B, Bijlsma J, Gunther KP, et al. EULAR evidence based
recommendations for the management of hip osteoarthritis: report of a task force of the EULAR Standing
Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutics (ESCISIT). Ann Rheum Dis.
2005;64(5):669-81.
19. Fitch K, Bernstein S, Aguilar M, Burnand B, Lacalle JR, Lozaro P, et al. The RAND/UCLA
Appropriateness Method User's Manual. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation; 2001.
20. Shekelle PG, Chassin MR, Park RE. Assessing the predictive validity of the RAND/UCLA
appropriateness method criteria for performing carotid endarterectomy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care.
1998;14(4):707-27.
21. Weening JJ, D'Agati VD, Schwartz MM, Seshan SV, Alpers CE, Appel GB, et al. The classification of
glomerulonephritis in systemic lupus erythematosus revisited. Kidney Int. 2004;65(2):521-30.
22. Furness PN, Taub N. Interobserver reproducibility and application of the ISN/RPS classification of lupus
nephritis-a UK-wide study. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006;30(8):1030-5.
23. Yokoyama H, Wada T, Hara A, Yamahana J, Nakaya I, Kobayashi M, et al. The outcome and a new
ISN/RPS 2003 classification of lupus nephritis in Japanese. Kidney Int. 2004;66(6):2382-8.
24. Austin HA, 3rd, Muenz LR, Joyce KM, Antonovych TA, Kullick ME, Klippel JH, et al. Prognostic factors
in lupus nephritis. Contribution of renal histologic data. Am J Med. 1983;75(3):382-91.
25. Wernick RM, Smith DL, Houghton DC, Phillips DS, Booth JL, Runckel DN, et al. Reliability of histologic
scoring for lupus nephritis: a community-based evaluation. Ann Intern Med. 1993;119(8):805-11.
26. Mosca M, Pasquariello A, Tavoni A, Moriconi L, Moneta I, Innocenti M, et al. Predictors of renal
outcome in diffuse proliferative glomerulonephritis in systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus. 1997;6(4):371-8.
27. Stamenkovic I, Favre H, Donath A, Assimacopoulos A, Chatelanat F. Renal biopsy in SLE irrespective
of clinical findings: long-term follow-up. Clin Nephrol. 1986;26(3):109-15.
28. Ayodele OE, Okpechi IG, Swanepoel CR. Predictors of poor renal outcome in patients with biopsy-
proven lupus nephritis. Nephrology (Carlton). 2010;15(4):482-90.
29. Whiting-O'Keefe Q, Henke JE, Shearn MA, Hopper J, Jr., Biava CG, Epstein WV. The information
content from renal biopsy in systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Intern Med. 1982;96(6 Pt 1):718-23.
30. Makino H, Hayashi Y, Yamasaki Y, Shikata K, Kashihara N, Kira S, et al. Clinical significance of
necrosis in lupus nephritis. Intern Med. 1994;33(8):461-5.
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN
ADULTS
31. Miranda JM, Garcia-Torres R, Jara LJ, Medina F, Cervera H, Fraga A. Renal biopsy in systemic lupus
erythematosus: significance of glomerular thrombosis. Analysis of 108 cases. Lupus. 1994;3(1):25-9.
32. Esdaile JM, Joseph L, MacKenzie T, Kashgarian M, Hayslett JP. The pathogenesis and prognosis of
lupus nephritis: information from repeat renal biopsy. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1993;23(2):135-48.
33. Esdaile JM, Federgreen W, Quintal H, Suissa S, Hayslett JP, Kashgarian M. Predictors of one year
outcome in lupus nephritis: the importance of renal biopsy. Q J Med. 1991;81(295):907-18.
34. Tang Z, Wang Z, Zhang HT, Hu WX, Zeng CH, Chen HP, et al. Clinical features and renal outcome in
lupus patients with diffuse crescentic glomerulonephritis. Rheumatol Int. 2009;30(1):45-9.
35. Faurschou M, Dreyer L, Kamper AL, Starklint H, Jacobsen S. Long-term mortality and renal outcome in
a cohort of 100 patients with lupus nephritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010;62(6):873-80.
36. Austin HA, 3rd, Muenz LR, Joyce KM, Antonovych TT, Balow JE. Diffuse proliferative lupus nephritis:
identification of specific pathologic features affecting renal outcome. Kidney Int. 1984;25(4):689-95.
37. Parichatikanond P, Francis ND, Malasit P, Laohapand T, Nimmannit S, Singchoovong L, et al. Lupus
nephritis: clinicopathological study of 162 cases in Thailand. J Clin Pathol. 1986;39(2):160-6.
38. Nossent HC, Henzen-Logmans SC, Vroom TM, Berden JH, Swaak TJ. Contribution of renal biopsy
data in predicting outcome in lupus nephritis. Analysis of 116 patients. Arthritis Rheum. 1990;33(7):970-7.
39. Kojo S, Sada KE, Kobayashi M, Maruyama M, Maeshima Y, Sugiyama H, et al. Clinical usefulness of a
prognostic score in histological analysis of renal biopsy in patients with lupus nephritis. J Rheumatol.
2009;36(10):2218-23.
40. Yu F, Wu LH, Tan Y, Li LH, Wang CL, Wang WK, et al. Tubulointerstitial lesions of patients with lupus
nephritis classified by the 2003 International Society of Nephrology and Renal Pathology Society system.
Kidney Int. 2010;77(9):820-9.
41. McLaughlin JR, Bombardier C, Farewell VT, Gladman DD, Urowitz MB. Kidney biopsy in systemic
lupus erythematosus. III. Survival analysis controlling for clinical and laboratory variables. Arthritis Rheum.
1994;37(4):559-67.
42. Gladman DD, Urowitz MB, Cole E, Ritchie S, Chang CH, Churg J. Kidney biopsy in SLE. I. A clinical-
morphologic evaluation. Q J Med. 1989;73(272):1125-33.
43. Radhakrishnan J, Moutzouris DA, Ginzler EM, Solomons N, Siempos, II, Appel GB. Mycophenolate
mofetil and intravenous cyclophosphamide are similar as induction therapy for class V lupus nephritis. Kidney
Int. 2010;77(2):152-60.
44. Austin HA, 3rd, Illei GG, Braun MJ, Balow JE. Randomized, controlled trial of prednisone,
cyclophosphamide, and cyclosporine in lupus membranous nephropathy. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;20(4):901-
11.
45. Dujovne I, Pollak VE, Pirani CL, Dillard MG. The distribution and character of glomerular deposits in
systemic lupus erythematosus. Kidney Int. 1972;2(1):33-50.
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN
ADULTS
46. Najafi CC, Korbet SM, Lewis EJ, Schwartz MM, Reichlin M, Evans J. Significance of histologic patterns
of glomerular injury upon long-term prognosis in severe lupus glomerulonephritis. Kidney Int. 2001;59(6):2156-
63.
47. Ferluga D, Jerse M, Vizjak A, Hvala A, Rozman B, Kos-Golja M, et al. Correlation among WHO classes,
histomorphologic patterns of glomerulonephritis and glomerular immune deposits in SLE. Wien Klin
Wochenschr. 2000;112(15-16):692-701.
48. Blanco FJ, De la Mata J, Lopez-Fernandez JI, Gomez-Reino JJ. Light, immunofluorescence and
electron microscopy renal biopsy findings as predictors of mortality in eighty-five Spanish patients with
systemic lupus erythematosus. Br J Rheumatol. 1994;33(3):260-6.
49. Yu F, Tan Y, Liu G, Wang SX, Zou WZ, Zhao MH. Clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes of
patients with crescentic lupus nephritis. Kidney Int. 2009;76(3):307-17.
50. Tateno S, Kobayashi Y, Shigematsu H, Hiki Y. Study of lupus nephritis: its classification and the
significance of subendothelial deposits. Q J Med. 1983;52(207):311-31.
51. Austin HA, 3rd, Boumpas DT, Vaughan EM, Balow JE. High-risk features of lupus nephritis: importance
of race and clinical and histological factors in 166 patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1995;10(9):1620-8.
52. Descombes E, Droz D, Drouet L, Grunfeld JP, Lesavre P. Renal vascular lesions in lupus nephritis.
Medicine (Baltimore). 1997;76(5):355-68.
53. Banfi G, Bertani T, Boeri V, Faraggiana T, Mazzucco G, Monga G, et al. Renal vascular lesions as a
marker of poor prognosis in patients with lupus nephritis. Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Nefrite Lupica
(GISNEL). Am J Kidney Dis. 1991;18(2):240-8.
54. Magil AB, Tyler M. Tubulo-interstitial disease in lupus nephritis. A morphometric study. Histopathology.
1984;8(1):81-7.
55. Kasiske BL, Cangro CB, Hariharan S, Hricik DE, Kerman RH, Roth D, et al. The evaluation of renal
transplantation candidates: clinical practice guidelines. Am J Transplant. 2001;1 Suppl 2:3-95.
56. Tang H, Chelamcharla M, Baird BC, Shihab FS, Koford JK, Goldfarb-Rumyantzev AS. Factors affecting
kidney-transplant outcome in recipients with lupus nephritis. Clin Transplant. 2008;22(3):263-72.
57. Lochhead KM, Pirsch JD, D'Alessandro AM, Knechtle SJ, Kalayoglu M, Sollinger HW, et al. Risk
factors for renal allograft loss in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Kidney Int. 1996;49(2):512-7.
58. Bunnapradist S, Chung P, Peng A, Hong A, Lee B, Fukami S, et al. Outcomes of renal transplantation
for recipients with lupus nephritis: analysis of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database.
Transplantation. 2006;82(5):612-8.
59. Bumgardner GL, Mauer SM, Payne W, Dunn DL, Sutherland DE, Fryd DS, et al. Single-center 1-15-
year results of renal transplantation in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Transplantation.
1988;46(5):703-9.
60. Ward MM. Outcomes of renal transplantation among patients with end-stage renal disease caused by
lupus nephritis. Kidney Int. 2000;57(5):2136-43.
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN
ADULTS
61. Moroni G, Tantardini F, Gallelli B, Quaglini S, Banfi G, Poli F, et al. The long-term prognosis of renal
transplantation in patients with lupus nephritis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2005;45(5):903-11.
62. Deegens JK, Artz MA, Hoitsma AJ, Wetzels JF. Outcome of renal transplantation in patients with
systemic lupus erythematosus. Transpl Int. 2003;16(6):411-8.
63. Haubitz M, Kliem V, Koch KM, Nashan B, Schlitt HJ, Pichlmayr R, et al. Renal transplantation for
patients with autoimmune diseases: single-center experience with 42 patients. Transplantation.
1997;63(9):1251-7.
64. Grimbert P, Lang P, Frappier J, Bedrossian J, Legendre C, Hiesse C, et al. Renal transplantation in
patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a multicenter study. Transplant Proc. 1997;29(5):2363-4.
65. Grimbert P, Frappier J, Bedrossian J, Legendre C, Antoine C, Hiesse C, et al. Long-term outcome of
kidney transplantation in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a multicenter study. Groupe Cooperatif
de Transplantation d'ile de France. Transplantation. 1998;66(8):1000-3.
66. Azevedo LS, Romao JE, Jr., Malheiros D, Saldanha LB, Ianhez LE, Sabbaga E. Renal transplantation
in systemic lupus erythematosus. A case control study of 45 patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant.
1998;13(11):2894-8.
67. Norby GE, Strom EH, Midtvedt K, Hartmann A, Gilboe IM, Leivestad T, et al. Recurrent lupus nephritis
after kidney transplantation: a surveillance biopsy study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69(8):1484-7.
68. Contreras G, Mattiazzi A, Guerra G, Ortega LM, Tozman EC, Li H, et al. Recurrence of lupus nephritis
after kidney transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;21(7):1200-7.
69. Smyth A, Oliveira GH, Lahr BD, Bailey KR, Norby SM, Garovic VD. A systematic review and meta-
analysis of pregnancy outcomes in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and lupus nephritis. Clin J Am
Soc Nephrol. 2010;5(11):2060-8.
70. Oviasu E, Hicks J, Cameron JS. The outcome of pregnancy in women with lupus nephritis. Lupus.
1991;1(1):19-25.
71. Illei GG, Tackey E, Lapteva L, Lipsky PE. Biomarkers in systemic lupus erythematosus. I. General
overview of biomarkers and their applicability. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50(6):1709-20.
72. Mok CC. Biomarkers for lupus nephritis: a critical appraisal. J Biomed Biotechnol. 2010;2010:638413.
73. Liu CC, Ahearn JM. The search for lupus biomarkers. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2009;23(4):507-
23.
74. Isenberg DA, Manson JJ, Ehrenstein MR, Rahman A. Fifty years of anti-ds DNA antibodies: are we
approaching journey's end? Rheumatology (Oxford). 2007;46(7):1052-6.
75. Tseng CE, Buyon JP, Kim M, Belmont HM, Mackay M, Diamond B, et al. The effect of moderate-dose
corticosteroids in preventing severe flares in patients with serologically active, but clinically stable, systemic
lupus erythematosus: findings of a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis
Rheum. 2006;54(11):3623-32.
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN
ADULTS
77. Kavanaugh AF, Solomon DH. Guidelines for immunologic laboratory testing in the rheumatic diseases:
anti-DNA antibody tests. Arthritis Rheum. 2002;47(5):546-55.
78. Bardana EJ, Jr., Harbeck RJ, Hoffman AA, Pirofsky B, Carr RI. The prognostic and therapeutic
implications of DNA:anti-DNA immune complexes in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Am J Med.
1975;59(4):515-22.
79. Alarcon GS, Calvo-Alen J, McGwin G, Jr., Uribe AG, Toloza SM, Roseman JM, et al. Systemic lupus
erythematosus in a multiethnic cohort: LUMINA XXXV. Predictive factors of high disease activity over time.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2006;65(9):1168-74.
80. Cortes-Hernandez J, Ordi-Ros J, Labrador M, Bujan S, Balada E, Segarra A, et al. Antihistone and anti-
double-stranded deoxyribonucleic acid antibodies are associated with renal disease in systemic lupus
erythematosus. Am J Med. 2004;116(3):165-73.
81. Huong DL, Papo T, Beaufils H, Wechsler B, Bletry O, Baumelou A, et al. Renal involvement in systemic
lupus erythematosus. A study of 180 patients from a single center. Medicine (Baltimore). 1999;78(3):148-66.
82. Ignat GP, Rat AC, Sychra JJ, Vo J, Varga J, Teodorescu M. Information on diagnosis and management
of systemic lupus erythematosus derived from the routine measurement of 8 nuclear autoantibodies. J
Rheumatol. 2003;30(8):1761-9.
83. Mirzayan MJ, Schmidt RE, Witte T. Prognostic parameters for flare in systemic lupus erythematosus.
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2000;39(12):1316-9.
84. Urowitz MB, Feletar M, Bruce IN, Ibanez D, Gladman DD. Prolonged remission in systemic lupus
erythematosus. J Rheumatol. 2005;32(8):1467-72.
85. Yee CS, Farewell V, Isenberg DA, Rahman A, Teh LS, Griffiths B, et al. British Isles Lupus Assessment
Group 2004 index is valid for assessment of disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum.
2007;56(12):4113-9.
86. Forger F, Matthias T, Oppermann M, Becker H, Helmke K. Clinical significance of anti-dsDNA antibody
isotypes: IgG/IgM ratio of anti-dsDNA antibodies as a prognostic marker for lupus nephritis. Lupus.
2004;13(1):36-44.
87. Gladman DD, Urowitz MB, Keystone EC. Serologically active clinically quiescent systemic lupus
erythematosus: a discordance between clinical and serologic features. Am J Med. 1979;66(2):210-5.
88. Gladman DD, Hirani N, Ibanez D, Urowitz MB. Clinically active serologically quiescent systemic lupus
erythematosus. J Rheumatol. 2003;30(9):1960-2.
89. Ng KP, Manson JJ, Rahman A, Isenberg DA. Association of antinucleosome antibodies with disease
flare in serologically active clinically quiescent patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum.
2006;55(6):900-4.
90. ter Borg EJ, Horst G, Hummel EJ, Limburg PC, Kallenberg CG. Measurement of increases in anti-
double-stranded DNA antibody levels as a predictor of disease exacerbation in systemic lupus erythematosus.
A long-term, prospective study. Arthritis Rheum. 1990;33(5):634-43.
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN
ADULTS
91. Bootsma H, Spronk PE, Ter Borg EJ, Hummel EJ, de Boer G, Limburg PC, et al. The predictive value
of fluctuations in IgM and IgG class anti-dsDNA antibodies for relapses in systemic lupus erythematosus. A
prospective long-term observation. Ann Rheum Dis. 1997;56(11):661-6.
92. Ho A, Magder LS, Barr SG, Petri M. Decreases in anti-double-stranded DNA levels are associated with
concurrent flares in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum. 2001;44(10):2342-9.
93. Swaak AJ, Groenwold J, Aarden LA, Statius van Eps LW, Feltkamp EW. Prognostic value of anti-
dsDNA in SLE. Ann Rheum Dis. 1982;41(4):388-95.
94. Swaak AJ, Aarden LA, Statius van Eps LW, Feltkamp TE. Anti-dsDNA and complement profiles as
prognostic guides in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum. 1979;22(3):226-35.
95. Swaak AJ, Groenwold J, Bronsveld W. Predictive value of complement profiles and anti-dsDNA in
systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis. 1986;45(5):359-66.
97. Bastian HM, Alarcon GS, Roseman JM, McGwin G, Jr., Vila LM, Fessler BJ, et al. Systemic lupus
erythematosus in a multiethnic US cohort (LUMINA) XL II: factors predictive of new or worsening proteinuria.
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2007;46(4):683-9.
98. Bastian HM, Roseman JM, McGwin G, Jr., Alarcon GS, Friedman AW, Fessler BJ, et al. Systemic
lupus erythematosus in three ethnic groups. XII. Risk factors for lupus nephritis after diagnosis. Lupus.
2002;11(3):152-60.
99. Cortes-Hernandez J, Ordi-Ros J, Labrador M, Segarra A, Tovar JL, Balada E, et al. Predictors of poor
renal outcome in patients with lupus nephritis treated with combined pulses of cyclophosphamide and
methylprednisolone. Lupus. 2003;12(4):287-96.
100. Linnik MD, Hu JZ, Heilbrunn KR, Strand V, Hurley FL, Joh T. Relationship between anti-double-
stranded DNA antibodies and exacerbation of renal disease in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.
Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52(4):1129-37.
101. Wada Y, Ito S, Ueno M, Nakano M, Arakawa M, Gejyo F. Renal outcome and predictors of clinical renal
involvement in patients with silent lupus nephritis. Nephron Clin Pract. 2004;98(4):c105-11.
102. Abrass CK, Nies KM, Louie JS, Border WA, Glassock RJ. Correlation and predictive accuracy of
circulating immune complexes with disease activity in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis
Rheum. 1980;23(3):273-82.
103. Cameron JS, Lessof MH, Ogg CS, Williams BD, Williams DG. Disease activity in the nephritis of
systemic lupus erythematosus in relation to serum complement concentrations. DNA-binding capacity and
precipitating anti-DNA antibody. Clin Exp Immunol. 1976;25(3):418-27.
104. El Hachmi M, Jadoul M, Lefebvre C, Depresseux G, Houssiau FA. Relapses of lupus nephritis:
incidence, risk factors, serology and impact on outcome. Lupus. 2003;12(9):692-6.
105. van den Berg L, Nossent H, Rekvig O. Prior anti-dsDNA antibody status does not predict later disease
manifestations in systemic lupus erythematosus. Clin Rheumatol. 2006;25(3):347-52.
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN
ADULTS
106. Arbuckle MR, James JA, Kohlhase KF, Rubertone MV, Dennis GJ, Harley JB. Development of anti-
dsDNA autoantibodies prior to clinical diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus. Scand J Immunol.
2001;54(1-2):211-9.
107. Alba P, Bento L, Cuadrado MJ, Karim Y, Tungekar MF, Abbs I, et al. Anti-dsDNA, anti-Sm antibodies,
and the lupus anticoagulant: significant factors associated with lupus nephritis. Ann Rheum Dis.
2003;62(6):556-60.
108. Mosca M, Chimenti D, Pratesi F, Baldini C, Anzilotti C, Bombardieri S, et al. Prevalence and clinico-
serological correlations of anti-alpha-enolase, anti-C1q, and anti-dsDNA antibodies in patients with systemic
lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol. 2006;33(4):695-7.
109. Manger K, Manger B, Repp R, Geisselbrecht M, Geiger A, Pfahlberg A, et al. Definition of risk factors
for death, end stage renal disease, and thromboembolic events in a monocentric cohort of 338 patients with
systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis. 2002;61(12):1065-70.
110. Esdaile JM, Abrahamowicz M, MacKenzie T, Hayslett JP, Kashgarian M. The time-dependence of long-
term prediction in lupus nephritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1994;37(3):359-68.
111. Esdaile JM, Joseph L, Abrahamowicz M, Li Y, Danoff D, Clarke AE. Routine immunologic tests in
systemic lupus erythematosus: is there a need for more studies? J Rheumatol. 1996;23(11):1891-6.
112. Sinico RA, Rimoldi L, Radice A, Bianchi L, Gallelli B, Moroni G. Anti-C1q autoantibodies in lupus
nephritis. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009;1173:47-51.
113. Moroni G, Radice A, Giammarresi G, Quaglini S, Gallelli B, Leoni A, et al. Are laboratory tests useful for
monitoring the activity of lupus nephritis? A 6-year prospective study in a cohort of 228 patients with lupus
nephritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68(2):234-7.
114. Tsirogianni A, Pipi E, Soufleros K. Relevance of anti-C1q autoantibodies to lupus nephritis. Ann N Y
Acad Sci. 2009;1173:243-51.
115. Porcel JM, Ordi J, Castro-Salomo A, Vilardell M, Rodrigo MJ, Gene T, et al. The value of complement
activation products in the assessment of systemic lupus erythematosus flares. Clin Immunol Immunopathol.
1995;74(3):283-8.
116. Nagy G, Brozik M, Varga L, Fust G, Kirschfink M, Kiss E, et al. Usefulness of detection of complement
activation products in evaluating SLE activity. Lupus. 2000;9(1):19-25.
117. Ramos-Casals M, Campoamor MT, Chamorro A, Salvador G, Segura S, Botero JC, et al.
Hypocomplementemia in systemic lupus erythematosus and primary antiphospholipid syndrome: prevalence
and clinical significance in 667 patients. Lupus. 2004;13(10):777-83.
118. Sullivan KE, Wisnieski JJ, Winkelstein JA, Louie J, Sachs E, Choi R, et al. Serum complement
determinations in patients with quiescent systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol. 1996;23(12):2063-7.
119. Ho A, Barr SG, Magder LS, Petri M. A decrease in complement is associated with increased renal and
hematologic activity in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum. 2001;44(10):2350-7.
120. Buyon JP, Tamerius J, Belmont HM, Abramson SB. Assessment of disease activity and impending flare
in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Comparison of the use of complement split products and
conventional measurements of complement. Arthritis Rheum. 1992;35(9):1028-37.
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN
ADULTS
121. Hopkins P, Belmont HM, Buyon J, Philips M, Weissmann G, Abramson SB. Increased levels of plasma
anaphylatoxins in systemic lupus erythematosus predict flares of the disease and may elicit vascular injury in
lupus cerebritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1988;31(5):632-41.
122. Laitman RS, Glicklich D, Sablay LB, Grayzel AI, Barland P, Bank N. Effect of long-term normalization of
serum complement levels on the course of lupus nephritis. Am J Med. 1989;87(2):132-8.
124. Post TW, Rose BD. Overview of the management of chronic kidney disease in adults. UpToDate 182;
2010.
125. Norby GE, Holme I, Fellstrom B, Jardine A, Cole E, Abedini S, et al. Effect of fluvastatin on cardiac
outcomes in kidney transplant patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a randomized placebo-controlled
study. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;60(4):1060-4.
126. Yazdany J, Tonner C, Trupin L, Panopalis P, Gillis JZ, Hersh AO, et al. Provision of preventive health
care in systemic lupus erythematosus: data from a large observational cohort study. Arthritis Res Ther.
2010;12(3):R84.
127. McInnes PM, Schuttinga J, Sanslone WR, Stark SP, Klippel JH. The economic impact of treatment of
severe lupus nephritis with prednisone and intravenous cyclophosphamide. Arthritis Rheum. 1994;37(7):1000-
6.
128. Wilson EC, Jayne DR, Dellow E, Fordham RJ. The cost-effectiveness of mycophenolate mofetil as
firstline therapy in active lupus nephritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2007;46(7):1096-101.
129. Ward MM. Access to care and the incidence of endstage renal disease due to systemic lupus
erythematosus. J Rheumatol. 2010;37(6):1158-63.
130. Hopkinson ND, Jenkinson C, Muir KR, Doherty M, Powell RJ. Racial group, socioeconomic status, and
the development of persistent proteinuria in systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis. 2000;59(2):116-9.
131. Ward MM. Medical insurance, socioeconomic status, and age of onset of endstage renal disease in
patients with lupus nephritis. J Rheumatol. 2007;34(10):2024-7.
132. Contreras G, Lenz O, Pardo V, Borja E, Cely C, Iqbal K, et al. Outcomes in African Americans and
Hispanics with lupus nephritis. Kidney Int. 2006;69(10):1846-51.
133. Barr RG, Seliger S, Appel GB, Zuniga R, D'Agati V, Salmon J, et al. Prognosis in proliferative lupus
nephritis: the role of socio-economic status and race/ethnicity. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2003;18(10):2039-46.
134. Petri M, Perez-Gutthann S, Longenecker JC, Hochberg M. Morbidity of systemic lupus erythematosus:
role of race and socioeconomic status. Am J Med. 1991;91(4):345-53.
135. Fernandez M, Alarcon GS, Calvo-Alen J, Andrade R, McGwin G, Jr., Vila LM, et al. A multiethnic,
multicenter cohort of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) as a model for the study of ethnic
disparities in SLE. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57(4):576-84.
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN
ADULTS
136. Ward MM. Access to renal transplantation among patients with end-stage renal disease due to lupus
nephritis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2000;35(5):915-22.
137. Carls G, Li T, Panopalis P, Wang S, Mell AG, Gibson TB, et al. Direct and indirect costs to employers of
patients with systemic lupus erythematosus with and without nephritis. J Occup Environ Med. 2009;51(1):66-79.
138. Clarke AE, Petri M, Manzi S, Isenberg DA, Gordon C, Senecal JL, et al. The systemic lupus
erythematosus Tri-nation Study: absence of a link between health resource use and health outcome.
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2004;43(8):1016-24.
139. Li T, Carls GS, Panopalis P, Wang S, Gibson TB, Goetzel RZ. Long-term medical costs and resource
utilization in systemic lupus erythematosus and lupus nephritis: a five-year analysis of a large medicaid
population. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;61(6):755-63.
140. Pelletier EM, Ogale S, Yu E, Brunetta P, Garg J. Economic outcomes in patients diagnosed with
systemic lupus erythematosus with versus without nephritis: results from an analysis of data from a US claims
database. Clin Ther. 2009;31(11):2653-64.
141. Contreras G, Pardo V, Cely C, Borja E, Hurtado A, De La Cuesta C, et al. Factors associated with poor
outcomes in patients with lupus nephritis. Lupus. 2005;14(11):890-5.
142. Esdaile JM, Levinton C, Federgreen W, Hayslett JP, Kashgarian M. The clinical and renal biopsy
predictors of long-term outcome in lupus nephritis: a study of 87 patients and review of the literature. Q J Med.
1989;72(269):779-833.
143. Hill GS, Delahousse M, Nochy D, Remy P, Mignon F, Mery JP, et al. Predictive power of the second
renal biopsy in lupus nephritis: significance of macrophages. Kidney Int. 2001;59(1):304-16.
144. Magil AB, Puterman ML, Ballon HS, Chan V, Lirenman DS, Rae A, et al. Prognostic factors in diffuse
proliferative lupus glomerulonephritis. Kidney Int. 1988;34(4):511-7.
145. Moroni G, Quaglini S, Gallelli B, Banfi G, Messa P, Ponticelli C. The long-term outcome of 93 patients
with proliferative lupus nephritis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2007;22(9):2531-9.
146. Zavada J, Pesickova S, Rysava R, Olejarova M, Horak P, Hrncir Z, et al. Cyclosporine A or intravenous
cyclophosphamide for lupus nephritis: the Cyclofa-Lune study. Lupus. 2010;19(11):1281-9.
147. Steinberg AD, Decker JL. A double-blind controlled trial comparing cyclophosphamide, azathioprine
and placebo in the treatment of lupus glomerulonephritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1974;17(6):923-37.
148. Carette S, Klippel JH, Decker JL, Austin HA, Plotz PH, Steinberg AD, et al. Controlled studies of oral
immunosuppressive drugs in lupus nephritis. A long-term follow-up. Ann Intern Med. 1983;99(1):1-8.
149. Austin HA, 3rd, Klippel JH, Balow JE, le Riche NG, Steinberg AD, Plotz PH, et al. Therapy of lupus
nephritis. Controlled trial of prednisone and cytotoxic drugs. N Engl J Med. 1986;314(10):614-9.
150. Steinberg AD, Steinberg SC. Long-term preservation of renal function in patients with lupus nephritis
receiving treatment that includes cyclophosphamide versus those treated with prednisone only. Arthritis
Rheum. 1991;34(8):945-50.
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN
ADULTS
151. Grootscholten C, Ligtenberg G, Hagen EC, van den Wall Bake AW, de Glas-Vos JW, Bijl M, et al.
Azathioprine/methylprednisolone versus cyclophosphamide in proliferative lupus nephritis. A randomized
controlled trial. Kidney Int. 2006;70(4):732-42.
152. Boumpas DT, Austin HA, 3rd, Vaughn EM, Klippel JH, Steinberg AD, Yarboro CH, et al. Controlled trial
of pulse methylprednisolone versus two regimens of pulse cyclophosphamide in severe lupus nephritis. Lancet.
1992;340(8822):741-5.
153. Gourley MF, Austin HA, 3rd, Scott D, Yarboro CH, Vaughan EM, Muir J, et al. Methylprednisolone and
cyclophosphamide, alone or in combination, in patients with lupus nephritis. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann
Intern Med. 1996;125(7):549-57.
154. Donadio JV, Jr., Holley KE, Ferguson RH, Ilstrup DM. Progressive lupus glomerulonephritis. Treatment
with prednisone and combined prednisone and cyclophosphamide. Mayo Clin Proc. 1976;51(8):484-94.
155. Donadio JV, Jr., Holley KE, Ferguson RH, Ilstrup DM. Treatment of diffuse proliferative lupus nephritis
with prednisone and combined prednisone and cyclophosphamide. N Engl J Med. 1978;299(21):1151-5.
156. Clark WF, Cattran DC, Balfe JW, Williams W, Lindsay RM, Linton AL. Chronic plasma exchange in
systemic lupus erythematosus nephritis. Proc Eur Dial Transplant Assoc. 1983;20:629-35.
157. Pohl MA, Lan SP, Berl T. Plasmapheresis does not increase the risk for infection in immunosuppressed
patients with severe lupus nephritis. The Lupus Nephritis Collaborative Study Group. Ann Intern Med.
1991;114(11):924-9.
158. Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Lan SP, Rohde RD, Lachin JM. A controlled trial of plasmapheresis therapy in
severe lupus nephritis. The Lupus Nephritis Collaborative Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1992;326(21):1373-9.
159. Mok CC, Ho CT, Siu YP, Chan KW, Kwan TH, Lau CS, et al. Treatment of diffuse proliferative lupus
glomerulonephritis: a comparison of two cyclophosphamide-containing regimens. Am J Kidney Dis.
2001;38(2):256-64.
160. Houssiau FA, Vasconcelos C, D'Cruz D, Sebastiani GD, Garrido Ed Ede R, Danieli MG, et al.
Immunosuppressive therapy in lupus nephritis: the Euro-Lupus Nephritis Trial, a randomized trial of low-dose
versus high-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide. Arthritis Rheum. 2002;46(8):2121-31.
161. Bao H, Liu ZH, Xie HL, Hu WX, Zhang HT, Li LS. Successful treatment of class V+IV lupus nephritis
with multitarget therapy. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;19(10):2001-10.
162. Hu W, Liu Z, Chen H, Tang Z, Wang Q, Shen K, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil vs cyclophosphamide
therapy for patients with diffuse proliferative lupus nephritis. Chin Med J (Engl). 2002;115(5):705-9.
163. Ong LM, Hooi LS, Lim TO, Goh BL, Ahmad G, Ghazalli R, et al. Randomized controlled trial of pulse
intravenous cyclophosphamide versus mycophenolate mofetil in the induction therapy of proliferative lupus
nephritis. Nephrology (Carlton). 2005;10(5):504-10.
164. Ginzler EM, Dooley MA, Aranow C, Kim MY, Buyon J, Merrill JT, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil or
intravenous cyclophosphamide for lupus nephritis. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(21):2219-28.
165. Wang J, Hu W, Xie H, Zhang H, Chen H, Zeng C, et al. Induction therapies for class IV lupus nephritis
with non-inflammatory necrotizing vasculopathy: mycophenolate mofetil or intravenous cyclophosphamide.
Lupus. 2007;16(9):707-12.
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN
ADULTS
166. Appel GB, Contreras G, Dooley MA, Ginzler EM, Isenberg D, Jayne D, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil
versus cyclophosphamide for induction treatment of lupus nephritis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;20(5):1103-12.
167. Isenberg D, Appel GB, Contreras G, Dooley MA, Ginzler EM, Jayne D, et al. Influence of race/ethnicity
on response to lupus nephritis treatment: the ALMS study. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2010;49(1):128-40.
168. El-Shafey EM, Abdou SH, Shareef MM. Is mycophenolate mofetil superior to pulse intravenous
cyclophosphamide for induction therapy of proliferative lupus nephritis in Egyptian patients? Clin Exp Nephrol.
2010;14(3):214-21.
169. Chan TM, Li FK, Tang CS, Wong RW, Fang GX, Ji YL, et al. Efficacy of mycophenolate mofetil in
patients with diffuse proliferative lupus nephritis. Hong Kong-Guangzhou Nephrology Study Group. N Engl J
Med. 2000;343(16):1156-62.
170. Chan TM, Tse KC, Tang CS, Lai KN, Li FK. Long-term outcome of patients with diffuse proliferative
lupus nephritis treated with prednisolone and oral cyclophosphamide followed by azathioprine. Lupus.
2005;14(4):265-72.
171. Contreras G, Pardo V, Leclercq B, Lenz O, Tozman E, O'Nan P, et al. Sequential therapies for
proliferative lupus nephritis. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(10):971-80.
172. Houssiau FA, D'Cruz D, Sangle S, Remy P, Vasconcelos C, Petrovic R, et al. Azathioprine versus
mycophenolate mofetil for long-term immunosuppression in lupus nephritis: results from the MAINTAIN
Nephritis Trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69(12):2083-9.
173. Wang HY, Cui TG, Hou FF, Ni ZH, Chen XM, Lu FM, et al. Induction treatment of proliferative lupus
nephritis with leflunomide combined with prednisone: a prospective multi-centre observational study. Lupus.
2008;17(7):638-44.
174. Illei GG, Shirota Y, Yarboro CH, Daruwalla J, Tackey E, Takada K, et al. Tocilizumab in systemic lupus
erythematosus: data on safety, preliminary efficacy, and impact on circulating plasma cells from an open-label
phase I dosage-escalation study. Arthritis Rheum. 2010;62(2):542-52.
175. Catapano F, Chaudhry AN, Jones RB, Smith KG, Jayne DW. Long-term efficacy and safety of rituximab
in refractory and relapsing systemic lupus erythematosus. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010;25(11):3586-92.
176. Terrier B, Amoura Z, Ravaud P, Hachulla E, Jouenne R, Combe B, et al. Safety and efficacy of
rituximab in systemic lupus erythematosus: results from 136 patients from the French AutoImmunity and
Rituximab registry. Arthritis Rheum. 2010;62(8):2458-66.
177. Jonsdottir T, Gunnarsson I, Mourao AF, Lu TY, van Vollenhoven RF, Isenberg D. Clinical
improvements in proliferative vs membranous lupus nephritis following B-cell depletion: pooled data from two
cohorts. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2010;49(8):1502-4.
178. Jayne D, Passweg J, Marmont A, Farge D, Zhao X, Arnold R, et al. Autologous stem cell
transplantation for systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus. 2004;13(3):168-76.
179. Burt RK, Traynor A, Statkute L, Barr WG, Rosa R, Schroeder J, et al. Nonmyeloablative hematopoietic
stem cell transplantation for systemic lupus erythematosus. JAMA. 2006;295(5):527-35.
180. Liang J, Zhang H, Hua B, Wang H, Lu L, Shi S, et al. Allogenic mesenchymal stem cells transplantation
in refractory systemic lupus erythematosus: a pilot clinical study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69(8):1423-9.
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN
ADULTS
181. Sun L, Wang D, Liang J, Zhang H, Feng X, Wang H, et al. Umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cell
transplantation in severe and refractory systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum. 2010;62(8):2467-75.
182. Siso A, Ramos-Casals M, Bove A, Brito-Zeron P, Soria N, Munoz S, et al. Previous antimalarial therapy
in patients diagnosed with lupus nephritis: influence on outcomes and survival. Lupus. 2008;17(4):281-8.
183. Pons-Estel GJ, Alarcon GS, McGwin G, Jr., Danila MI, Zhang J, Bastian HM, et al. Protective effect of
hydroxychloroquine on renal damage in patients with lupus nephritis: LXV, data from a multiethnic US cohort.
Arthritis Rheum. 2009;61(6):830-9.
184. Rihova Z, Vankova Z, Maixnerova D, Dostal C, Jancova E, Honsova E, et al. Treatment of lupus
nephritis with cyclosporine - an outcome analysis. Kidney Blood Press Res. 2007;30(2):124-8.
185. Dooley MA, Hogan S, Jennette C, Falk R. Cyclophosphamide therapy for lupus nephritis: poor renal
survival in black Americans. Glomerular Disease Collaborative Network. Kidney Int. 1997;51(4):1188-95.
186. Ioannidis JP, Boki KA, Katsorida ME, Drosos AA, Skopouli FN, Boletis JN, et al. Remission, relapse,
and re-remission of proliferative lupus nephritis treated with cyclophosphamide. Kidney Int. 2000;57(1):258-64.
187. Mok CC, Ying KY, Tang S, Leung CY, Lee KW, Ng WL, et al. Predictors and outcome of renal flares
after successful cyclophosphamide treatment for diffuse proliferative lupus glomerulonephritis. Arthritis Rheum.
2004;50(8):2559-68.
188. de Castro WP, Morales JV, Wagner MB, Graudenz M, Edelweiss MI, Goncalves LF. Hypertension and
Afro-descendant ethnicity: a bad interaction for lupus nephritis treated with cyclophosphamide? Lupus.
2007;16(9):724-30.
189. Mok CC, Ying KY, Ng WL, Lee KW, To CH, Lau CS, et al. Long-term outcome of diffuse proliferative
lupus glomerulonephritis treated with cyclophosphamide. Am J Med. 2006;119(4):355 e25-33.
190. Petri M, Brodsky RA, Jones RJ, Gladstone D, Fillius M, Magder LS. High-dose cyclophosphamide
versus monthly intravenous cyclophosphamide for systemic lupus erythematosus: a prospective randomized
trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2010;62(5):1487-93.
191. Urowitz MB, Ibanez D, Ali Y, Gladman DD. Outcomes in patients with active lupus nephritis requiring
immunosuppressives who never received cyclophosphamide. J Rheumatol. 2007;34(7):1491-6.
192. Decker JL, Klippel JH, Plotz PH, Steinberg AD. Cyclophosphamide or azathioprine in lupus
glomerulonephritis. A controlled trial: results at 28 months. Ann Intern Med. 1975;83(5):606-15.
193. Houssiau FA, Vasconcelos C, D'Cruz D, Sebastiani GD, de Ramon Garrido E, Danieli MG, et al. Early
response to immunosuppressive therapy predicts good renal outcome in lupus nephritis: lessons from long-
term followup of patients in the Euro-Lupus Nephritis Trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50(12):3934-40.
194. Tang Z, Yang G, Yu C, Yu Y, Wang J, Hu W, et al. Effects of mycophenolate mofetil for patients with
crescentic lupus nephritis. Nephrology (Carlton). 2008;13(8):702-7.
195. Rivera TL, Belmont HM, Malani S, Latorre M, Benton L, Weisstuch J, et al. Current therapies for lupus
nephritis in an ethnically heterogeneous cohort. J Rheumatol. 2009;36(2):298-305.
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN
ADULTS
196. Cortes-Hernandez J, Torres-Salido MT, Medrano AS, Tarres MV, Ordi-Ros J. Long-term outcomes--
mycophenolate mofetil treatment for lupus nephritis with addition of tacrolimus for resistant cases. Nephrol Dial
Transplant. 2010;25(12):3939-48.
197. Mok CC, Ying KY, Lau CS, Yim CW, Ng WL, Wong WS, et al. Treatment of pure membranous lupus
nephropathy with prednisone and azathioprine: an open-label trial. Am J Kidney Dis. 2004;43(2):269-76.
198. Zhang FS, Nie YK, Jin XM, Yu HM, Li YN, Sun Y. The efficacy and safety of leflunomide therapy in
lupus nephritis by repeat kidney biopsy. Rheumatol Int. 2009;29(11):1331-5.
199. Froelich CJ, Wallman J, Skosey JL, Teodorescu M. Clinical value of an integrated ELISA system for the
detection of 6 autoantibodies (ssDNA, dsDNA, Sm, RNP/Sm, SSA, and SSB). J Rheumatol. 1990;17(2):192-
200.
200. Emlen W, Jarusiripipat P, Burdick G. A new ELISA for the detection of double-stranded DNA antibodies.
J Immunol Methods. 1990;132(1):91-101.
201. Isenberg DA, Ehrenstein MR, Longhurst C, Kalsi JK. The origin, sequence, structure, and
consequences of developing anti-DNA antibodies. A human perspective. Arthritis Rheum. 1994;37(2):169-80.
202. Chubick A, Sontheimer RD, Gilliam JN, Ziff M. An appraisal of tests for native DNA antibodies in
connective tissue diseases. Clinical usefulness of Crithidia luciliae assay. Ann Intern Med. 1978;89(2):186-92.
203. Kalmin ND, Bartholomew WR, Wicher K. Relative values of laboratory assays in systemic lupus
erythematosus. Am J Clin Pathol. 1981;75(6):846-51.
204. Bootsma H, Spronk PE, Hummel EJ, de Boer G, ter Borg EJ, Limburg PC, et al. Anti-double stranded
DNA antibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus: detection and clinical relevance of IgM-class antibodies.
Scand J Rheumatol. 1996;25(6):352-9.
205. Pincus T, Schur PH, Rose JA, Decker JL, Talal N. Measurement of serum DNA-binding activity in
systemic lupus erythematosus. N Engl J Med. 1969;281(13):701-5.
206. Ballou SP, Kushner I. Anti-native DNA detection by the Crithidia luciliae method: an improved guide to
the diagnosis and clinical management of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum. 1979;22(4):321-7.
207. Garcia CO, Molina JF, Gutierrez-Urena S, Scopelitis E, Wilson WA, Gharavi AE, et al. Autoantibody
profile in African-American patients with lupus nephritis. Lupus. 1996;5(6):602-5.
208. Weitzman RJ, Walker SE. Relation of titred peripheral pattern ANA to anti-DNA and disease activity in
systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis. 1977;36(1):44-9.
209. Miniter MF, Stollar BD, Agnello V. Reassessment of the clinical significance of native DNA antibodies in
systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum. 1979;22(9):959-68.
210. Ballou SP, Kushner I. Lupus patients who lack detectable anti-DNA: clinical features and survival.
Arthritis Rheum. 1982;25(9):1126-9.
211. Isenberg DA, Shoenfeld Y, Schwartz RS. Multiple serologic reactions and their relationship to clinical
activity in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum. 1984;27(2):132-8.
GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT AND MONITORING OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS IN
ADULTS
212. Davis P, Percy JS, Russell AS. Correlation between levels of DNA antibodies and clinical disease
activity in SLE. Ann Rheum Dis. 1977;36(2):157-9.
213. Feldman MD, Huston DP, Karsh J, Balow JE, Klima E, Steinberg AD. Correlation of serum IgG, IgM,
and anti-native-DNA antibodies with renal and clinical indexes of activity in systemic lupus erythematosus. J
Rheumatol. 1982;9(1):52-8.