OP0030 GRANULOMATOSIS WITH POLYANGIITIS SUSTAINED REMISSION OFF-THERAPY: DATA FROM THE FRENCH VASCULITIS STUDY GROUP REGISTRY

Background:

Data on granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) sustained remission off-therapy (SROT) are limited and it is unknown whether disease characteristics or treatment regimen may affect it.

Objectives:

This study aimed to assess SROT of GPA patients from the French Vasculitis Study Group registry, and identify factors associated with its occurrence and durability during follow-up.

Methods:

GPA had to satisfy the 1990 ACR classification criteria and/or revised Chapel Hill Nomenclature for study inclusion. SROT was defined as remission (BVAS=0) without glucocorticoids (GC) or immunosuppressants (IS), the latter for ≥6 months (ie 2 consecutive visits). SROT and its duration were extracted from the database. Data from patients with 3-, 5- and 10-year SROT were analyzed. Baseline characteristics of patients with 3-year GPA SROT were compared to those of registry GPA patients with available data at 3 years but not in SROT (controls), and 3-year SROT achieving 5-year SROT vs those who relapsed between 3 & 5 years. Patients with 3-year GPA SROT follow-up +7 years were analyzed according to maintained SROT or not.

Results:

Among 795 database patients with new-onset GPA, 259 achieved at least 1 SROT at some time during their disease, after a median [IQR] of 36 [28–63] months post-diagnosis. The first SROT lasted a median of 14 [I8-32] months. Among 202 of those patients who had follow-up, 73 (36%) remained in SROT for a median follow-up of 34 [14-45] months post-SROT. Among 434 (54%) patients followed for ≥3 years post-diagnosis, 82% had received GC and cyclophosphamide induction therapy. At 3 years post-diagnosis, 92 (21%) patients in SROT were compared to 342 (79%) controls who had relapsed or were still taking GC or IS. Patients achieving 3-year SROT vs controls, respectively, had more frequently received intravenous cyclophosphamide as induction therapy (89% vs 77%, P=0.01), with a higher median number of infusions (7.5 vs 6; P=0.05); no other clinical or biological baseline difference was found. Among those 92 3-year SROT patients, 74 had ≥2 years of additional follow-up: 46 (62%) attained 5-year SROT and 28 (38%) had relapsed after a mean follow-up of 13 months. Baseline clinical and biological characteristics of patients achieving 5-year SROT did not differ from those of 3-year SROT patients who relapsed. Among those 92 3-year SROT patients, 16 had ≥7 additional years of follow-up: 6 (38%) achieved 10-year SROT, ie 8% of 75 GPA with available data at 10 years, and 10 (63%) had relapsed a mean 35 ± 28 months after achieving 3-year SROT.

Conclusion:

Only 8% of GPA patients achieved 10-year SROT after conventional induction and maintenance therapies. No baseline clinical or biological characteristics helped distinguish patients achieving or maintaining SROT and those who relapsed. However, patients achieving 3-year SROT had received more intensive induction therapy than those who relapsed or were still on GC or IS at 3 years.

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared

OP0163 2019 UPDATE OF THE JOINT EUROPEAN LEAGUE AGAINST RHEUMATISM AND EUROPEAN RENAL ASSOCIATION–EUROPEAN DIALYSIS AND TRANSPLANT ASSOCIATION (EULAR/ERA-EDTA) RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS

Background:

Up to 40% of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients develop kidney disease, which represents a major cause of morbidity.

Objectives:

To update the 2012 EULAR/ERA-EDTA recommendations for the management of lupus nephritis (LN).

Methods:

We followed the EULAR standardised operating procedures for the publication of treatment recommendations. Delphi-based methodology led to 15 questions for systematic literature review (SLR), which was undertaken by three fellows.

Results:

The changes include recommendations for treatment targets, use of glucocorticoids and calcineurin inhibitors (CNI), and management of end-stage-kidney-disease (ESKD). The target of therapy is complete response (proteinuria <0.5-0.7gr/24h with [near-]normal glomerular filtration rate) by 12 months, but this can be extended in patients with baseline nephrotic-range proteinuria. Hydroxychloroquine is recommended with regular ophthalmological monitoring. In active proliferative LN, initial (induction) treatment with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF 2-3g/day, or mycophenolic acid at equivalent dose) or low-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide (CY; 500mg x6 biweekly doses), both combined with glucocorticoids (pulses of intravenous methylprednisolone, then oral prednisone 0.3-0.5mg/kg/day) is recommended. MMF/CNI (especially tacrolimus) combination and high-dose CY are alternatives, for patients with nephrotic-range proteinuria and adverse prognostic factors. Subsequent long-term maintenance treatment with MMF or azathioprine should follow, with no or low-dose (<7.5 mg/day) glucocorticoids. The choice of agent depends on the initial regimen and plans for pregnancy. In non-responding disease, switch of induction regimens or rituximab are recommended. In pure membranous LN with nephrotic-range proteinuria or proteinuria >1g/24h despite renin-angiotensin-aldosterone blockade, MMF in combination with glucocorticoids is preferred. Assessment for kidney and extra-renal disease activity, and management of comorbidities is lifelong with repeat kidney biopsy in cases of incomplete response or nephritic flares. In ESKD, transplantation is the preferred kidney replacement option with immunosuppression guided by transplant protocols and/or extra-renal manifestations.

Conclusion:

The updated recommendations intend to inform rheumatologists, nephrologists, patients, national professional societies, hospital officials, social security agencies and regulators about the treatment of LN based on most recent evidence.

Disclosure of Interests:

Antonis Fanouriakis Paid instructor for: Paid instructor for Enorasis, Amgen, Speakers bureau: Paid speaker for Roche, Genesis Pharma, Mylan, Myrto Kostopoulou: None declared, Kim Cheema: None declared, Hans-Joachim Anders: None declared, Martin Aringer Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Ingeborg Bajema Consultant of: GSK, John N. Boletis Grant/research support from: GSK, Pfizer, Paid instructor for: GSK, Abbvie, UCB, Enorasis, Eleni Frangou: None declared, Frederic Houssiau Grant/research support from: UCB, Consultant of: GSK, Jane Hollis: None declared, Alexandre Karras: None declared, Francesca Marchiori: None declared, Stephen Marks: None declared, Gabriela Moroni: None declared, Marta Mosca: None declared, Ioannis Parodis: None declared, Manuel Praga: None declared, Matthias Schneider Grant/research support from: GSK, UCB, Abbvie, Consultant of: Abbvie, Alexion, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Lilly, Sanofi, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Chugai, GSK, Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Josef S. Smolen Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Vladimir Tesar: None declared, Maria Trachana: None declared, Ronald van Vollenhoven Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Arthrogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Crescendo Bioscience, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB and Vertex, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Crescendo Bioscience, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Vertex, Alexandre Voskuyl: None declared, Y.K. Onno Teng Grant/research support from: GSK, Consultant of: GSK, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Bernadette van Leeuw: None declared, George Bertsias Grant/research support from: GSK, Consultant of: Novartis, David Jayne Grant/research support from: ChemoCentryx, GSK, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi-Genzyme, Consultant of: Astra-Zeneca, ChemoCentryx, GSK, InflaRx, Takeda, Insmed, Chugai, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Dimitrios Boumpas: None declared

Atteinte rénale du syndrome d’activation macrophagique

Le syndrome d’activation macrophagique (SAM) ou syndrome hémophagocytaire est une pathologie compliquant soit certains déficits immunitaires d’origine génétique, soit certaines maladies hématologiques (essentiellement des lymphomes non hodgkiniens), infectieuses (herpèsvirus, bactéries, parasites) ou auto-immunes (lupus, maladie de Still). Il se caractérise par une suractivation aiguë du système immunitaire et plus particulièrement des lymphocytes T cytotoxiques et des cellules histiocytaires/macrophagiques, déclenchant une production massive de cytokines pro-inflammatoires avec fièvre, pancytopénie, organomégalie, altérations du bilan hépatique et de la coagulation. Une défaillance multiviscérale est fréquente, nécessitant la prise en charge en réanimation et mettant souvent en jeu le pronostic vital, avec une mortalité qui reste dans certains cas à près de 50 %. Le SAM implique souvent le rein, par le biais d’une nécrose tubulaire aiguë, d’une néphropathie interstitielle inflammatoire ou d’une glomérulopathie sévère, responsable de syndrome néphrotique. La mise en évidence de ce syndrome n’est pas toujours facile chez un patient avec un tableau de sepsis ou de choc septique, mais elle peut guider la prise en charge thérapeutique, notamment l’initiation d’un traitement par chimiothérapie ou immunosuppresseurs, selon l’étiologie identifiée.

Disease severity of proliferative lupus nephritis in Maghrebians

Objective To study the influence of Maghrebian ethnicity on lupus nephritis. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the files of a cohort of 194 patients with proliferative lupus nephritis followed in seven lupus centres belonging to three groups: Europeans living in Belgium/France (E; n = 111); Maghrebians living in Europe, in casu Belgium/France (ME; n = 43); and Maghrebians living in Morocco (MM; n = 40). Baseline presentation was compared between these three groups but complete long-term outcome data were available only for E and ME patients. Results At presentation, the clinical and pathological characteristics of lupus nephritis did not differ between E, ME and MM patients. Renal relapses were more common in ME patients (54%) than in E patients (29%) ( P < 0.01). Time to renal flare and to end-stage renal disease was shorter in ME patients compared to E patients ( P < 0.0001 and P < 0.05, respectively). While proteinuria measured at month 12 accurately predicted a serum creatinine value of less than 1 mg/dl at 7 years in E patients, this was not the case in the ME group, in whom serum creatinine at month 12 performed better. Conclusion Despite a similar disease profile at onset, the prognosis of lupus nephritis is more severe in Maghrebians living in Europe compared to native Europeans, with a higher relapse rate.