High urine volume and low urine osmolality are risk factors for faster progression of renal disease

Mycophenolate therapy of SLE membranous nephropathy

BACKGROUND

The immunosuppressant mycophenolic acid (MMF) has been used successfully to manage proliferative forms of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) glomerulonephritis (GN) World Health Organization (WHO) Classes III and IV. Less is known about MMF treatment of membranous SLE GN (WHO Class V, SLE MN).

METHODS

We report our experience with MMF therapy in 13 consecutive SLE MN patients participating in a prospective study of risk factors for SLE flare.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were: mean age 33 +/- 14 SD years, female/male ratio 11/2, Caucasians 7, African Americans 5, Oriental 1, serum creatinine 1.02 +/- 0.41, and mean 24-hour urine protein (P)/creatinine (C), ratio 5.1 +/- 4.1. Initial therapy was prednisone mean dose 31 +/- 17 mg/day, and MMF mean dose 1173 +/- 746 mg/day. Therapy also featured interventions to achieve renoprotection and proteinuria reduction. At 6 months of therapy, complete or partial remission was achieved in 10 of 13 patients. At most recent follow-up visit (mean follow-up 16 +/- 8 months), 9 of 13 patients were in complete remission, and in 11 of 13 patients, urine P/C ratio was < 0.8. During follow-up, serum creatinine either stabilized or was improved. The only serious complication during 208 patient months of follow-up was histoplasma pneumonia in 1 patient.

CONCLUSION

These promising results suggest that moderate dose MMF in combination with renoprotective/antiproteinuria therapy warrants further study in the management of SLE MN.

Management of Glomerular Proteinuria: A Commentary

ABSTRACT. It is widely accepted that proteinuria reduction is an appropriate therapeutic goal in chronic proteinuric kidney disease. Based on large randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT), ACE inhibitor (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) therapy have emerged as the most important antiproteinuric and renal protective interventions. However, there are numerous other interventions that have been shown to be antiproteinuric and, therefore, likely to be renoprotective. Unfortunately testing each of these antiproteinuric therapies in RCT is not feasible. The nephrologist has two choices: restrict antiproteinuric therapies to those shown to be effective in RCT or expand the use of antiproteinuric therapies to include those that, although unproven, are plausibly effective and prudent to use. The goal of this work is to provide the documentation needed for the nephrologist to choose between these strategies. This work describes 25 separate interventions that are either antiproteinuric or may block injurious mechanisms of proteinuria. Each intervention is assigned a level of recommendation (Level 1 is the highest; Level 3 is the lowest) according to the strength of the evidence supporting its antiproteinuric and renoprotective efficacy. Pathophysiologic mechanisms possibly involved are also discussed. The number of interventions at each level of recommendation are: Level 1, n = 7; Level 2, n = 9; Level 3, n = 9. Our experience indicates that we can achieve in most patients the majority of Level 1 and many of the Level 2 and 3 recommendations. We suggest that, until better information becomes available, a broad-based, multiple-risk factor intervention to reduce proteinuria can be justified in those with progressive nephropathies. This work is intended primarily for clinical nephrologists; therefore, each antiproteinuria intervention is described in practical detail.