Prognostic value of the Oxford classification and the Oxford score in IgA nephropathy: A Tunisian study

To evaluate the utility of Oxford classification in predicting renal outcome in IgA nephropathy patients

BACKGROUND

Immunoglobulin A Nephropathy (IgAN) is a heterogeneous disorder. Multiple ethnicities conducted studies to assess the effectiveness of the Oxford classification of IgAN in prognostication. However, there is no study on the Pakistani population. We aim to identify its prognostic effectivity in our patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 93 biopsy-proven cases of primary IgAN. We collected the clinical and pathological data at baseline and on follow-ups. The median follow-up period was 12 months. We defined the renal outcome as a ≥ 50% decline in eGFR or end-stage renal disease (ESRD).

RESULTS

Of 93 cases, 67.7% were males with a median age of 29. Glomerulosclerosis was the most prevalent lesion (71%). The median MEST-C was 3. On follow-up, median serum creatinine worsened from 1.92 to 2.2 mg/dL, and median proteinuria reduced from 2.3 g/g to 1.072 g/g. The reported renal outcome was 29%. T and C scores and MEST-C scores above 2 were significantly associated with pre-biopsy eGFR. On Kaplan-Meier analysis, the T and C scores' association was significant with the renal outcome (p-value 0.000 and 0.002). In univariate and multivariate analyses, the association of T-score (p-value 0.000, HR 4.691), total MEST-C score (p-value 0.019), and baseline serum creatinine (p-value 0.036, HR 1.188) were significant with the outcome.

CONCLUSION

We validate the prognostic significance of the Oxford classification. T and C scores, baseline serum creatinine, and total MEST-C score significantly affect the renal outcome. Furthermore, we recommend the inclusion of the total MEST-C score in determining the IgAN prognosis.

Systematic Review of the Oxford Classification of IgA Nephropathy: Reproducibility and Prognostic Value

Key Points

The Oxford classification of IgA nephropathy defined five features scored subjectively in renal biopsies, identified by the initials MESTC. Two large studies with independent observers showed reproducibility was moderate for T, moderate or poor for M and S, and poor for E and C. In multivariate analyses including clinical features, T was related to 58% of outcomes, with no correlation of MESTC with 24% of outcomes.

Background

The Oxford classification of IgA nephropathy defined five prognostic features scored subjectively in renal biopsies: mesangial cellularity (M), endocapillary hypercellularity (E), segmental sclerosis (S), interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy (T), and (fibro)cellular crescents (C). Pathological scoring systems should be reproducible and have prognostic value independently of clinical features. Reproducibility of the classification was not previously investigated in a systematic review, and the most recent systematic reviews of prognostic value were in 2017.

Methods

This systematic review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines. MEDLINE, PUBMED, and EMBASE databases were searched using the terms “IgA nephropathy” and “Oxford.” Eligible papers applied the classification and mentioned statistical analysis of interobserver reproducibility and/or included multivariate analysis of outcomes related to individual Oxford scores and clinical features, including treatment with corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive drugs.

Results

There were 99 suitable papers before September 23, 2022. Of 12 papers that mentioned reproducibility, only six reported statistics for MEST/MESTC scoring. Four of these were small studies and/or had observers at the same institution. These were considered less representative of application of the classification than two large studies with independent observers, in which agreement was moderate for T, either moderate or poor for M and S, and poor for E and C. In 92 papers with 125 multivariate analyses of various outcomes, the commonest Oxford element associated with outcomes was T (73 of 125, 58%), with no correlation of any element with outcomes in 30 analyses (24%). Treatment with immunosuppression was often related to scores, particularly C and E, without consistent relations between Oxford scores and outcomes in immunosuppressed patients.

Conclusions

This systematic review showed limitations of the Oxford classification in practice, particularly the moderate or poor reproducibility of scores. T was the Oxford score most often related to clinical outcomes, but even this was not consistently reliable as a prognostic indicator.