http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5172-1102
Figures
Abstract
Objective
We sought to evaluate the effect of antiplatelet therapy in addition to conventional immunosuppressive therapy for lupus nephritis (LN) patients positive for antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) without definite antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).
Methods
Patients with biopsy-proven LN class III or IV were retrospectively evaluated. We selected patients positive for anticardiolipin antibody (aCL) or lupus anticoagulant (LA) who did not meet the criteria for a diagnosis of APS. The patients were divided into two subgroups according to whether antiplatelet therapy was received. The cumulative complete renal response (CR) rate, relapse-free rate, and change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over 3 years after induction therapy were calculated.
Results
We identified 17 patients who received antiplatelet therapy and 21 who did not. Baseline clinicopathological characteristics and immunosuppressive therapy did not show a significant difference between the two groups except for a higher incidence of LN class IV in the treatment group (p = 0.03). There was no difference in cumulative CR rate, relapse-free rate, or eGFR change between these subgroups. However, when data on LA-positive patients were assessed, an improvement in eGFR was found (p = 0.04) in patients receiving antiplatelet treatment.
Citation: Hanaoka H, Iida H, Kiyokawa T, Takakuwa Y, Okazaki T, Yamada H, et al. (2018) Renal protective effect of antiplatelet therapy in antiphospholipid antibody-positive lupus nephritis patients without antiphospholipid syndrome. PLoS ONE 13(5): e0196172. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196172
Editor: Masataka Kuwana, Keio University, JAPAN
Received: December 20, 2017; Accepted: April 6, 2018; Published: May 3, 2018
Copyright: © 2018 Hanaoka et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Lupus nephritis (LN) contributes to significant morbidity and mortality in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) [1, 2]. Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is characterized by a state of hypercoagulability which potentially affects all parts of the vascular system and can be associated with SLE [3]. APS is reported to worsen the prognosis of LN [4]. Based on its contribution to the renal outcome, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recently published recommendations for LN management [5], under which LN patients with APS should be treated with conventional immunosuppressive treatment plus antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy. Although it has been reported that the presence of anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL) is a strong predictor of worse long-term renal outcome in LN regardless of whether the criteria for an APS diagnosis are met [6, 7], the renoprotective effect of antiplatelet therapy has not been evaluated.
Here, we analyzed the effect of adding antiplatelet agents to conventional immunosuppressive therapy for LN patients who were positive for aCL or lupus anticoagulant (LA) without definite APS.
Materials and methods
Patients
As described in detail previously [8], we performed a retrospective study of Japanese patients who met the ACR classification criteria for SLE [9] and who visited St. Marianna University Hospital from 2003 through 2010. All patients with biopsy-proven class III or IV LN according to the International Society of Nephrology/Renal Pathology Society (ISN/RPS) classification [10] were selected. Patients had to have received at least 3 years of care at the hospital. We selected patients who tested positive on two or more occasions at least 12 weeks apart for one of the following aPLs: aCL of IgG isotype, anti-β2 glycoprotein-I antibody of IgG isotype, or lupus anticoagulant (LA). The antibody titers were measured with a standard enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) [11, 12]. LA was tested according to the guidelines of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (Scientific Subcommittee on LAs/phospholipid-dependent antibodies) [13, 14]. No patients fulfilled the criteria for a diagnosis of APS [15]. Of 358 SLE patients, 82 had biopsy-proven LN class III or IV. Two of these were lost to follow-up. Of the 80 remaining LN patients, 38 patients tested positive for one of the two antiphospholipid antibodies or LA as mentioned above, and their data were included. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of St. Marianna University School of Medicine (approval number 3305). Since the study was conducted under a retrospective cohort design without any investigations/interventions done besides those for clinical use, written informed consent was not required. We retrospectively observed clinical course after induction therapy. This study was carried out as per routine clinical care and antiplatelet therapy was initiated at the attending physician’s discretion.
Data collection
Clinical information was obtained from all records at baseline and at 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, 48, 96, and 144 weeks (3 years) after induction therapy. The baseline clinical information was collected at the time of renal biopsy before induction therapy. Data included demographic features, treatment regimens, and SLE disease activity index (SLEDAI) [16]. Complete renal response (CR) was defined based on the Joint European League Against Rheumatism and European Renal Association–European Dialysis and Transplant Association (EULAR/ERA-EDTA) guidelines for LN [5], with CR defined as a urine protein: creatinine ratio (UPCR) of 50 mg/mmol and normal or near-normal (within 10% of normal GFR if previously abnormal) renal function, substituting 0.5 g/g Cr for UPCR 50 mg/mmol [5]. Relapse was defined by nephritic and proteinuric flares according to EULAR/ERA-EDTA guidelines [5], with eGFR decreasing by ≥ 10%, active urine sediment, or increasing UPCR > 1.0 g/gCr after achieving CR. We also used the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index (SDI) to define systemic damage accrual [17].
Renal pathology
All patients underwent a renal biopsy before induction therapy. Specimens for light microscopy were embedded in paraffin, sectioned, and stained with Masson’s trichrome, hematoxylin–eosin, periodic acid silver–methenamine stain, and periodic acid–Schiff stain in all cases. Frozen tissue was cut into 5-μm sections and incubated with fluoresceinated antisera to human immunoglobulin (Ig) G, IgA, IgM, C3, C4, C1q, and fibrinogen. All patients were diagnosed according to the ISN/RPS classification [10] by light microscopy and immunofluorescence analysis. The activity index (AI) and the chronicity index (CI) [18] were calculated. Morphological features of the standard AI and CI were evaluated separately, namely endocapillary hypercellularity, polymorphonuclear leukocyte infiltration, karyorrhexis/fibrinoid necrosis, cellular crescents, hyaline deposits, interstitial inflammation, glomerular sclerosis, fibrous crescents, tubular atrophy, and interstitial fibrosis. The percentage of these features was measured in the individual patients.
Statistical analysis
Continuous values are shown as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Differences between the groups were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U-test or Kruskal-Wallis test for nonparametric data and the chi-squared or Fisher’s exact test for categorical data. Changes in eGFR from baseline to year 3 were analyzed using the Wilcoxon T-test. Cumulative CR rates and relapse-free rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and differences between the two groups were tested with a log-rank test.
Results
Baseline clinicopathological characteristics and treatment regimens
The 38 cases were divided into two subgroups according to whether antiplatelet therapy was administered or not. Demographic and clinical features at baseline are shown in Table 1. Seventeen patients received antiplatelet treatment and 21 did not. Among clinicopathological features at baseline, patients who received antiplatelet therapy had a significantly higher incidence of LN class IV (p = 0.03). No patient had the pathological features of APS nephropathy (APSN) [15]. Although not significant, patients with treatment had a tendency to higher diastolic blood pressure (p = 0.09), higher titer of aCL-IgG (p = 0.09), and decreased tendency of LN class III and IV+V (p = 0.06 and p = 0.09, respectively). There were no remarkable differences between the two subgroups with regard to renal pathological findings, including morphological features of LN, or AI and CI.
Antiplatelet regimens, either low-dose aspirin (100 mg/day) or dipyridamole (300 mg/day), were initiated at the attending physician’s discretion after renal biopsy. All patients received induction therapy with glucocorticoids at an initial dose of 1.0 mg prednisolone equivalent/kg/day for 2–4 weeks. Glucocorticoids were then tapered by 10% of the last dose or 10 mg, as determined by the attending physician. Prednisolone dose did not differ markedly between the subgroups (p = 0.17) (Table 1). The dose of intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVCY) ranged from 500 mg every 2 weeks for 6 courses to 1000 mg every 4 weeks for 6 courses. Mycophenolate mofetil was started at an initial dose of 0.5–1.0 g/day and gradually increased to 2.0 g/day. Tacrolimus dose (1.5–3.0 mg/day) was precisely adjusted to a trough value of serum concentrations. After six infusions of IVCY, patients were switched to azathioprine 100 mg/day, while treatment with other immunosuppressants was continued as maintenance therapy.
Cumulative CR rates and relapse-free rate
Fig 1A shows cumulative CR rates of the two subgroups. Cumulative CR rates over 3 years were not different (p = 0.4). We further investigated the relapse-free rate over 3 years (Fig 1B), and found no differences between the subgroups (p = 0.5).
Cumulative complete renal response rate (A) and relapse-free rate (B) for 3 years after induction therapy depending on the antiplatelet treatment received. A full line indicates patients who received antiplatelet therapy and a dotted line indicates those who did not. There was no difference between these groups in terms of CR rate (p = 0.4) and relapse-free rate (p = 0.5). CR, Complete renal response.
Change in eGFR between baseline and year 3
We analyzed changes in eGFR over 3 years after induction therapy in the two subgroups (Fig 2), and found no difference at any observational points. Since the highest eGFR level was found at year 3 in both groups, we next compared the difference between baseline and year 3 with or without antiplatelet treatment for LA positivity.
There was no difference in eGFR level between patients with antiplatelet therapy and those without at any observational points. eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate.
Analysis according to LA positivity
We divided all the patients into two different subgroups depending on LA positivity and the same analysis was performed. Table 2 shows baseline clinicopathological features according to LA status. A significantly lower incidence of female sex was observed in the LA-negative subgroup not treated with antiplatelet therapy (p = 0.01). The LA positive/antiplatelet treatment group was younger, and had a higher eGFR level and lower chronicity index, although not significant. We found no significant difference in cumulative CR rate and relapse-free rate depending on the LA positivity. Fig 3 shows the change in eGFR between baseline and year 3 according to LA status. We found an improvement in the LA-positive subgroup given antiplatelet therapy (p = 0.04). These patients had a higher eGFR level at year 3 than the LA-positive subgroup which did not receive antiplatelet therapy (p = 0.04). We found no significant differences when we conducted the same analysis according to aCL or β2GPI-IgG positivity.
(A) Change in eGFR in LA-positive patients. Patients given antiplatelet therapy had an improvement in eGFR from baseline to year 3 compared to those not given therapy (p = 0.04). The level of eGFR at year 3 was significantly higher in LA-positive patients receiving antiplatelet therapy (p = 0.04). (B) Change in eGFR in LA-negative patients. No improvement was seen. eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; LA, lupus anticoagulant. *, p = 0.04.
Discussion
In this study, we found that antiplatelet therapy in addition to conventional immunosuppressive therapy was associated with improvement of eGFRs in LA-positive patients over 3 years. LA-negative patients experienced no such improvement.
Prophylaxis strategies in asymptomatic aPL-positive SLE patients are poorly investigated. Although the randomized controlled clinical trial of primary thrombosis prevention in asymptomatic, persistently aPL-positive individual without the definite APS has been conducted, these individuals do not benefit from aspirin for primary thrombosis prophylaxis [19]. However, this study did not include SLE patients and only investigated cumulative thrombosis incidence rate. Renal protective effect of anti-platelet therapy for aPL-positive LN patients without any history of thrombotic events is still controversial.
In our study of patients with LN, a benefit from antiplatelet therapy was only seen in the LA-positive patients. Although the relationship between the subtype of aPL and the development of APSN is unclear, some studies have found a link between LA, but not aCL, and APSN in SLE patients [20–22]. It has been suggested that APS may develop in up to 50% of patients with SLE serologically positive for aPL without thrombotic events after 20 years of follow-up [23]. Our investigations suggest that LA-positive patients, who are at risk for progression to APS or APSN, stand to benefit from antiplatelet treatment. However, it has been reported that some patients who initially test positive for aCL subsequently test negative for those antibodies over long-term observation [24]. Since we did not evaluate sustained seropositivity for all patients, this may make our findings less convincing.
Although we found a beneficial effect of antiplatelet therapy in LA-positive patients in our study, it is still controversial whether antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants are more beneficial. One report has described the prevention of thrombotic recurrence in the kidney using anticoagulation in APSN [25], but the role of anticoagulation in the preservation of renal function is still unknown. Daugas et al. reported a significant association of APSN with LA and extrarenal APS, mainly manifested by arterial thrombosis [20]. This report supports the use of antiplatelet therapy for APSN. We did not evaluate the effects of anticoagulation and solving this issue will clearly require additional studies.
This study was conducted single-center, retrospective design, very small number and only Japanese population was assessed. As patients were selected retrospectively, selection bias was present as follows; addition of antiplatelet therapy was decided by the attending physicians and only the patients who could be observed for 3 years were selected. Attending physicians may decide the treatment regimen based on lupus manifestation, laboratory data including APS test, and renal pathology. We found combination with class V was found more in no-antiplatelet group than antiplatelet therapy group. Since mixed type (+V) had poor renal outcome [26], this pathological difference may influence the result. Furthermore, we could not measure aCL-IgM or β2GPI-IgM, which underestimated the disease population and we combined low-dose aspirin and dipyridamole as an antiplatelet therapy to evaluate its efficacy, which may be separately evaluated. Therefore, a multi-center, prospective study is required to confirm our findings.
In conclusion, we found that antiplatelet therapy in addition to conventional immunosuppressive therapy was associated with improvement of eGFR in LA-positive LN patients not meeting the criteria for a diagnosis of APS. This suggests that there may be a wider indication for antiplatelet therapy in LN, in addition to its use in patients with a definite APS diagnosis.
Supporting information
S1 Table. CR achievement in patients with antiplatelet therapy and those without.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196172.s001
(PDF)
S2 Table. Flare in patients with antiplatelet therapy and those without.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196172.s002
(PDF)
S3 Table. Change of eGFR in patients with antiplatelet therapy and those without.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196172.s003
(PDF)
References
- 1. Tsokos GC. Systemic lupus erythematosus. N Engl J Med 2011;365: 2110–21. pmid:22129255
- 2. Stahl-Hallengren C, Jönsen A, Nived O, Sturfelt G. Incidence studies of systemic lupus erythematosus in southern Sweden: Increasing age, decreasing frequency of renal manifestations and good prognosis. J Rheumatol 2000;27: 685–91. pmid:10743809
- 3. Khamashta MA, Bertolaccini ML, Hughes GR. Antiphospholipid (Hughes) syndrome. Autoimmunity 2004;37: 309–12. pmid:15518048
- 4. Moss KE, Isenberg DA. Comparison of renal disease severity and outcome in patients with primary antiphospholipid syndrome, antiphospholipid syndrome secondary to systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and SLE alone. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2001;40: 863–7.
- 5. Bertsias GK, Tektonidou M, Amoura Z, Aringer M, Bajema I, Berden JH, et al. The Joint European League Against Rheumatism and European Renal Association–European Dialysis and Transplant Association (EULAR/ERA-EDTA) recommendations for the management of adult and paediatric lupus nephritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71:1771–82. pmid:22851469
- 6. Bhandari S, Harnden P, Brownjohn AM, Turney JH. Association of anticardiolipin antibodies with intraglomerular thrombi and renal dysfunction in lupus nephritis. QJM. 1998;91: 401–9. pmid:9709458
- 7. Moroni G, Ventura D, Riva P, Panzeri P, Quaglini S, Banfi G, et al. Antiphospholipid antibodies are associated with an increased risk for chronic renal insufficiency in patients with lupus nephritis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2004;43: 28–36. pmid:14712424
- 8. Hanaoka H, Kiyokawa T, Iida H, Ishimori K, Takakuwa Y, Okazaki T, et al. Comparison of renal response to four different induction therapies in Japanese patients with lupus nephritis class III or IV: A single-centre retrospective study. PLoS One. 2017 Apr 6;12(4):e0175152. pmid:28384208
- 9. Hochberg MC. Updating the American College of Rheumatology revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 1997;40: 1725.
- 10. Weening JJ, D’Agati VD, Schwartz MM, Seshan SV, Alpers CE, Appel GB, et al. The classification of glomerulonephritis in systemic lupus erythematosus revised. J Am Soc Nephrol 2004;15: 241–50. pmid:14747370
- 11. Tincani A, Allegri F, Sanmarco M, Cinquini M, Taglietti M, Balestrieri G, et al. Anticardiolipin antibody assay: a methodological analysis for a better consensus in routine determinations–a cooperative project of the European Antiphospholipid Forum. Thromb Haemost 2001;86: 575–83. pmid:11522006
- 12. Reber G, Tincani A, Sanmarco M, De Moerloose P, Boffa MC. Proposals for the measurement of anti-beta2-glycoprotein I antibodies. Standardization group of the European Forum on Antiphospholipid Antibodies. J Thromb Haemost 2004;2: 1860–2. pmid:15456509
- 13. Wisloff F, Jacobsen EM, Liestol S. Laboratory diagnosis of the antiphospholipid syndrome. Thromb Res 2002;108: 263–71. pmid:12676184
- 14. Brandt JT, Triplett DA, Alving B, Scharrer I. Criteria for the diagnosis of lupus anticoagulants: an update. On behalf of the Subcommittee on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibody of the Scientific and Standardisation Committee of the ISTH. Thromb Haemost 1995;74: 1185–90. pmid:8560433
- 15. Miyakis S., Lockshin MD, Atsumi T, Branch DW, Brey RL, Cervera R, et al. International consensus statement on an update of the classification criteria for definite antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), J Thromb Haemost 2006;4: 295–306. pmid:16420554
- 16. Bombardier C, Gladman DD, Urowitz MB, Caron D, Chang CH. Derivation of the SLEDAI: A disease activity index for lupus patients. The Committee on Prognosis Studies in SLE. Arthritis Rheum 1992;35: 630–40. pmid:1599520
- 17. Gladman D, Ginzler E, Goldsmith CH, Fortin P, Liang M, Urowitz M, et al. The development and initial validation of the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology damage index for systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum. 1996;39: 363–9. pmid:8607884
- 18. Austin HA, Boumpas DT, Vaughman EM, Balow JE. Predicting renal outcome in severe lupus nephritis: Contributions of clinical and histologic data. Kidney Int. 1994;45: 544–50. pmid:8164443
- 19. Erkan D, Harrison MJ, Levy R, Peterson M, Petri M, Sammaritano L, et al. Aspirin for primary thrombosis prevention in the antiphospholipid syndrome: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in asymptomatic antiphospholipid antibody-positive individuals. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;56: 2382–91. pmid:17599766
- 20. Daugas E, Nochy D, Huong Dl, Duhaut , Beaufils H, Caudwell V, et al. Antiphospholipid syndrome nephropathy in systemic lupus erythematosus. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2002;13: 42–52. pmid:11752020
- 21. Gl Erre, Bosincu L, Faedda R, Fenu P, Masala A, Sanna M, et al. Antiphospholipid syndrome nephropathy (APSN) in patients with lupus nephritis: a retrospective clinical and renal pathology study. Rheumatol Int 2014;34: 535–541. pmid:24232504
- 22. Uthman I, Khamashta M. Antiphospholipid syndrome and the kidneys. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2006;35: 360–7. pmid:16765713
- 23. Opatrny L, David M, Kahn Sr, Shrier I, Rey E. Association between anti-phospholipid antibodies and recurrent fetal loss in women without auto-immune disease: a metaanalysis. J Rheumatol 2006;33: 2214–21. pmid:17014001
- 24. Coloma Bazán E, Donate López C, Moreno Lozano P, Cervera R, Espinosa G. Discontinuation of anticoagulation or antiaggregation treatment may be safe in patients with primary antiphospholipid syndrome when antiphospholipid antibodies became persistently negative. Immunol Res. 2013;56: 358–61. pmid:23568055
- 25. Tektonidou MG. Identification and treatment of APS renal involvement. Lupus 2014; 23: 1276–8. pmid:25228725
- 26. Ikeuchi H, Hiromura K, Kayakabe K, Tshilela KA, Uchiyama K, Hamatani H, et al. Renal outcomes in mixed proliferative and membranous lupus nephritis (Class III/IV + V): A long-term observational study. Mod Rheumatol. 2016;26:908–13. pmid:27115200