Cargando…

Identification and Validation of a Urinary Biomarker Panel to Accurately Diagnose and Predict Response to Therapy in Lupus Nephritis

BACKGROUND: We have previously shown that 15 urinary biomarkers (of 129 tested by Luminex), discriminate between active Lupus Nephritis (ALN) and non-LN patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of these 15 previously-identified urinary biomarkers to predict treatment responses to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Whittall-Garcia, Laura, Goliad, Kirubel, Kim, Michael, Bonilla, Dennisse, Gladman, Dafna, Urowitz, Murray, Fortin, Paul R., Atenafu, Eshetu G., Touma, Zahi, Wither, Joan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9196040/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35711439
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2022.889931
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: We have previously shown that 15 urinary biomarkers (of 129 tested by Luminex), discriminate between active Lupus Nephritis (ALN) and non-LN patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of these 15 previously-identified urinary biomarkers to predict treatment responses to conventional therapy, and for the most predictive of these biomarkers to validate their utility to identify ALN patients in an independent prospectively-acquired lupus cohort. METHODS: Our study had a 3-stage approach. In stage 1, we used Luminex to examine whether our previously identified urinary biomarkers at the time of the renal flare ( ± 3 months) or 12 ± 3 months after treatment of biopsy-proven ALN could predict treatment responses. In stage 2, a larger prospectively-acquired cross-sectional cohort was used to further validate the utility of the most predictive urinary biomarkers (identified in stage 1) to detect ALN patients. In this 2(nd) stage, cut-offs with the best operating characteristics to detect ALN patients were produced for each biomarker and different combinations and/or numbers of elevated biomarkers needed to accurately identify ALN patients were analyzed. In stage 3, we aimed to further corroborate the sensitivity of the cut-offs created in stage 2 to detect ALN patients in a biopsy-proven ALN cohort who had a urine sample collection within 3 months of their biopsy. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were included in stage 1. Twelve (57.1%), 4 (19.1%), and 5 (23.8%) patients had a complete (CR), partial (PR) and no (NR) remission at 24 ± 3 months, respectively. The percentage decrease following 12 ± 3 months of treatment for Adiponectin, MCP-1, sVCAM-1, PF4, IL-15 and vWF was significantly higher in patients with CR in comparison to those with PR/NR. In stage 2, a total of 247 SLE patients were included, of which 24 (9.7%) had ALN, 79 (31.9%) had LN in remission (RLN) and 144 (58.3%) were non-LN (NLN) patients. Based on the combinations of biomarkers with the best operating characteristics we propose “rule out” and “rule in” ALN criteria. In stage 3, 53 biopsy-proven ALN patients were included, 35 with proliferative LN and 18 with non-proliferative ALN, demonstrating that our “rule in ALN” criteria operate better in detecting active proliferative than non-proliferative classes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide further evidence to support the role of Adiponectin, MCP-1, sVCAM-1 and PF4 in the detection of proliferative ALN cases. We further show the clinical utility of measuring multiple rather than a single biomarker and we propose novel “rule in” and “rule out” criteria for the detection of proliferative ALN with excellent operating characteristics.