[1-3] There are no randomized controlled trials to assess the efficacy of treatment

for native MCGN let alone rMCGN. In MCGN, pulse corticosteroids alone or in conjunction with azathioprine, cyclophosphamide or MMF have been reported as being successful in case series.[4] In the case reported here, cyclophosphamide was used as the first line therapy for recurrence in her primary transplant. Although the patient’s serum creatinine was relatively DZNeP stable, the side-effect profile proved unacceptable. Lien et al. reported a similar experience in a patient who had rapid disease progression after cyclophosphamide was withdrawn following a period of disease stability.[6] Rituximab was used to treat rMCGN in both of our patient’s grafts. Its use in her first graft was likely to have been too late to lead to any improvement OTX015 manufacturer in her renal function or proteinuria and her subsequent development of CMV colitis was likely to have been at least in part contributed to by B-cell depletion. The efficacy of rituximab in her second transplant is also uncertain given

the persistent severe proteinuria. Previous studies have reported mixed success with the use of rituximab (Table 1). Complement activation, whether through immune-complex activation or through aberrant complement system regulation, appears to be an important step in the development of glomerular injury in MCGN. It has been suggested that inhibition of complement activation may provide a novel therapeutic alternative. Despite this rational basis, preliminary studies using eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting complement component 5 (C5), have not demonstrated consistent benefit in patients with complement mediated MCGN.[8] Our case illustrates some of the difficulties in the management of rMCGN in renal allografts.

Current treatment is limited by a lack of understanding of the underlying disease process and a lack of Roflumilast efficacious treatment options. The side-effects of immunosuppressive drugs such as cyclophosphamide and rituximab added to baseline immunosuppression needs to be weighed carefully against their uncertain potential benefits. “
“Aim:  There are immunoglobulin (Ig)A nephropathy (IgAN) cases showing mesangial IgG and/or IgM deposition, however, their characteristics have remained unknown. Methods:  Three hundred and eighty-four IgAN patients were divided according to the existence of mesangial IgG and/or IgM deposition: IgA deposition only (A group, n = 77); IgA and IgM deposition (AM group, n = 114); IgA and IgG deposition (AG group, n = 36); and IgA, IgG and IgM deposition (AGM group, n = 157). Clinical and histological findings, and outcomes were examined and compared among these four groups. Results:  At the time of renal biopsy, serum creatinine was significantly higher in the A and AM group, however, creatinine clearance did not differ among the four groups.