4.6 Article

Plasma exchange in ANCA-associated vasculitis: the pro position

期刊

NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION
卷 36, 期 2, 页码 227-231

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfaa311

关键词

alveolar haemorrhage; ANCA; extracorporeal therapy; plasma exchange; renal recovery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The PEXIVAS trial found that routine administration of PLEX does not significantly reduce the rate of end-stage kidney disease or death in patients with anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis. However, there is a potential for better outcomes in patients with alveolar haemorrhage receiving PLEX treatment.
Plasma exchange (PLEX) is capable of removing significant amounts of circulating antibodies. In anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis, PLEX was reserved for patients with severe presentation forms such as rapidly progressive glomerulonephritis and pulmonary haemorrhage. The Plasma Exchange and Glucocorticoids in Severe ANCA-Associated Vasculitis (PEXIVAS) trial included all comers with a glomerular filtration rate <50mL/min/1.73m(2) and thus aimed to answer the question of whether PLEX is an option for patients with no relevant kidney function impairment or not. PEXIVAS revealed that after a follow-up of almost 3 years, routine administration of PLEX does not provide an additional benefit to reduce the rate of a composite comprising end-stage kidney disease or death. In the absence of histological parameters, it is tempting to speculate whether PLEX is effective or not in those with a potential for renal recovery. A subset of patients presented with alveolar haemorrhage, and there was a trend towards a better outcome of such cases receiving PLEX. This would be in line with observational studies reporting a recovery of alveolar haemorrhage following extracorporeal treatment. In this PRO part of the debate, we highlight the shortcomings of the PEXIVAS trial and stimulate further research paths, which in our eyes are necessary before abandoning PLEX from the therapeutic armamentarium.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据