Background
Focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) is a progressive renal disease with high probability for recurrence after renal transplantation [
1,
2]. Therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) is an extracorporeal blood purification technique designed for the removal of large molecular weight substances from the plasma. Since the first report in 1985 [
3], TPE has become an important therapy with variable success in recurrent FSGS (rFSGS) [
4,
5]. The application of TPE was originated from the concept of the disease causative circulating factor(s) in rFSGS [
6].
Insights into podocyte biology have identified plasminogen activator, urokinase receptor (uPAR) as an important component in the maintenance of a functioning podocyte foot process structure that is regulated by lipid-dependent activation of αvβ3 integrin [
7]. uPAR is a glycosyl-phosphatidylinisotol (GPI)-anchored protein, which can be released from the plasma membrane as a soluble molecule (suPAR) by cleavage of the GPI anchor or secreted directly from cells as an alternative transcript [
8]. We have identified suPAR as a circulating factor implicated in the majority of FSGS cases [
9,
10]. Yet, the relevance of suPAR to kidney injury has been surprisingly broadened recently. Several longitudinal studies in a variety of patient cohorts (cardiac risk, healthy middle-aged, pre-diabetic, dialysis patients) have found that baseline circulating suPAR levels predict chronic kidney disease (CKD) incidence and progression [
11‐
13], strongly suggesting the application of circulating suPAR as a biomarker for monitoring CKD.
As TPE has been found to remove suPAR from blood circulation in several studies [
9,
14‐
16], we sought to evaluate the application of serum suPAR as a biomarker monitoring TPE treated rFSGS patients in this study.
Discussion
Originating from the concept of circulating permeability factor(s), TPE has become an important therapy in recurrent FSGS patients. A recent systematic review of patients with rFSGS indicates that 71% of patients achieved full or partial remission after treatment with TPE [
19]. Yet, there has been no biomarker available to gauge TPE therapy, largely due to the delay in identifying the responsible circulating factor(s). In this study containing both retrospective and prospective rFSGS cohorts, we found that serum suPAR was reduced after TPE treatments and the reduction in suPAR could predict the response to TPE and rituximab.
While suPAR has been considered to be an inflammatory marker, implicated in many medical conditions, its pathogenic involvement in kidney has been just unfolded. Several large and diverse cohorts have shown that baseline suPAR stands out as a unique biomarker in predicting the occurrence and progression of CKD, as well as the cardiovascular events with both adult and children patients [
11‐
13]. In terms of FSGS, we have shown that suPAR as a circulating factor can contribute to the development of FSGS, via mechanisms that activate podocyte αvβ3 integrin [
9]. Moreover, increased serum suPAR levels have been observed in a majority of primary FSGS patients and most rFSGS patients investigated [
9,
10]. While not all follow-up studies have reached the same conclusions [
20], and indeed further multicenter large cohort studies that could adopt the same study protocols are warranted, these findings highly suggest the implication of suPAR in FSGS patients.
Recently, we have shown that the degree of podocyte effacement correlated with suPAR levels at the time of rFSGS diagnosis, and that response to therapy resulted in significant reduction of suPAR level [
21]. In this study, we found that circulating suPAR could be effectively reduced by a single course of TPE. This is in consistent with other reports [
9,
14‐
16], indicating that suPAR can be managed by TPE. Yet, why serum suPAR bounced back significantly in some but not other studies [
15], and how to control the rebound of serum suPAR and proteinuria deserve further investigation. Of the possible explanations for the discrepancy, the difference in clinical management protocols adopted at different institutes should be accountable at least partially.
In this study of the post-Tx FSGS patients, we found that TPE reduced serum suPAR levels and suPAR-induced podocyte αvβ3 integrin activity. More importantly, the decrease of serum suPAR is associated with the reduction of proteinuria. Controlling for variables including baseline serum creatinine, eGFR, proteinuria, age at transplantation, transplant numbers, and TPE course numbers, the reduction in suPAR stands out as the strongest predictor for proteinuria reduction after TPE treatments, account for 23% of proteinuria variance. In terms of response to therapy (UPCR< 1 g/g and/or UPCR reduction > 50%), out of many above analyzed variables, only the reduction in suPAR level can predict the outcome, indicating suPAR is an applicable biomarker in TPE managed post-Tx FSGS.
Our study has few limitations, in particular the small sample size of our cohort. Additionally, for our prospective study, we have only short-term outcome. Obviously, a multicenter prospective study that includes a larger cohort with long term follow up duration is warranted to address these issue. Nevertheless, monitoring and regulating suPAR levels in patients with rFSGS or other kidney disease deserve more attention, especially because experimental evidence is emerging that suggests inhibiting uPAR pathway by cyclo-RGDfv, uPAR antibody or most recently by UPARANT, a uPAR-derived small peptide with predominant anti-inflammatory action, could render renal protection [
7,
9,
22].