Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38280096›Full record

ArticleJournal of nephrology2024

Outcome of atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome: role of triggers and complement abnormalities in the response to C5 inhibition.

Gianluigi Ardissino, Donata Cresseri, Maria Cristina Mancuso, Valentina Capone, Luigi Porcaro, Valeria Amico, Marianna Tangredi, Elena Grovetti, Samantha Griffini, Giuseppe Castellano and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of nephrology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Are some cases of atypical HUS actually undetected STEC-HUS?Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Typical or atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome? That is the question.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gianluigi Ardissino *Center for HUS Prevention, Control and Management at the Pediatric Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Via della Commenda 9, 20122, Milan, Italy. ardissino@centroseu.org.
Donata Cresseri *Center for HUS Prevention, Control and Management at the Nephrology and Dialysis Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Maria Cristina MancusoCenter for HUS Prevention, Control and Management at the Pediatric Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Via della Commenda 9, 20122, Milan, Italy.
Valentina CaponeCenter for HUS Prevention, Control and Management at the Pediatric Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Via della Commenda 9, 20122, Milan, Italy.
Luigi PorcaroMedical Genetics Laboratory, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Valeria AmicoMedical Genetics Laboratory, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Marianna TangrediCenter for HUS Prevention, Control and Management at the Nephrology and Dialysis Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Elena GrovettiMedicina Interna Dipartimento di Fisiopatologia Medico‑Chirurgica e dei Trapianti, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Samantha GriffiniMedicina Interna Dipartimento di Fisiopatologia Medico‑Chirurgica e dei Trapianti, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Giuseppe CastellanoCenter for HUS Prevention, Control and Management at the Nephrology and Dialysis Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Giovanni MontiniPediatric Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico and Giuliana and Bernardo Caprotti Chair of Pediatrics, Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Dario ConsonniEpidemiology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Massimo CugnoMedicina Interna Dipartimento di Fisiopatologia Medico‑Chirurgica e dei Trapianti, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
HUS-ItalKid Network.
Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico · ITUniversity of Milan · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAtypical-hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS) is a rare thrombotic microangiopathy often due to uncontrolled complement activation, characterized by high risk of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Eculizumab has improved the outcome, however, its efficacy varies among patients and its discontinuation is debated.

methodsTo identify characteristics associated with treatment response, we analyzed 244 aHUS patients referred to our center. Patients were classified according to the presence/absence of complement abnormalities and/or triggers at onset in 4 categories: (1) primary (complement abnormality without trigger), (2) secondary (trigger without complement abnormality), (3) combined (trigger and complement abnormality), (4) idiopathic (no trigger, no complement abnormality). Response to treatment was evaluated by comparing the response to eculizumab with that of conventional therapy. Short- and long-term outcomes were evaluated with the relapse rate after discontinuation of C5-inhibition.

resultsPatients had a better outcome with eculizumab compared to conventional treatment, with a response rate of 81.9% vs 56.9%, p < 0.001 and a long-term cumulative incidence of ESKD of 5.8% vs 22.5% (hazard ratio 0.25, 95% confidence interval: 0.10-0.80). The excellent global response was driven by the primary and combined groups (89.8% vs 54.0% and 89.3% vs 54.2%, respectively). The relapse rate following discontinuation of the C5-inhibitor was as high as 66.7% in the primary group, 18.7% in the combined, and 0% in the secondary and idiopathic groups.

conclusionsOur data show a better outcome in aHUS patients treated with C5-inhibition, particularly in the primary and combined forms, which have a high risk of relapse after discontinuation that is not observed in the secondary and idiopathic forms.

Indexed as

Antibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAtypical Hemolytic Uremic SyndromeComplement C5AdolescentAdultChildComplement ActivationComplement Inactivating AgentsFemaleHumansKidney Failure, ChronicMaleMiddle AgedRecurrenceRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedComplement C5Complement Inactivating AgentseculizumabaHUSC5inhibitionComplement abnormalitiesComplement dysregulation

Identifiers

PMID38280096
OpenAlexW4391282684

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.