A glance into the future of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis

Abstract

In the past decade, unprecedented progress has been made in understanding the pathogenesis, diagnosis, assessment, and treatment of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitides (AAVs). International collaborations and input from several fields (e.g. immunology, rheumatology, and nephrology) have been critical for analyzing demographics, disease manifestations, and outcomes in clinical research studies. Such efforts opened new avenues for generating novel questions and rationale to design better clinical trials. In addition, clinical research has been a source of several biological discoveries and the starting point for knowledge seeking on the pathophysiology of AAV. Interestingly, the blending of clinical and basic research provides a platform for personalized medicine. Despite recent revisions on AAV classification, the incorporation of new findings on disease genetics and immunologic responses may soon result in changes in clinical practice. These advances will enhance the selection of more specific and targeted therapies. However, current unmet needs in the management of AAV are still sizable and heavily impact long-term survival. Especially, frequent relapses, damage accrual, and high morbidity contribute to poor outcomes. Finally, the lack of defined biomarkers for disease activity and the prognosis is a permanent challenge in AAV research. Our work provides an overview of the current state of the art in AAV literature and suggests bridges for the remaining knowledge gaps. It offers potential future directions for the clinical assessment, management, and research in the field toward a more personalized medicine approach.

Keywords

ANCA-associated vasculitis classification prognosis treatment

Introduction

Anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitides (AAVs) are a group of small vessel vasculitis disorders characterized by neutrophil-driven inflammation of blood vessels leading to endothelial injury and tissue damage.¹ Microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) are the three types of AAV with different definitions according to the Chapel Hill nomenclature (Table 1).^2–4 In MPA, kidney involvement is predominant. In contrast, GPA and EGPA are characterized by extravascular granulomatous inflammation, predominantly involving the respiratory tract.^1,2 Severe disease occurs with capillaritis, manifesting more commonly as glomerulonephritis (GN) or alveolar hemorrhage.⁵ The loss of tolerance to neutrophilic proteins, namely proteinase 3 (PR3) and myeloperoxidase (MPO), plays a central role in AAV pathogenesis.^1,2 Immunofluorescence shows minimal deposition of immunoglobulins and complement, hence the so-called ‘pauci-immune’ vasculitis.^1,2 AAV are rare diseases with an estimated prevalence of 200–400 cases per million people, and there was an apparent increase in incidence over time due to higher awareness for the diagnosis and higher yield in ANCA testing methodologies.^6–9

Table 1.

Definitions, clinical features, and classification criteria of ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV).

	GPA		MPA		EGPA
Definitions
Chapel Hill Consensus Conference (2012)	Necrotizing granulomatous inflammation usually involves the upper and lower respiratory tract, and necrotizing vasculitis predominantly affects small to medium vessels.		With few or no immune deposits, Necrotizing vasculitis predominantly affects small vessels (i.e., capillaries, venules, or arterioles). Necrotizing GN is very common. Pulmonary capillaritis often occurs. Granulomatous inflammation is absent.		Eosinophil-rich and necrotizing granulomatous inflammation involving the respiratory tract and necrotizing vasculitis predominantly affecting small to medium vessels, associated with asthma and eosinophilia.
Specific organ involvement
Eye	27%–58% Keratitis, conjunctivitis, (epi)scleritis, uveitis, optic neuropathy, oculomotor nerve palsy, retinal vasculitis, orbital granuloma		1%–9% Keratitis, conjunctivitis, (epi)scleritis, uveitis, optic neuropathy, oculomotor nerve palsy, retinal vasculitis, etc.		3%–11% Keratitis, conjunctivitis, (epi)scleritis, uveitis, optic neuropathy, oculomotor nerve palsy, retinal vasculitis, orbital granuloma
Skin	10%–50% Palpable purpura is the most common manifestation; nodules, papules, ulceration/necrosis, livedo reticularis		30%–60% Palpable purpura is the most common manifestation, livedo reticularis, nodules, urticarial lesions, ulceration/necrosis, bullae, plaques		30%–69% Palpable purpura and nodules as the most common manifestations, livedo reticularis, vesicles, aseptic pustules, urticarial lesions, papules, ulceration/necrosis
ENT	75%–99% The most typical manifestations of the disease; rhinosinusitis which might progress to nasal septum perforation and saddle-nose deformity; chronic otitis media; sensorineural hearing loss; “strawberry” gingival hyperplasia; subglottic stenosis		9%–30% Not considered a typical feature; mostly mild, non-granulomatous, non-erosive, and non-specific sinus inflammation; sensorineural hearing loss.		48%–98% Allergic rhinitis, sinusitis/polyposis (not typically destructive), otitis media, sensorineural hearing loss
Lung	62%–94% Nodules/cavities and pulmonary infiltrates as the most common manifestations; alveolar hemorrhage and pleurisy may also occur		25%–66% Diffuse alveolar hemorrhage, interstitial pneumonitis/pulmonary fibrosis		91%–100% Asthma as disease hallmark 61%–91% Pulmonary infiltrates, nodules/cavities, pleural effusion, alveolar hemorrhage
Heart	<4%–16% Pericarditis/pericardial effusion, cardiomyopathy, coronary artery disease, valvular disease, arrhythmia (subclinical involvement in up to 64%)		2%–15% Pericarditis/pericardial effusion, cardiomyopathy, heart failure, valvular disease, arrhythmia		14%–58% Pericarditis/pericardial effusion, cardiomyopathy, endocarditis, heart failure, coronary artery disease, arrhythmia (subclinical involvement in up to 71%)
GI	0%–7% Abdominal pain, bleeding, diarrhea, organ perforation, pancreatitis,		2%–56% Abdominal pain, bleeding, diarrhea, abnormal liver tests, hepatomegaly, pancreatitis, organ perforation, cholecystitis, appendicitis		6%–44% Abdominal pain, organ perforation, diarrhea, bleeding, pancreatitis, organ perforation, mesenteric ischemia, colitis, cholecystitis, appendicitis
Kidney	38%–85% Rapidly progressive GN (pauci-immune necrotizing GN)		75%–100% Disease hallmark with rapidly progressive GN (pauci-immune necrotizing GN with more diffuse and chronic damage than GPA)		10%–27% Indistinguishable from the other AAV but less severe
PNS	14%–40% Vasculitic neuropathy, mainly multiple mononeuropathy		14%–58% Vasculitic neuropathy, mainly multiple mononeuropathy		50%–92% Vasculitic neuropathy, mainly multiple mononeuropathy
CNS	5%–11% Pachymeningitis, pituitary gland involvement, CNS vasculitis		0%–18% Headache, convulsions, confusion, stroke, intracranial hemorrhage		5%–15% CNS vasculitis, stroke, eosinophilia in CSF, central affection of cranial nerves, cognitive disorders, intracranial hemorrhage
ANCA subtype
PR3-ANCA	Limited forms: 40%–59% Systemic forms: 78%–87%		3%–28%		2%–6%
MPO-ANCA	Limited forms: 6%–8% Systemic forms: 13%		61%–100%		30%–40%
Classification criteria
ACR 1990	1. Nasal or oral inflammation 2. Abnormal chest radiograph (nodules, fixed infiltrates, or cavities) 3. Abnormal urinary sediment 4. Granulomatous inflammation on biopsy				1. Asthma 2. Eosinophilia > 10%, 3. Peripheral neuropathy 4. Pulmonary infiltrates 5. Para-nasal sinus abnormalities 6. Extravascular eosinophils
	Presence of at least 2/4 criteria				Presence of at least 2/6 criteria
ACR-EULAR 2022
Clinical criteria	• Bloody nasal discharge, ulcers, crusting, congestion or blockage, or septal defect/ perforation • Cartilaginous involvement • Conductive or sensorineural hearing loss	3 2 1	• Bloody nasal discharge, ulcers, crusting, congestion or blockage, or septal defect/ perforation	3	• Obstructive airways diseases • Nasal polyps • Mononeuritis multiplex	3 3 1
Laboratory, imaging, and biopsy criteria	• cANCA or PR3-antibody • Pulmonary nodules, mass, or cavitation on chest imaging • Granuloma, extravascular granulomatous inflammation or giant cells on biopsy • Inflammation, consolidation, or effusion of the nasal/ paranasal sinuses on imaging • Pauci-immune GN on biopsy • pANCA or MPO-antibody • Blood eosinophil count ≥ 1 × 10⁹ /L	5 2 2 1 1 −1 −4	• pANCA or MPO-antibody • Fibrosis or ILD on chest imaging • Pauci-immune GN on biopsy • cANCA or PR3-antibody • Bloods eosinophil count ≥ 1 × 10⁹ /L	6 3 3 −1 −4	• Blood eosinophil count ≥ 1 × 10⁹ /L • Extravascular eosinophilic-predominant inflammation on biopsy • cANCA or PR3-antibody • Haematuria	5 2 −3 −1
	Presence of at least ≥ 5 points		Presence of at least ≥ 5 points		Presence of at least ≥ 6 points

References: Definitions², specific organ involvement^54-83, ANCA subtype^{55, 56, 59-62, 68, 79, 84, 85}, classification criteria^{3, 4, 86-91}

ACR: American College of Rheumatology; ANCA: Anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies; CNS: Central nervous system; CSF: cerebrospinal fluid; EGPA: Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis; ENT: Ear, nose, and throat; EULAR: European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology; GI: Gastrointestinal; GN: glomerulonephritis; GPA: Granulomatosis with polyangiitis; ILD: Interstitial lung disease; MPA: Microscopic polyangiitis; MPO: Myeloperoxidase; PR3: Proteinase 3; PNS: Peripheral nervous system

In the last decade, several research goals in AAV have been attained. AAV genetic background is now better characterized.^10–12 Due to efficient immunosuppressive agents, the prognosis for patients with AAV has evolved from a fatal outcome to a potentially treatable disease.¹³ After the PEXIVAS and ADVOCATE trials, it became apparent that reducing exposure to glucocorticoids (GCs) is possible and safe.^14,15 The benefits of using plasma exchange (PLEX) are currently being questioned.¹⁶ Moreover, remission-maintenance treatment with rituximab (RTX) is now recommended as the primary strategy for relapse prevention.^17,18 However, several critical needs remain unmet in the management of AAV. Many patients still progress to kidney failure (KF), associated with increased morbidity and mortality.^19–22 The risk of relapse is high, contributing to damage accrual and decreased survival.²³ In addition, especially during remission-induction treatment, the incidence of infectious complications related to immunosuppressants is high.¹ Finally, remission-maintenance strategies are not protocolized or guided by specific biomarkers, which does not help to subside the exposure to unnecessary treatments.¹⁶

Our work shows how pathogenesis, disease classification, and assessment can be combined for a unified approach. Consequently, we expect improvements in phenotypic and biologic disease characterization and in selecting specific treatments to potentially step towards personalized medicine and mitigate some of the knowledge gaps that remain in AAV (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis framework. Integrating genetic and immunologic background on the phenotypical characterization of patients with ANCA-associated vasculitides (AAVs) will potentially add precision to the selection and development of new treatments. In addition, new classification criteria, adjusted to current practice, will aid correct recruitment of patients into clinical trials and research studies, ultimately improving patients’ management. Finally, the continuous development of AAV registries will allow for more meaningful research based on a multidisciplinary approach and using real-world data. These will potentially converge to personalized medicine in AAV.

Pathogenesis

The pathogenic hallmark of AAV is the loss of immunologic T- and B-cell tolerance to neutrophilic proteins, namely PR3 or MPO.¹ The loss of tolerance is multifactorial and occurs in the presence of risk factors, such as genetic background and age, in combination with environmental factors and, more commonly, in the context of inflammation or infection.¹ MPO and PR3 are released from neutrophils and presented for T-cell recognition resulting in proinflammatory cytokine production and recruitment of effector leukocytes.¹ After the loss of tolerance, the generated ANCA activate the neutrophils in the endothelium microvasculature, leading to local injury and inflammation.¹ Endothelial and tissue injury ensues, facilitating extravascular inflammation, fibrosis, and progressive loss of function.¹

Genetics

Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have shown that GPA and MPA are genetically distinct. In contrast, EGPA encompasses two genetically different subtypes (MPO-ANCA-positive EGPA and ANCA-negative EGPA). Shared genetic risk factors for vasculitis might underlie the susceptibility to the disease.^10–12 Major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes and non-MHC genes lead to an increased susceptibility to AAV. In PR3-AAV, the presentation of PR3 antigen to the immune system is ruled by the HLA-DPB1*04:01 allele, and increased plasma levels of PR3 result from the balance between α1-antitrypsin (SERPINA1) and PR3 (PRTN3) gene expression, contributing the immune system awareness and reactivity to PR3.¹⁰ MPO-AAV and MPA have been mainly associated with HLA-DQ.¹⁰ In EGPA, the GWAS studies allowed the differentiation of EGPA into two distinct subtypes. The authors identified 11 loci associated with the disease.¹¹ Furthermore, the general risk for vasculitis seems to be conveyed by polymorphisms in the PTPN22 gene and further modified by epigenetics.^12,24

Infection

The loss of tolerance is promoted by infection through the priming of neutrophils for ANCA-induced activation, molecular mimicry, and autoantigen exposure included in neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs).^1,25,26 The presence of infectious triggers in AAV pathogenesis has been suggested in observational studies and in particular the contribution of Staphylococcus aureus as a trigger for relapse in GPA or as a source of molecular mimicry in MPO-AAV.^27,28

Loss of tolerance

In combination with the appropriate genetic background and as a response to an adequate trigger, the loss of immunologic T- and B-cell tolerance to PR3 or MPO is necessary for the pathogenesis of AAV.¹ This occurs before the onset of AAV symptoms.¹ Loss of T-cell tolerance results in the differentiation of autoantigen-specific T-cells into a T-helper phenotype, including T follicular helper (Tfh), type 1 T helper (Th1), and interleukin 17A (IL-17A)-producing T helper (Th17) cells.^1,29–31 Furthermore, CD4 ⁺ promotes ANCA production, generates effector memory T-ells, and is present in local organ lesions (with CD8 ⁺). The immune response will be perpetuated, particularly when there is reduced expression of T-cell exhaustion markers, associated with an increased risk of relapse.^1,32,33

The emergence of autoreactive B-cells and plasma cells occurs after the loss of B-cell tolerance, and this has been identified in AAV patients. Autoreactive PR3 ⁺ and MPO ⁺ B-cells represent the source of high-affinity pathogenic autoantibodies in AAV.^34–36 The maturation of B-cells occurs in germinal centers of secondary lymphoid tissues or tertiary lymphoid organ structures of inflamed target tissues, which promotes the interaction of the recruited autoreactive B-cells with the Tfh. The Tfh are a specialized subset of CD4 ⁺ T-cells with a critical role in the germinal center formation, contributing to high-affinity maturation, clonal selection, and class switch of B-cells leading to expansion, differentiation, and positive selection of the memory subsets.^37–39 Among B-cells, a small fraction is defined as autoreactive B-cells (i.e. cells bearing a B-cell receptor that recognizes autoantigens).³⁴ In addition, detection of in situ PR3⁺ B-cells in inflamed tissues has been pursued based on the hypothesis that granuloma formation in AAV might represent ectopic lymphoid structures, potentially leading to autoantibody production.^40,41 Clinical studies have been highlighting the role of CD19⁺ B-cells as an immunologic biomarker for disease monitoring since B-cell reappearance after immunosuppressive treatment precludes the occurrence of relapses in most patients with AAV.^42,43

ANCA

The clinically relevant neutrophil antigens that ANCA targets are PR3 and MPO, and only rarely different targets such as bactericidal permeability–increasing protein (BPI), elastase, lysosome-associated membrane protein-2 (LAMP-2), cathepsin G, lysozyme, and lactoferrin are documented.^44,45 Clinical in vitro and in vivo studies have supported the hypothesis of the pathogenic role for ANCA in the development of AAV.⁴⁶ This evidence is more robust for MPO-ANCA than for PR3-ANCA, which has shown the same proinflammatory effects in in vitro experimentation.⁴⁷

Neutrophil priming, activation by ANCA, and promotion of antigen recognition

The so-called effector phase in AAV is best documented by the presence of capillaritis (such as GN). The effector phase happens in two steps.⁴⁷ First, neutrophils are primed by low-level exposure to proinflammatory cytokines, such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and IL-1, by pathogen-associated molecular pattern (PAMP) and damage-associated molecular pattern (DAMP) engagement with toll-like receptors, (TLRs) and by the binding of C5a to the C5a receptor on neutrophils.¹ Priming of neutrophils results in surface expression of MPO, PR3, and other substances of neutrophil granules (e.g. lactoferrin, gelatinase, and elastase) and promotes neutrophil adhesion to the endothelial surface of blood vessels.¹ In the second step, neutrophils are activated by interactions with ANCA by binding to neutrophils Fc receptors and/or to antibody substrate, leading to the rapid release of reactive oxygen species (respiratory burst), preformed proteases, mediators of inflammation, and chemotactic factors for neutrophils and other cells of the immune system, ultimately leading to inflammation, endothelial injury, and tissue damage.^47,48 ANCA-stimulated neutrophils can also release chromatin fiber leading to NETs formation, in which autoantigens MPO and PR3 can be stored, further representing a persistent source of autoantigens contributing to inflammation maintenance.⁴⁹

Complement

ANCA has been shown to have an in vitro cytolytic effect on endothelial cells through the activation of neutrophils and the interaction with the complement system’s alternative pathway (especially with C5a and the C5a receptor).⁵⁰ The importance of complement was shown in mouse models and renal histologic samples.^51,52 C5-deficient mice failed to develop GN and vasculitis. Similarly, C5-deficient and factor B-deficient mice were completely protected from the disease. In contrast, the wild-type and C4-deficient mice were not protected from developing disease, reinforcing the role of complement activation via the alternative pathway in the pathogenesis of AAV. Furthermore, mice lacking the C5a receptor (C5aR, also known as CD88) were protected from AAV-GN development. The description of immunologic phenotypes and genetic background, might help to a more precise classification of patients, better correlated with outcomes, contributing to a more accurate prognostic assessment. This will potentially be helpful for the selection of therapeutic targets in AAV.

Diagnosis and classification

There are no AAV diagnostic criteria published so far. Hence, current diagnosis is mostly based on clinical features and supported, whenever possible, by the presence of ANCA and typical histological findings. Patients may present with various symptoms, from constitutional features (e.g. malaise, fatigue, weight loss, fever, arthralgia, and myalgia) to specific organ-related manifestations.⁵³ Although there are many overlapping features between the three subtypes of AAV, differences in organ manifestations and ANCA specificity may offer excellent clues to help in their distinction (Table 1).

Diagnosis and clinicopathologic entities

GPA is more often associated with upper and lower respiratory tract involvement, particularly with ear, nose, and throat (ENT) manifestations such as nasal crusting, epistaxis, sinusitis, otitis, and hearing loss.⁶⁹ Continued nasal inflammation may lead to severe damage with perforation of the nasal septum and saddle nose deformity, a very specific feature of GPA.⁹² Moreover, eye involvement may commonly occur, in some cases with the presence of orbital pseudotumor, another clinical feature extremely suggestive of GPA.⁵⁴ While some patients may only present with localized forms of the disease (i.e., mainly limited to the upper respiratory tract with no life-threatening manifestations), others may progress to a more systemic clinical picture, usually involving the lungs and/or kidneys.^55,84 Serologic testing showing positive ANCA with a cytoplasmic pattern (C-ANCA) directed against PR3 is strongly associated with GPA.

In MPA, renal involvement is a significant feature of the disease.⁵⁶ Some patients may also present with lung involvement, mainly diffuse alveolar hemorrhage (DAH), and pulmonary fibrosis has been increasingly recognized in MPA, sometimes as the initial manifestation of the disease.^93,94 ANCA positivity with a perinuclear pattern (P-ANCA) directed against MPO is typically seen in patients with MPA, although PR3-ANCA may also be present. Of note, it is essential to highlight that either MPA or GPA may present with positive PR3-ANCA or positive MPO-ANCA, making the differential diagnosis between both diseases challenging and, in some cases, impossible to achieve. By contrast, EGPA is classically characterized by late-onset asthma, nasal polyposis, and eosinophilia of the peripheral blood and/or tissue.⁶⁰ Cardiac involvement is a recognized hallmark of EGPA, with endomyocarditis representing its most severe form of manifestation.⁹⁵ Renal disease is rarely seen, and ANCA is only detected in up to 40% of patients, usually MPO-ANCA.^62,96,97

In some patients, the combination of highly suggestive clinical features and the detection of ANCA may be sufficient to make the diagnosis of AAV and begin treatment. Nevertheless, histologic confirmation of AAV should be sought whenever possible. Necrotizing vasculitis, with no or few immune deposits, predominantly affecting small vessels, is the most typical finding in AAV.² However, the diagnostic sensitivity of biopsy may be very low and highly dependent on the location it is performed. It is estimated that nasal and sinus biopsies may contribute to the diagnosis of vasculitis in only 28% and 37% of cases, respectively.⁹⁸ Moreover, the diagnostic yield of transbronchial biopsies in GPA is below 50%.⁹⁹ The combination of superficial peroneal nerve and peroneus brevis muscle biopsies has shown an estimated sensitivity of around 60–75% for vasculitis neuropathy. However, it can lead to a definitive sensory deficit at the procedure site.^100,101 Skin biopsies are easy to perform but often show non-specific findings such as leukocytoclastic vasculitis. When renal involvement is suspected, kidney biopsy is advisable to confirm pauci-immune GN and exclude other causes of renal disease (e.g. drug toxicity) and assess prognosis in terms of renal recovery.¹⁰² In 2010, a histologic classification for renal AAV was established by a group of pathologists and nephrologists from the European Vasculitis Society (EUVAS).¹⁰³ Patient biopsies were divided into four classes (1) focal (⩾50% normal glomeruli), (2) crescentic (⩾50% glomeruli with cellular crescents), (3) sclerotic (⩾50% sclerotic glomeruli), and (4) mixed (<50% normal, <50% crescentic, and <50% sclerotic glomeruli), with a subsequent validation study confirming the prognostic value of this histopathologic classification for 1- and 5-year renal outcomes.¹⁰³ Since then, several other validation studies have been published worldwide.^{102,104–112} In addition, the renal risk score for ANCA-associated GN was developed based in clinical and histologic characteristics and highlights the contribution of unaffected glomeruli to renal recovery.¹¹³ More recently, a kidney biopsy chronicity grading score – the Mayo Clinic Chronicity Score – has also been developed and validated, additionally showing an impact on prognostic prediction.¹¹⁴

Classification criteria

Classification criteria define a homogeneous group of patients with a specific disease for correct recruitment into clinical research studies.¹¹⁵ Classification criteria for GPA and EGPA were established by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) in 1990 (Table 1) to differentiate these cases from other forms of vasculitides but not from non-vasculitic diseases.^3,4 Therefore, these criteria should not be used for diagnostic purposes and have been proven to perform poorly when used in this manner.¹¹⁶ In addition, the 1990 ACR criteria were established before the routine testing of ANCA and the widespread use of advanced imaging modalities. More importantly, the criteria did not include separate classification criteria for MPA. Between 2011 and 2017, a multinational, observational study was conducted to develop diagnostic criteria and update classification criteria for systemic vasculitis: the Diagnostic and Classification Criteria for Vasculitis (DCVAS) study.¹¹⁷ It recruited 6991 patients from 136 different sites and 32 countries. The final ACR-EULAR endorsed classification criteria for AAV have now been published (Table 1).^86–91

There is an ongoing debate on classifying patients with AAV based on their clinical phenotype versus ANCA specificity (PR3 vs MPO).¹¹⁸ Patients with positive PR3-ANCA have been shown to have a different response to treatment, relapse rate, and long-term survival when compared to patients with positive MPO-ANCA.^{13,19,23,119–123} Furthermore, data from GWAS have found genetic distinctions to be more closely aligned with ANCA status than clinicopathologic manifestations of the disease in patients with MPA and GPA.^10–12 However, it is still unclear which fraction of patients with EGPA or negative ANCA would fit in this ANCA-based classification.¹²⁴ In addition, despite the controversy, no clinical trials to date have used this different classification system as the sole inclusion criteria to recruit patients with AAV. ANCA serology is usually just included as one of the eligibility items.¹²⁵

It is possible that in the future, diagnosis and classification of patients with AAV may include genetic findings paired with ANCA specificity. However, at least for the next few years, the new classification criteria are expected to optimize the way we include patients with AAV in clinical trials and research studies, hence improving their management and outcomes.

Disease assessment

AAV is a chronic and relapsing inflammatory disease requiring careful assessment of its activity, damage, and prognosis to ensure the appropriate use of potentially toxic therapies and accurate monitoring of disease progression. Moreover, patients with AAV perceive the burden of their illness differently from clinicians, which should be considered when evaluating these patients.^53,126 The regular use of assessment tools allows for a structured approach in clinical practice and is helpful to ensure homogeneous definitions of response to treatment and outcomes in clinical trials.^69,127,128

Activity

After establishing the diagnosis of AAV, defining organ involvement is critical to evaluate response to treatment and outcomes (i.e. remission and relapse). The Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS) is endorsed by the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) group to assess the level of disease activity, allowing the comparison between different disease states for individual patients or across groups of patients.^129–132 The most recent version of this tool (BVAS v3) consists of a list of items that typically occur in patients with active systemic vasculitis and provides an overall measure of disease activity using a score from 0 to 63.¹³¹ Each item is only recorded as present if the clinician judges it to be due to active vasculitis.

Damage

After controlling disease activity, persistent organ lesions might ensue because of disease extension, cumulative relapses, treatment adverse effects, and comorbidities.¹²⁷ The resultant damage can be quantified using the Vasculitis Damage Index (VDI), assessed on a scale of 0 to 64 items, which can only be applied 3 months after the diagnosis of vasculitis has been established.^127,133 When monitoring patients with AAV, it is essential to distinguish clinical manifestations resulting from damage or activity to avoid unnecessary immunosuppressive treatment.¹²⁷ Moreover, estimating damage helps to record the presence of comorbidities.¹²⁷

Function, quality of life, and patient-reported outcomes

Independent of disease activity and damage, the performance of daily life activities can be impaired in AAV. The assessment of function encompasses the overall impact of the disease on physical, social, and psychologic functions, including quality of life and employment.¹²⁷ Patients with AAV show a reduction in quality of life like that found in other chronic diseases. Therefore, these patients are suitable to be evaluated by generic instruments like Short Form 36 (SF-36).¹³⁴ Recently, a disease-specific measurement tool for patients with AAV became available to fully capture patient-related outcomes (AAV-PRO).^135,136 However, it still requires further validation using real world cohorts, which is expected to occur in the next few years.

Prognosis

A cumulative VDI score ⩾5 has been associated with increased mortality risk after 2 years. Higher levels of BVAS at disease presentation have been linked with worst prognostic outcomes.^13,133,137 Nevertheless, in patients with AAV, the prognosis is most frequently assessed using the 5-Factor Score (FFS).^138,139 This prognostic tool was first validated in 1996 for patients with EGPA, polyarteritis nodosa (PAN), and MPA, and revised in 2009 to also include patients with GPA.^138,139 The original FFS encompasses five positive baseline items: creatinine >1.58 mg/dL, proteinuria > 1 g/24 h, and central nervous system, gastrointestinal, and cardiac involvement.¹³⁸ The revised FFS includes one negative item (ear, nose, and throat involvement) in addition to the following four positive items: age > 65 years, creatinine ⩾150 µmol/L, and central nervous system and cardiac involvement.¹³⁹ Mortality rate at 5 years was estimated at 12%, 26%, or 46% for the original FFS, and 9%, 21%, and 40% for the revised FFS if the patient punctuates 0, 1, or 2, respectively.^138,139

Laboratory testing and imaging techniques

Conventional inflammatory markers – C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) – are of limited value for assessing disease activity in AAV due to the lack of specificity. It has been challenging to determine the utility of ANCA serial testing for relapse prediction. In the RAVE trial, patients with PR3-ANCA, relapsing disease, or who had the diagnosis of GPA were at a higher risk of relapse when compared to patients with MPO-ANCA, new disease onset, or who were diagnosed with MPA.^42,123,140 The most recent guidelines on AAV do not recommend monitoring ANCA titres.¹⁶ This was mainly based on the conclusions from a meta-analysis that included studies in which the relapse risk was assessed in cohorts that combined patients with MPO- and PR3-AAV.^16,141 Previous studies have shown that rise in ANCA titres correlated better with relapses in patients with AAV-GN than in patients without renal disease.^142,143 Therefore, the potential use of ANCA as a biomarker for guiding treatment strategies of remission-maintenance and relapse monitoring may depend on organ involvement and ANCA specificity. Finally, routine use of imaging techniques has shown to be of small value for monitoring patients with AAV.¹²⁸

Composite measures

The development of composite assessment tools has been desirable to evaluate response to treatment in AAV, particularly in the setting of clinical trials.^144,145 The evaluation of patient-related outcomes (PROs) and damage measures in AAV is lacking in many clinical trials.¹⁴⁴ Therefore, the development of a composite assessment tool for vasculitis has recently become a focus of the OMERACT Vasculitis Working Group.¹⁴⁵ The objective is to generate an instrument capable of capturing the entire burden of the disease across multiple domains, paired with the ability to detect response to treatment during different disease states.¹⁴⁵ A systematic review, a Delphi exercise, and a planned methodology were performed and discussed, and domains and high-quality instruments were defined.¹⁴⁵ The next step is to determine a scoring system that allows outcome measurement.¹⁴⁵ It is possible that in future clinical trials, patients’ perspectives will be better captured on the measures of efficacy used.

Treatment

Following diagnosis or reasonable suspicion of AAV, treatment should be initiated as soon as possible.¹⁴⁶ In order to tailor therapy for each patient, a careful evaluation should be carried out to assess the individual risk of infection (including concurrent viral and bacterial infections), immunodeficiency, and comorbidities associated with stratification of the impact of GC treatment (e.g. diabetes, osteopenia/osteoporosis, psychiatric diseases). The treatment of AAV consists of two phases: remission-induction and remission-maintenance. Inducing long-term remission is one of the main goals of immunosuppressive therapy, which might be disrupted by the clinical reappearance of disease activity (relapse).¹⁴⁴ For this reason, after controlling disease manifestations, remission-maintenance treatment is instituted. The recommendations for each phase of treatment are currently stratified according to the severity of the disease and the AAV subtype (GPA/MPA vs EGPA). Severe disease can be defined as vasculitis with life- or organ-threatening manifestations and non-severe disease as vasculitis without life- or organ-threatening manifestations.^16,140 In addition, assessment of disease severity may also be aided by the BVAS and FFS (e.g. FFS ⩾ 1 and FFS = 0 for severe and non-severe disease, respectively).^129,130,147

Remission-induction treatment

The main goal of the remission-induction treatment is to suppress and control inflammation as fast and steadily as possible to minimize organ damage. During the last two decades, research in AAV management has taken significant steps toward reducing immunosuppression toxicity, with the decreasing of cyclophosphamide (CYC) cumulative doses (CYCLOPS, CORTAGE), progressive reduction of GCs (PEXIVAS, LoVAS) and introduction of new immunosuppressants like RTX (RAVE, RITUXVAS).^{14,140,148–152}

GPA and MPA

In severe AAV, current standard therapy includes a combination of GCs and RTX or CYC, as proposed by the most recent guidelines (Figure 2).^16,146,153 Following the RAVE and RITUXVAS trials, the use of RTX for remission-induction treatment has been favored over CYC, particularly in cases of relapsing or PR3-ANCA positive disease, to preserve fertility, in frail older adults, in children and adolescents, or when GC-sparing is strongly needed.^{16,140,146,152,153} When CYC is the treatment of choice, intravenous (IV) pulses are favored to reduce cumulative doses.¹⁶ In patients with markedly reduced or rapidly declining estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (serum creatinine [SCr] > 4 mg/dL [354 µmol/L]) and/or KF (eGFR < 15.0 mL/min per 1.73 m)², some debate remains regarding the choice of RTX versus CYC for remission-induction.^16,146,153 The efficacy of RTX in patients with KF has not been directly tested in clinical trials. However, some studies have reported that both RTX and CYC therapies seem to be equivalent in severe kidney disease.^154,155 A post hoc analysis of the RAVE trial showed that patients enrolled with an eGFR < 30.0 mL/min per 1.73 m² at baseline responded similarly to RTX (18 patients) and CYC (14 patients).¹⁵⁶ There was no statistically significant difference in the mean eGFR increase over the 18 months of follow-up.¹⁵⁶ In addition, in a cohort of 251 patients with an eGFR < 30.0 mL/min per 1.73 m², a propensity score matching analysis that adjusted for the severity of kidney disease (eGFR < 15.0 mL/min per 1.73 m)² showed no differences between the frequency of remission and renal events between patients who received RTX versus CYC for remission-induction (64 vs 161 patients, respectively).¹⁵⁴ In another study that included 37 patients with eGFR < 20.0 mL/min per 1.73 m², there were no differences in remission, renal recovery from KF, or death when patients were treated with RTX and GC, with or without CYC (25 vs 12 patients, respectively).¹⁵⁵ Similarly, it is unclear whether the combination of RTX with CYC would benefit the treatment of these patients.

Figure 2.

Algorithm for remission-induction treatment in ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV).

In the last decade, several combined schemes of CYC and RTX have emerged to reduce both CYC and GC cumulative doses.^{152,157–160} Kavita Gulati et al.¹⁵⁸ recently reported a reduction in KF at 36 months from 67% to 52% with a low-dose CYC and GC regimen with two doses of RTX and PLEX. In addition infection rates were similar.¹⁵⁸ The SMARTVAS (Rituximab/Cyclophosphamide and Minimal Dose Glucocorticoid in AAV) study, in which the induction regimen consisted of two doses of RTX, 3 months of low-dose CYC, and a short course of GCs, provided an important breakthrough in achieving a substantial reduction of the CYC and GC doses (median of 3–3.2 g and median of 1–1.2 g after 1–2 weeks, respectively). It reported similar outcomes to other EUVAS trials, although with fewer GC-related adverse events, namely severe infections, and diabetes.¹⁵⁹ Previously, similar results were found in the CYCLowVasc study that included patients with more severe kidney disease.¹⁵⁷ Results from randomized clinical trials to further support these combined options are awaited.¹⁶¹ Consequently, reflecting the controversy regarding the treatment of patients with severe kidney disease, the main guidelines have different positions on this subject: the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2021 guidelines for the management of glomerular diseases favor the use of CYC alone or combined with RTX, whereas in the 2021 ACR/Vasculitis Foundation (VF) guidelines for the management of AAV, the use of CYC as the preferred induction treatment for these patients is considered controversial, and the combination of both induction agents is not endorsed due to the currently limited data.^16,153 New EULAR recommendations, which are expected to be published by the end of 2022, will incorporate other studies and perhaps expand on current guidelines.

GCs have an essential role in the AAV remission-induction therapy. Methylprednisolone IV pulses of 500–1000 mg per day or high doses of oral prednisone (1 mg/kg/day) are used as an adjuvant to rapidly reduce inflammation until the biologic effect of the immunosuppressive agent occurs.^16,146,153 The need for methylprednisolone IV pulses to control disease activity, instead of only high doses of oral prednisone, has been recently questioned following a retrospective study which reported that its avoidance significantly reduced diabetes and severe infections without compromising efficacy.¹⁶² The PEXIVAS trial provided strong evidence for a new reduced prednisone tapering regimen which proved to be efficient and equivalent in the achievement of remission and is currently recommended for remission-induction.¹⁴

Advances in AAV pathogenesis research have shed light on the crucial role of the alternative complement pathway and allowed the development of new drugs that can potentially replace GCs.⁵⁰ In the ADVOCATE trial, the anti-C5a receptor (avacopan, 30 mg twice daily) proved to be noninferior at 26 weeks and superior at 52 weeks compared to GCs, with improved kidney outcomes.¹⁵ This was reflected on the increase of eGFR and decrease in albuminuria, consistent with what has been previously reported in phase 2 trials.^163–165 In addition, there was a decrease in relapses within the first 52 weeks from 21% to 10% when compared with a prednisone tapering regimen, and quality of life patient-reported outcomes significantly improved.¹⁵ However, there are still uncertainties about the best duration of treatment and its efficacy in patients under kidney replacement therapy and/or eGFR below 15 mL/min.¹⁵ Two recent case series using avacopan have confirmed its steroid-sparing effect and safety profile, including in one patient with an eGFR of 11 mL/min who was able to recover stable kidney function (eGFR 23 mL/min) at 12 months.^166,167 Nevertheless, further studies documenting the results of avacopan in patients with a long-term follow-up in real-life settings are still needed.

The use of PLEX in DAH or rapidly progressive crescentic GN decreased considerably following the PEXIVAS study, which did not show a benefit in mortality or the incidence of KF compared to standard remission-induction treatment.¹⁴ Strong evidence favoring PLEX in DAH is lacking, with different studies showing no difference in mortality, even in patients with hypoxemia.¹⁶⁸ A cohort study used propensity score matching analysis that adjusted for the severity of kidney disease (eGFR < 15.0 mL/min per 1.73 m²) and showed no differences between the frequency and risk for renal events between patients who received PLEX vs those who did not (51 vs 200 patients, respectively).¹⁵⁴ However, in patients with severe kidney disease (SCr > 5.7 mg/dL) studies have reported conflicting results regarding the role of PLEX and international community is divided.^14,169–172 These controversies are reflected in the most recent guidelines, with KDIGO considering PLEX in patients with SCr > 5.7 mg/dL, rapidly increasing SCr or who require dialysis, and in patients with DAH who have hypoxemia, while ACR/VF recommend against its routine use, but may consider PLEX in critically ill patients at high risk for progression to KF.^16,153

IV immunoglobulin may also be a therapeutic option as adjunctive therapy for patients with refractory or relapsing AAV. It may induce rapid improvement in disease activity and related biomarkers.^16,173,174

In non-severe disease, methotrexate (MTX) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) are considered the alternative options to CYC, based on the NORAM and MYCYC trials, respectively (Figure 2).^{146,175–177} Azathioprine (AZA) may present as an alternative for remission-induction in cases of pregnancy or intolerance to MTX or MMF.¹⁷

EGPA

Patients with EGPA were not included in the main AAV clinical trials since the disease pathophysiology is substantially different from GPA and MPA, with higher rates of ANCA negativity and eosinophilic-driven inflammation. Hence, recommendations for severe EGPA disease are like those employed in GPA/MPA (Figure 2).¹⁶ For non-severe EGPA, mepolizumab is recommended as the first choice of treatment for remission-induction in new-onset, relapsing and refractory disease. Mepolizumab improved remission rates and reduced the risk of relapse.^16,178

Ongoing clinical trials of remission-induction in AAV

Table 2 summarizes the most relevant clinical trials, already terminated or currently ongoing, for remission-induction in AAV.

Table 2.

Clinical trials of remission-induction treatment in ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV).

Cyclophosphamide (CYC)
Name	Population	Intervention	Main results/Status
CYCLOPS, 2009 ¹⁴⁸	Newly diagnosed GPA/MPA,Renal involvement, ANCA + or −if biopsy;No Immediately life-threatening disease (n = 149)	IV CYC (15 mg/kg every 2–3 weeks) + GCOral CYC (2 mg/kg/day) + GC	• IV CYC non-inferior to oral CYC• ~50% Cumulative CYC dose in iv groupIV CYC had ↓ leukopenia but ↑ relapse rate
CORTAGE, 2015 ¹⁵⁰	⩾65 years old + newly diagnosed GPA, MPA, EGPA, or PAN (n = 104)	IV CYC 500 mg (⩽6 doses every 2–3 weeks) + 9 months of GCIV CYC 500 mg/m² (every 2–3 weeks until remission- ~5.5 g) + 26 months of GC	• Low-dose CYC and GC had ↓ serious adverse effects• Similar remission, relapse, and mortality rates
Rituximab (RTX)
Name	Population	Intervention	Main results/status
RAVE, 2010 ¹⁴⁰	Newly diagnosed or relapsing GPA/MPA with ANCA + (Cr clearance ~54 ml/min) n = 197)	RTX (375 mg/m² x 4 doses) + GCOral CYC (2 mg/kg/day) + GC (+ AZA maintenance)	• RTX non-inferior to CYC• RTX is better for relapsing AAV/PR3-ANCA• Similar short-term adverse effects and relapse rates
RITUXVAS, 2010 ¹⁵²	Newly diagnosed AAVWith severe renal involvement (median eGFR~ 20 mL/min) (n = 44)	RTX (375 mg/m² × 4 doses) + CYC (15 mg/kg × 2 doses) + GCIV CYC for 3–6 months + GC (+ AZA maintenance)	• RTX + CYC regimen not superior IV CYC similar remission rates and adverse events
CYC sparing, clucocorticoid (GC), and plasma exchange (PLEX)
Name	Population	Intervention	Main results/Status
CycLowVas, 2011 ¹⁵⁷	23 patients with newly diagnosed or relapsed AAV with renal involvementNo SCr > 5.7 mg/dL, DAH, Cerebral vasculitis, Previous RTXEUVAS controls trial	RTX (1 g x 2 doses) + IV CYC (10 mg/kg, max 750 mg × 2 doses + max 500 mg × 4 doses) + reduced GC regimenCYC regimens (from previous EUVAS trials)	• Median cumulative dose 3.4 vs 8.2–15 g (CYCLOPS)• Less infection and leucopenia than CYCLOPS• Prolonged disease-free remission
Kavita Gulati et al.¹⁵⁸ (same CycLowVas regimen with PLEX) non-RCT	64 patients with life-threatening AAV(DAH and/or SCr > 5.7 mg/dl or RRT in the first 48 hoursNo anti-GBM antibodies.(median eGFR 9 mL/min)Controls (40 patients with similar inclusion criteria with CYCLOPS regimen)	RTX (1 g × 2 doses) + IV CYC (10 mg/kg, max 750 mg × 2 doses + max 500 mg × 4 doses) + reduced GC regimen + PLEX (7 daily sessions) + maintenance with AZA or MMF)IV/oral CYC (CYCLOPS) + corticosteroids + PLEX (from historic severe AAV cohort)	• 94% achieved remission at six months• Improved KF-free survival at 36 months (67% vs 52.5% in controls with CYCLOPS)• Similar risk of infection
SMARTVAS (non-RCT), 2019 ¹⁵⁹	49 patients with a new diagnosis or relapsing AAVNo anti-GBM antibodiesNo long-term corticosteroidsMedian eGFR 29 mL/minControls (CYCAZAREM, CYCLOPS; MEPEX, RITUXVAS)	IV CYC (500–750 mg every 2 weeks, x 6 doses) + RTX (2 1 g × 2 doses) + IV MP (250 mg-1 g) + prednisolone (1–2 weeks) + PLEX if dialysis dependent)EUVAS clinical trials and RITUXVAS	• Cumulative GC dose 1.1 vs 6.7 g (EUVAS trials) with similar remission rates and kidney outcomes• 0% vs 8% DM in EUVAS trials• Less severe infection (12.2% vs 30%) compared to RITUXVAS (possibly related to higher GC dose)
LoVAS, 2021 ¹⁵¹	Newly diagnosed GPA/MPANo severe GN or DAH. (n = 140)	Reduced dose prednisolone (0.5 mg/kg per day) + RTX (375 mg/m² × 4 doses)High-dose prednisolone (1 mg/kg/day) + RTX (375 mg/m² × 4 doses)	• Reduced GC dose non-inferior and associated with ↓ serious adverse effects
CYC sparing, clucocorticoid (GC), and plasma exchange (PLEX)
Name	Population	Intervention	Main results/Status
MEPEX, 2007 ¹⁷¹	Newly diagnosed and biopsy proven AAV with SCr > 5.7 mg/dL.(n = 137)	PLEX (7 sessions) + oral CYC + prednisolone.IV methylprednisolone (3000 mg) + oral CYC + prednisolone	• PLEX ↓ KF at 3 and 12 months but similar outcomes post 12 months
PEXIVAS, 2020 ¹⁴	Relapsing or newly diagnosed GPA/ MPA + GFR < 50 mL/min or DAH(n = 704)18% SCr > 5.7 mg/dL6% DAH with hypoxemia	First interventionPLEX (7 sessions within 14 days) as add on to CYC or RTX + GCCYC or RTX + GCSecond intervention- standard dose GC + CYC or RTX- reduced dose GC + CYC or RTX	• PLEX did not ↓ mortality or progression to KF• Similar serious adverse effects• Reduced GC regimen non-inferior to standard GC dose (death and KF)• Less severe infections with reduced GC dose
ADVOCATE, 2021 ¹⁵	Newly diagnosed or relapsed ANCA + MPA/GPAeGFR ⩾ 15 mL/min + 1 major BVAS item or 2 minor BVAS items or ⩾ 2 renal BVAS items. (n = 331)	Avacopan (30 + 30 mg /day) + CYC or RTXPrednisolone + CYC or RTX	• Avacopan non-inferior to GC at 26 weeks and superior at 52 weeks• Beneficial effect on kidney function• Less GC related adverse effects
Methotrexate (MTX) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF)
Name	Population	Intervention	Main results/Status
NORAM, 2005 ¹⁷⁵	Newly diagnosed GPA/MPASCr < 1.7 mg/dLNo critical organ involvement.(n = 100)	Oral MTX (20–25 mg/week) + GCOral CYC (2 mg/kg/day) + GC	• MTX non-inferior to CYC• MTX had ↑ relapses and ↓ disease control in extensive disease/pulmonary involvement treated with MTX
MYCYC, 2019 ¹⁷⁶	Newly diagnosed with GPA or MPANo life-threatening disease, RPRF or GFR < 15 mL/min.(n = 140)	MMF (2–3 g/day) + GC (+ AZA maintenance)IV CYC (15 mg/kg/day every 2–3 weeks) + GC (+ AZA maintenance).	• MMF non-inferior to CYC• Relapse rates > MMF (mainly in PR3-ANCA)
Anti-IL5
Name	Population	Intervention	Main results/Status
MIRRA, 2017 ¹⁷⁸	136 patients with relapsing or refractory EGPA + treatment for at least four weeksNo organ/life-threatening disease or SCr > 2.5 mg/dL	Mepolizumab (300 mg every 4 weeks for 52 weeks) + SOCPlacebo (for 52 weeks) + SOC	• Mepolizumab ↑ accrued weeks and rate of remission, ↓ relapse rates, and GC dose at weeks 48–52• Similar safety profile
Ongoing clinical trials for remission-induction in AAV (www.clinicaltrials.gov)
Clinical trial	Population	Objective	Intervention
MANDARA NCT04157348	Patients with relapsing EGPA	IL5-Rα antagonist for relapsing EGPA(Phase III)	Benralizumab 30 mg SC vs 3x mepolizumab 100 mg SC for 12 months
COMBIVAS NCT03967925	30 patients with PR-3 positive AAV	RTX + BEL for remission-induction(Phase II)	RTX (1 g × 2 doses) + GCRTX (1 g × 2 doses) + BEL (200 mg SC weekly) + GC
ENDURRANCE-1 NCT03942887	47 patients with GPA/MPA + generalized disease + ANCA positive	RTX + CYC to decrease minimal residual autoimmunity(Phase III)	RTX (1 g x 2 doses) GCRTX (1 g x 2 doses) + Low dose CYC (500 mg x 6 doses) + GC
Ongoing clinical trials for remission-induction in AAV (www.clinicaltrials.gov)
Clinical trial	Population	Objective	Intervention
IXPLORE NCT03712345	19 patients with GPA/MPA requiring CYC or RTX and GC + ANCA positive + 1 major BVAS item or ⩾ 3 minor BVAS items or ⩾ 2 renal BVAS items	IFX-1 (anti-C5a) for remission-induction in GPA/MPA(Phase II)	Main intervention:SOC + IFX-1 + low dose GCSOC + Placebo IFX-1 + high dose GCFollowed by:SOC + Placebo IFX-1 + high dose GCSOC + IFX-1 + Placebo GC
Exchange NCT03895801	57 patients with GPA/MPA, requiring CYC or RTX and GC ⩾ 1 “major” item, or ⩾ 3 other items, or ⩾ 2 renal items on the (BVASv3)	IFX-1 (anti-C5a) as a replacement for GC in remission-induction in GPA/MPA (Phase II)	SOC + low dose GC + IFX-1SOC + standard dose GCSOC + IFX-1

AAV, ANCA-associated vasculitis; ANCA, anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody; Anti-GBM, anti glomerular basal membrane; AZA, azathioprine; BEL, belimumab; BVAS, Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score; C5a, complemente factor 5ª; CYC, cyclophosphamide; DAH, diffuse alveolar hemorrhage; DM, diabetes mellitus; EGPA, eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis; EUVAS, European Vasculitis Association; GC, glucocorticoid; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; GPA, granulomatosis with polyangiitis; IL, interleukin; IV, intravenous; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; MPA, microscopic polyangiitis; MTX, methotrexate; PAN, polyarteritis nodosa; PLEX, plasma exchange; PR3, proteinase 3; RRT, renal replacement therapy; RTX, rituximab; SC, subcutaneous; SCr, serum creatinine; SOC, standard of care.

In patients with positive PR3-ANCA (GPA or MPA), treatment with belimumab plus RTX (COMBIVAS) is being compared with RTX alone with regard to improvement in biologic endpoints, functional outcomes, and clinical status (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03967925). The combination of RTX with CYC is also being compared to RTX alone in the ENDURRANCE-1 study to achieve a favorable immunologic state of minimal residual autoimmunity and reduce the need for retreatment (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03942887). In addition, the IXPLORE (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03712345) and the Ixchange phase II trials (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03895801) focus on GC replacement by a monoclonal antibody specifically binding to C5a (IFX-1-vilobelimab) in patients with GPA and MPA. Moreover, there is an ongoing pilot study assessing the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in active AAV (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04973033). In patients with EGPA, benralizumab, an anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibody, is currently being compared to mepolizumab in a phase III trial in efficacy and safety (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04157348).

Remission-maintenance treatment

The choice of remission-maintenance treatment is challenging and attempts to define strict criteria or biomarkers for its guidance have been insufficient. The main objective of the remission-induction phase is to prevent relapse while avoiding long-term drug toxicities and resultant comorbidities.¹ Several factors should be considered while choosing the best regimen: the remission-induction regimen used, disease severity, patient comorbidities, drug contraindications, and potential toxicities.^16,146,153

GPA and MPA

The most recent guidelines on the treatment of AAV recommend remission-maintenance regimens according to disease severity (Figure 3).

Figure 3

Algorithm for remission-maintenance treatment in ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV).AAV, ANCA-associated vasculitis; ANCA, anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody; AZA, azathioprine; CYC, cyclophosphamide; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; EGPA, eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis; GC, glucocorticoid; GPA, granulomatosis with polyangiitis; LFN, leflunomide; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; MPA, microscopic polyangiitis; MTX, methotrexate; RTX, rituximab.1The GC tapering is the standard of care at this point since avacopan was only recently approved as GC sparing strategy.

In patients with severe GPA/MPA, RTX has the best evidence for the maintenance of remission when compared with AZA.^17,18 On the MAINRITSAN trial, the efficacy of RTX (500 mg on days 0 and 14, and months 6, 12, and 18) for remission-maintenance was compared to AZA (tapering regimen of 2 mg/kg/d for 12 months; 1.5 mg/kg for 6 months; 1 mg/kg for 4 months) in patients who previously received CYC for remission-induction.¹⁷ The authors showed lower relapse rates at 28-months in the RTX arm.¹⁷ Subsequently, the RITAZAREM trial showed that RTX was efficient in reinducing and maintaining remission in patients with relapsing GPA/MPA.¹⁸ RTX for remission-maintenance has been used either in fixed intervals or guided by B-cell reconstitution (CD19 ⁺ monitoring) and/or ANCA reappearance. The MAINRITSAN2 trial showed no differences between the two strategies.¹⁷⁹ However, the most recent ACR/VF guidelines endorsed the fixed regimen.¹⁷ The possible maintenance doses for RTX reported include: (1) IV 500 mg every 6 months (FDA-approved), (2) IV 1000 mg every 4 months, and (3) IV 1000 mg every 6 months.^17,18 Comparative studies are still warranted.¹⁷ MTX or AZA are viable alternatives for cases in which RTX cannot be used (e.g. due to limited access, intolerance), with both drugs exhibiting a similar efficacy and safety profile.¹⁸⁰ Other immunosuppressants like MMF and leflunomide may also be considered.^{16,146,181,182} In patients that remain dialysis-dependent following remission-induction, there is still some debate regarding the institution of remission-maintenance therapy. Recent KDIGO guidelines recommend avoiding further immunosuppression, especially in patients with MPO-ANCA vasculitis. The relapse rate is low and risk of infection related to therapy is high. The ongoing Maintaining or Stopping Immunosuppressive Therapy in Patients With ANCA Vasculitis and End-stage Renal Disease (MASTER-ANCA) will provide future guidance. In non-severe GPA/MPA, it is recommended to continue the same treatment used for remission-induction (Figure 3).^16,146

EGPA

Evidence regarding remission-maintenance therapy for EGPA is not as strong as for GPA/MPA.^16,146 In patients with severe disease manifestations who have attained remission after induction with CYC, maintenance treatment with MTX, AZA, or MMF is preferred over RTX or mepolizumab (Figure 2).¹⁶ By contrast, the use of mepolizumab over MTX, AZA, and MMF is indicated for remission-maintenance in cases of non-severe disease (Figure 3).¹⁶ In the last couple of years, RTX has frequently been used in EGPA as a GC-sparing agent. It is currently the treatment of choice for remission-induction and maintenance in cases of relapsing disease with severe manifestations.^{16,146,183,184} In patients who present with non-severe relapses while receiving MTX, AZA, or MMF, adding mepolizumab should be considered.¹⁶

Duration of remission-maintenance treatment

The optimal time of the remission-maintenance treatment is still a matter of debate. The general recommendations are for at least 18–24 months of treatment.^16,146 Results of the MAINRITSAN 3 study showed that in patients who underwent RTX maintenance treatment and were in sustained remission for 2 years, two additional years of treatment with RTX decreased the relapse rate.¹⁸⁵

Ongoing clinical trials of remission-maintenance in AAV

Table 3 summarizes the most relevant clinical trials on remission-maintenance for AAV.

Table 3.

Clinical trials of remission-maintenance treatment in ANCA-associated vasculitis.

Rituximab (RTX)
Name	Population	Intervention	Main results/Status
MAINRITSAN, 2014 ¹⁷	Newly diagnosed or severe GPA or MPA or renal-limited vasculitis in complete remission vasculitis after induction with GC and CYC (n = 115)	RTX 500 mg IV at days 0 and 14 (then months 6, 12, 18, total 18 months)AZA 2 mg/kg/day for 12 months, 1.5 mg/kg/day for 6 months and 1 mg/kg/day for 4 months (total 22 months)	• Reduction of relapse was superior with RTX at 28 months• Improved survival and increased major relapse-free survival with RTX at 60 months
MAINRITSAN-2, 2018 ¹⁷⁹	Newly diagnosed or severe relapse of GPA or MPA in complete remission after induction (n = 162)	Fixed: RTX 500 mg IV at days 0 and 14 (then months 6,12,18)Individualized: 500 mg IV at randomization and then reinfusion only if reappearance of CD19 or ANCA or increased titer of ANCA or increased titer of ANCA; measured every three months, until month 18	• No difference in relapse rate at 28 months of follow-up• ANCA and CD19 did not predict relapse
MAINRITSAN-3, 2020 ¹⁸⁵	Newly diagnosed or severe relapse of GPA or MPA in complete remission following the completion of MAINRITSAN-2 trial (n = 97)	Four additional 500 mg IV doses of RTX at months 34, 40, and 46 vs placebo	• Relapse-free survival rates are superior with extended therapy with RTX at 56 months• No difference in severe adverse events at 56 months
RITAZAREM, 2020 ¹⁸	Maintenance therapy after major relapse of GPA or MPA after induction with CG + RTX (n = 170)	RTX 1000 mg IV every 4 months x5 doses vs AZA 2 mg/kg/day	• RTX was superior in preventing relapses at 24 months• No difference in severe adverse events
Azathioprine (AZA)
Name	Population	Intervention	Main results/Status
CYCAZAREM, 2003 ¹⁸⁶	Newly diagnosed GPA or MPA after induction with GC and CYC (n = 144)	Continued CYC therapy (1.5 mg/kg/day) vs substitute regimen of AZA (2 mg/kg/day)Both arms continued to receive prednisolone (follow-up 18 months)	• No difference in relapse and adverse events at 18 months of follow-up.• The duration of exposure to CYC may be safely reduced.
WEGENT, 2008 ¹⁸⁰ WEGENT – long term, 2016 ¹²²	Newly diagnosed GPA or MPA after induction with GC and CYC (n = 126 and n = 112)	AZA 2 mg/kg/day for 12 months vs MTX 0.3 mg/kg/week (oral or SC)	• No difference in relapse and adverse events at 29 months and ten years
REMAIN, 2009 ¹⁸⁷	Newly diagnosed GPA or MPA or renal-limited vasculitis after induction with GC and CYC (n = 117)	Maintenance with AZA and prednisone low dose for 24 vs 48 months	• Significant reduction of relapse at 48 months• ANCA positivity is associated with relapse risk• More serious adverse events at 48 months
Mycophenolate Mofetil (MMF)
Name	Population	Intervention	Main results/Status
IMPROVE, 2010 ¹⁸⁸	Newly diagnosed GPA or MPA after induction with GC and CYC (n = 156)	AZA 2 mg/kg/day for 12 months, 1.5 mg/kg/day for 6 months, 1 mg/kg/day until month 42 vs MMF 2000 mg/day for 12 months, 1500 mg for 6 months and 1000 mg until month 42	• Increased incidence of relapse in the MMF group at follow-up of 39 months• Both treatments had similar adverse event rates
Leflunomide (LFN)
Name	Population	Intervention	Main results / Status
Metzler et al., 2004 ¹⁸⁹	GPA incomplete or partial remission	LEF 30 mg/day vs MTX 7.5–20 mg/week after 8 weeks	• Relapse rate was inferior in the LEF group• Adverse events in LEF group
Belimumab (BEL)
Name	Population	Intervention	Main results/Status
BREVAS, 2019 ¹⁹⁰	Newly diagnosed or relapse of severe GPA or MPA after induction with GC + RTX	BEL 10 mg/kg IV on days 0,14 and 28 (then every 28 days) vs placebo of BEL	No difference in relapse rate at 12 months
Ongoing clinical trials for remission-maintenance in AAV (www.clinicaltrials.gov)
Clinical trial	Population	Objective	Intervention
ABROGATE NCT02108860	Patients with relapsing non-severe GPA (n = 66)	ABA for remission-maintenance in GPA(Phase III)	ABA 125 mg SC weekly for 12 months vs placebo
TAPIR NCT01933724	GPA in remission (n = 60)	Low dose GC in GPA(Phase III)	All patients tapered to 5 mg of daily prednisonePrednisone: continue 5 mg dailyNo prednisone: taper to 0 mg
MAINEPSAN NCT03290456	Patients with GPA or MPA in remission, 12 months following induction therapy	Low dose GC in GPA/MPA(Phase III)	Prednisone: continue 5 mg daily for 12 monthsNo prednisone: taper to 0 mg in 1 month
NCT04944524	Patients with GPA in remission after induction with CG + CYC	TOF for remission-maintenance(PhaseIV)	TOF 5 mg twice a day for 12 months vs MTX 15–20 mg/weekly for 12 months
NCT04973033	10 patients with active AAVNo organ/life-threatening disease	TOF for remission-maintenance(Interventional)	SOC + tofacitinib 5 mg twice a day
NCT03385668	Seven patients with MPO-ANCA (with or without vasculitis) with definite or possible UIP or NSIPNo active vasculitis (BVAS > 3)	Pirfenidone in AAV-ILD	Pirfenidone at a dose of 2403 mg/day for 50 weeks, after 2 weeks of titration (801 mg/day 1 week, 1602 mg/day 1 week)
HAVENNCT04316494	76 patients with GPA/MPA/ EGPA + treated AAV + BVAS > 3	HCQ in AAV(Phase IV)	SOC + HCQSOC + Placebo
STATVAS NCT02117453	121 patients with GPA/MPA/EGPA remission no subclinical atherosclerosis with high cardiovascular risk	Rosuvastatin for the reduction of atherosclerosis and major cardiovascular events(Phase 3)	Rosuvastatin 20 mg/dayPlacebo
Ongoing clinical trials for remission-maintenance in AAV (www.clinicaltrials.gov)
Clinical trial	Population	Objective	Intervention
MAINRITSEG NCT03164473	Patients with newly diagnosed or relapsing EGPA in remission within the past year	RTX for remission-maintenance in EGPA(Phase IV)	RTX fixed dose 500 mg IV every 6 months (total of 18 months) vs AZA (2 mg/kg/day) for 24 months
NCT03906227	Subjects with normalized CD5 + B cells are thought to be at lower risk and relapse and, therefore, may not need maintenance immunosuppression.	CD5 + B cell count as a marker of relapse risk	Patients were randomized to either maintenance immunosuppression vs close clinical observation without maintenance immunosuppression
MASTER-ANCA NCT03323476	Patients with KF related to AAV	Need for maintenance-remission treatment	Arm 1: discontinuation (or not initiation) of maintenance treatment)Arm 2: maintenance (or initiation) of immunosuppressive treatment

AAV, ANCA-associated vasculitis; ABA, abatacept; ANCA, anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody; AZA, azathioprine; BEL, belimumab; BVAS, Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score; CYC, cyclophosphamide; EGPA, eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis; GC, glucocorticoid; GPA, granulomatosis with polyangiitis; HCQ, hydroxychloroquine; IV, intravenous; KF, kidney failure; LEF, leflunomide; LFN, leflunomide; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; MPA, microscopic polyangiitis; MTX, methotrexate; RTX, rituximab; SC, subcutaneous; SCr, serum creatinine; SOC, standard of care; TOF, tofacitinib; UIP, usual interstitial pneumonia.

The TAPIR (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01933724) and the MAINEPSAN trials (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03290456) focus on assessing the best duration of GC treatment to maintain remission in patients with GPA and with GPA or MPA, respectively. The HAVEN trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04316494) will provide information regarding the potential role of hydroxychloroquine in reducing disease activity in AAV. The STATVAS study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02117453) will assess whether rosuvastatin can reduce AAV subclinical atherosclerosis. The ABROGATE trial is currently recruiting patients with relapsing, non-severe GPA (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02108860) to evaluate the efficacy of abatacept (CTL4-Ig) in achieving GC-free remission. The role of tofacitinib (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04944524) is also being assessed in patients with non-severe GPA (new-onset or relapsing patients) in comparison to MTX as a remission-maintenance treatment. In addition, treatment of specific organ involvement is now being studied in clinical trials due to the impact on morbidity and survival in AAV. Pirfenidone, an oral antifibrotic agent, used to reduce the progression of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis,^191–193 has been evaluated to treat pulmonary fibrosis in a pilot study including patients with MPO-ANCA, with or without AAV (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03385668); results are still pending. For patients with newly diagnosed or relapsing EGPA, RTX is under further study as a maintenance agent compared to AZA in the MAINRITSEG trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03164473). Other treatment approaches focusing on tailoring treatment to avoid relapse are also being explored. For instance, there is a clinical trial that focuses on determining CD5 ⁺ regulatory B cells as patients with low levels have a higher need to keep remission-maintenance treatment to avoid relapse. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03906227).

Potential new management strategies

The ability to target immunologic pathways will become increasingly possible. Hence the rationale for investigation is expected to be driven by pathophysiology. The analysis of specific populations might help with personalized care. Decreasing immunosuppressant drug toxicity, damage accrual, and morbidity are at the center of drug development.

The treatment to target has been explored using different strategies. The complement inhibition has now been studied as an adjuvant of remission-induction. It has been shown that avacopan has the potential for GC sparing.¹⁵ New drugs targeting the complement system, such as IFX-1, a monoclonal antibody specifically binding to C5a, are under development. Inhibition of MPO has been recently proposed as a valuable target, as shown in a preclinical crescentic GN study where it suppressed kidney damage without augmenting adaptive immune responses.¹⁹⁴ Emerging cell therapies with tolerogenic dendritic cells, regulatory T cells (CAR-T cells), and stem cells (namely human amniotic epithelial cells) will probably emerge due to their selective immunosuppressive capacity.¹⁹⁵ In addition, the use of cytokines for the treatment of autoimmune rheumatic diseases has been studied.¹⁹⁶ It was shown that administration of low dose IL-2 allows expansion of T reg repertoire without effector T cell activation.¹⁹⁶ This could be a potential approach to maintaining immune tolerance, particularly in antibody-mediated diseases. The loss of tolerance to particular antigens is generally the starting point of antibody generation.^196,197 When and whether these newer strategies will be translated into improved management of patients with AAV in clinical practice is uncertain. In EGPA, depemokimab, an IL-5 receptor antagonistic monoclonal antibody, is currently being investigated to treat patients with severe eosinophilic asthma with an eosinophilic phenotype (ClinicalTrials. gov: NCT04718103 and NCT04718389).

Although most efforts in AAV research have focused on immunomodulating agents, therapies that address cellular and molecular mechanisms of tissue repair and regeneration, reducing evolution to tissue fibrosis, are also unmet needs in the AAV treatment approach. Blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) by angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) has been central in retarding progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, patients still progress to KF, and research studies targeting the critical components of the fibrogenic pathway are currently ongoing, with a particular interest in TGF-β1 BMP-7, CTGF, CC motif chemokines, PDEs, Nox1/4, ET-1 and TNF-α.^198,199 The role of antifibrotic drugs in different kidney diseases is being evaluated in several clinical trials. However, their effect on AAV is still unknown.^198,199 More recently, sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), which are reno-protective in diabetic and nondiabetic kidney disease, could be a potential adjunctive therapy in AAV.²⁰⁰ However, to date, patients with AAV have been excluded from these clinical trials.

Registries

Collaborative networks have been synergic in the study of rare diseases. The clinical heterogeneity of AAV is particularly prone to benefit from registries and data accrued from different real-world practices. Furthermore, incidence, prevalence, and geographic differences regarding risk factors are better characterized using this overview type. Therefore, registries are a vital source of clinical data and can be particularly useful in facilitating research in disease biomarkers, optimizing recruitment for clinical trials, and deepening our understanding of the natural course of AAV.²⁰¹ There are currently various vasculitis registries available or in development in different European and North American countries, for example: France [the French Vasculitis Study Group (FVSG)]; UK and Ireland [the UK and Ireland Vasculitis Rare Disease Group (UKIVAS)]; Spain [Registro Español de Vasculitis Sistémicas (REVAS)]; Poland (the Polish Vasculitis [POLVAS] registry); Czech Republic (Czech Registry of AAV); Norway [Norwegian Vasculitis Register & Biobank (NorVas)]; Portugal [Portuguese vasculitis registry [Reuma.(Reuma. ]);)]; Germany, Austria, and Switzerland [Joint Vasculitis Registry in German-speaking countries (GeVas)]; Greece (AAV Patient Registry); USA and Canada [Vasculitis Patient-Powered Research Network (VPPRN)].^{121,202–215} However, these existing registries exhibit significant differences in terms of content, data collection (retrospective vs prospective), stages of development, and aims, primarily influenced by the medical specialties involved (e.g. nephrology, rheumatology, internal medicine, immunology) and local resources.²⁰¹

Ideally, AAV databases should have a common language and terminology, and patients should be recruited by all health care providers involved in management of AAV. Harmonizing data collection is crucial for attaining homogeneous communication and the correct merging of information between registries. Two initiatives are already underway to align vasculitis registries across Europe: 1) ‘Model registry’ initiative to define a long list of items using a REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) platform, led by the EUVAS working group for registries; 2) FAIRVASC, a collaboration between the EUVAS and the European Reference Network for Rare Primary Immunodeficiency, Autoinflammatory and Autoimmune diseases (ERN – RITA) which aims to use semantic-web technologies to link vasculitis registries, establishing a common platform and reaching agreement on data governance.^201,216

Improvements in registries interoperability and compatible joint exports of data, will facilitate research in AAV with an accrual of a sizable number of patients.

Conclusion

AAV is a group of challenging and complex conditions with overlapping clinical and laboratory manifestation patterns. Our increasing understanding of pathogenesis and early diagnosis has helped us choose a more tailored treatment and reshape the use of potential biomarkers for monitoring these patients. Mortality has significantly improved over the years, and survival rates are now close to 80% after remission-induction. Nevertheless, patients with AAV still have a relapsing course that impacts long-term survival and accrual of morbidity. Integrating genetic and immunologic backgrounds in the phenotypical characterization of patients with AAV will potentially add precision to the selection and development of new treatments. In addition, new classification criteria, adjusted to current practice, will aid correct recruitment of patients into clinical trials and research studies, ultimately improving patients’ management. Finally, the continuous development of AAV registries will allow for more meaningful research based on a multidisciplinary approach and using real-world data. Although 10 years from now, the future of AAV is still uncertain, knowledge in this field is rapidly evolving. Thus, patients are expected to achieve higher rates of sustained remission with more individualized therapies while being exposed to less treatment toxicity.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The Scientific Publications staff at Mayo Clinic provided copyediting support and Englishlanguage review.

Declarations

ORCID iDs

Marta Casal Moura

Carolina Branco

References

Kitching

Anders

Basu

, et al. ANCA-associated vasculitis. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2020; 6: 71.

Jennette

Falk

Bacon

, et al. 2012 revised international Chapel Hill consensus conference nomenclature of vasculitides. Arthritis Rheum 2013; 65: 1–11.

Leavitt

RYFA

Bloch

Michel

, et al. The American College of Rheumatology 1990 criteria for the classification of Wegener granulomatosis. Arthritis Rheumatol 1990; 33: 1101–1111.

Masi

Hunder

Lie

, et al. The American College of Rheumatology 1990 criteria for the classification of Churg-strauss syndrome (allergic granulomatosis and angiitis). Arthritis Rheum 1990; 33: 1094–1100.

Mahr

Specks

Jayne

Subclassifying ANCA-associated vasculitis: a unifying view of disease spectrum. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2019; 58: 1707–1709.

Watts

Mahr

Mohammad

, et al. Classification, epidemiology and clinical subgrouping of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2015; 30(Suppl. 1): i14–i22.

Berti

Cornec

Crowson

, et al. The epidemiology of antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody-associated vasculitis in Olmsted County, Minnesota: a twenty-year US population-based study. Arthritis Rheumatol 2017; 69: 2338–2350.

Mohammad

AJ.

An update on the epidemiology of ANCA-associated vasculitis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2020; 59(Suppl. 3): iii42–iii50.

Pearce

Lanyon

Grainge

, et al. Incidence of ANCA-associated vasculitis in a UK mixed ethnicity population. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2016; 55: 1656–1663.

10.

Lyons

Rayner

Trivedi

, et al. Genetically distinct subsets within ANCA-associated vasculitis. New Engl J Med 2012; 367: 214–223.

11.

Lyons

Peters

Alberici

, et al. Genome-wide association study of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis reveals genomic loci stratified by ANCA status. Nat Commun 2019; 10: 5120.

12.

Merkel

Xie

Monach

, et al. Identification of functional and expression polymorphisms associated with risk for antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody-associated vasculitis. Arthritis Rheumatol 2017; 69: 1054–1066.

13.

Flossmann

Berden

de Groot

, et al. Long-term patient survival in ANCA-associated vasculitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2011; 70: 488–494.

14.

Walsh

Merkel

Peh

, et al. Plasma exchange and glucocorticoids in severe ANCA-associated vasculitis. N Eng J Med 2020; 382: 622–631.

15.

Jayne

DRW

Merkel

Schall

, et al. Avacopan for the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis. N Eng J Med 2021; 384: 599–609.

16.

Chung

Langford

Maz

, et al. 2021 American college of rheumatology/vasculitis foundation guideline for the management of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis. Arthritis Rheumatol 2021; 73: 1366–1383.

17.

Guillevin

Pagnoux

Karras

, et al. Rituximab versus azathioprine for maintenance in ANCA-associated vasculitis. N Eng J Med 2014; 371: 1771–1780.

18.

Smith

Jones

Specks

, et al. Rituximab as therapy to induce remission after relapse in ANCA-associated vasculitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2020; 79: 1243–1249.

19.

Booth

Almond

Burns

, et al. Outcome of ANCA-associated renal vasculitis: a 5-year retrospective study. Am J Kidney Dis 2003; 41: 776–784.

20.

Gou

Chen

, et al. Predictors for outcomes in patients with severe ANCA-associated glomerulonephritis who were dialysis-dependent at presentation: a study of 89 cases in a single Chinese center. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2013; 42: 515–521.

21.

Lee

Gasim

Derebail

, et al. Predictors of treatment outcomes in ANCA-associated vasculitis with severe kidney failure. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2014; 9: 905–913.

22.

de Joode

Sanders

Stegeman

CA.

Renal survival in proteinase 3 and myeloperoxidase ANCA-associated systemic vasculitis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2013; 8: 1709–1717.

23.

Walsh

Flossmann

Berden

, et al. Risk factors for relapse of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis. Arthritis Rheumatol 2012; 64: 542–548.

24.

Ciavatta

Yang

Preston

, et al. Epigenetic basis for aberrant upregulation of autoantigen genes in humans with ANCA vasculitis. J Clin Invest 2010; 120: 3209–3219.

25.

Hutton

Holdsworth

Kitching

AR.

ANCA-associated vasculitis: pathogenesis, models, and preclinical testing. Semin Nephrol 2017; 37: 418–435.

26.

Nakazawa

Shida

Tomaru

, et al. Enhanced formation and disordered regulation of NETs in myeloperoxidase-ANCA-associated microscopic polyangiitis. J Am Soc Nephrol 2014; 25: 990–997.

27.

Stegeman

Cohen-Tervaert

Sluiter

, et al. Association of chronic nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus and higher relapse rates in Wegener Granulomatosis. Ann Intern Med 1994; 120: 12–17.

28.

Gan

Steinmetz

Tan

, et al. Th17 cells promote autoimmune anti-myeloperoxidase glomerulonephritis. J Am Soc Nephrol 2010; 21: 925–931.

29.

Brouwer

Tervaert

Horst

, et al. Predominance of IgG1 and IgG4 subclasses of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibodies (ANCA) in patients with Wegener’s granulomatosis and clinically related disorders. Clin Exp Immunol 1991; 83: 379–386.

30.

Abdulahad

Lepse

Stegeman

, et al. Increased frequency of circulating IL-21 producing Th-cells in patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA). Arthritis Res Ther 2013; 15: R70.

31.

Nogueira

Hamour

Sawant

, et al. Serum IL-17 and IL-23 levels and autoantigen-specific Th17 cells are elevated in patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2010; 25: 2209–2217.

32.

Abdulahad

Kallenberg

Limburg

, et al. Urinary CD4+ effector memory T cells reflect renal disease activity in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis. Arthritis Rheum 2009; 60: 2830–2838.

33.

McKinney

Lee

Jayne

, et al. T-cell exhaustion, co-stimulation and clinical outcome in autoimmunity and infection. Nature 2015; 523: 612–616.

34.

Cornec

Berti

Hummel

, et al. Identification and phenotyping of circulating autoreactive proteinase 3-specific B cells in patients with PR3-ANCA associated vasculitis and healthy controls. J Autoimmun 2017; 84: 122–131.

35.

Berti

Hillion

Hummel

, et al. Circulating autoreactive proteinase 3+ B cells and tolerance checkpoints in ANCA-associated vasculitis. JCI Insight 2021; 6: e150999.

36.

Bunch

Silver

Majure

, et al. Maintenance of tolerance by regulation of anti-myeloperoxidase B cells. J Am Soc Nephrol 2008; 19: 1763–1773.

37.

Chan

Wood

Hermes

, et al. Elimination of germinal-center-derived self-reactive B cells is governed by the location and concentration of self-antigen. Immunity 2012; 37: 893–904.

38.

Reed

Jackson

Christ

, et al. Clonal redemption of autoantibodies by somatic hypermutation away from self-reactivity during human immunization. J Exp Med 2016; 213: 1255–1265.

39.

Zhao

Lutalo

Thomas

, et al. Circulating T follicular helper cell and regulatory T cell frequencies are influenced by B cell depletion in patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2014; 53: 621–630.

40.

Voswinkel

Mueller

Kraemer

, et al. B lymphocyte maturation in Wegener’s granulomatosis: a comparative analysis of VH genes from endonasal lesions. Ann Rheum Dis 2006; 65: 859–864.

41.

Weppner

Ohlei

Hammers

, et al. In situ detection of PR3-ANCA(+) B cells and alterations in the variable region of immunoglobulin genes support a role of inflamed tissue in the emergence of auto-reactivity in granulomatosis with polyangiitis. J Autoimmun 2018; 93: 89–103.

42.

Specks

Merkel

Seo

, et al. Efficacy of remission-induction regimens for ANCAassociated vasculitis. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 417–427.

43.

Cartin-Ceba

Golbin

Keogh

, et al. Rituximab for remission induction and maintenance in refractory granulomatosis with polyangiitis (Wegener’s): ten-year experience at a single center. Arthritis Rheumatol 2012; 64: 3770–3778.

44.

Savige

Davies

Falk

, et al. Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies and associated diseases: a review of the clinical and laboratory features. Kidney Int 2000; 57: 846–862.

45.

Kain

Exner

Brandes

, et al. Molecular mimicry in pauci-immune focal necrotizing glomerulonephritis. Nat Med 2008; 14: 1088–1096.

46.

Cornec

Cornec-Le Gall

Fervenza

, et al. ANCA-associated vasculitis – clinical utility of using ANCA specificity to classify patients. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2016; 12: 570–579.

47.

Kallenberg

Heeringa

Stegeman

CA.

Mechanisms of disease: pathogenesis and treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitides. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol 2006; 2: 661–670.

48.

Schonermarck

Csernok

Gross

WL.

Pathogenesis of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis: challenges and solutions. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2015; 30(Suppl. 1): i46–i52.

49.

Kessenbrock

Krumbholz

Schonermarck

, et al. Netting neutrophils in autoimmune small-vessel vasculitis. Nat Med 2009; 15: 623–625.

50.

Chen

Jayne

DRW

Zhao

MH.

Complement in ANCA-associated vasculitis: mechanisms and implications for management. Nat Rev Nephrol 2017; 13: 359–367.

51.

Xiao

Schreiber

Heeringa

, et al. Alternative complement pathway in the pathogenesis of disease mediated by anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibodies. Am J Pathol 2007; 170: 52–64.

52.

Schreiber

Xiao

Jennette

, et al. C5a receptor mediates neutrophil activation and ANCA-induced glomerulonephritis. J Am Soc Nephrol 2009; 20: 289–298.

53.

Ponte

Águeda

Luqmani

RA.

Clinical features and structured clinical evaluation of vasculitis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2018; 32: 31–51.

54.

Rothschild

P-R

Pagnoux

Seror

, et al. Ophthalmologic manifestations of systemic necrotizing vasculitides at diagnosis: a retrospective study of 1286 patients and review of the literature. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2013; 42: 507–514.

55.

Stone

Wegener’s Granulomatosis Etanercept Trial Research Group. Limited versus severe Wegener’s granulomatosis: baseline data on patients in the Wegener’s granulomatosis etanercept trial. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 48: 2299–2309.

56.

Guillevin

Durand-Gasselin

Cevallos

, et al. Microscopic polyangiitis: clinical and laboratory findings in eighty-five patients. Arthritis Rheum 1999; 42: 421–430.

57.

Marzano

Raimondo

Berti

, et al. Cutaneous manifestations of ANCA-associated small vessels vasculitis. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 2017; 53: 428–438.

58.

Micheletti

Chiesa Fuxench

Craven

, et al. Cutaneous manifestations of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis. Arthritis Rheumatol 2020; 72: 1741–1747.

59.

Solans

Bosch

Pérez-Bocanegra

, et al. Churg-Strauss syndrome: outcome and long-term follow-up of 32 patients. Rheumatology (Oxford, England) 2001; 40: 763–771.

60.

Comarmond

Pagnoux

Khellaf

, et al. Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (Churg-Strauss): clinical characteristics and long-term followup of the 383 patients enrolled in the French Vasculitis Study Group cohort. Arthritis Rheum 2013; 65: 270–281.

61.

Moosig

Bremer

Hellmich

, et al. A vasculitis centre based management strategy leads to improved outcome in eosinophilic granulomatosis and polyangiitis (Churg-Strauss, EGPA): monocentric experiences in 150 patients. Ann Rheum Dis 2013; 72: 1011–1017.

62.

Sinico

Di Toma

Maggiore

, et al. Prevalence and clinical significance of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies in Churg-Strauss syndrome. Arthritis Rheumatol 2005; 52: 2926–2935.

63.

Nakamaru

Takagi

Suzuki

, et al. Otologic and rhinologic manifestations of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis. Audiol Neurootol 2016; 21: 45–53.

64.

Seccia

Fortunato

Cristofani-Mencacci

, et al. Focus on audiologic impairment in eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis. Laryngoscope 2016; 126: 2792–2797.

65.

Savage

Winearls

Evans

, et al. Microscopic polyarteritis: presentation, pathology and prognosis. Q J Med 1985; 56: 467–483.

66.

Serra

Cameron

Turner

, et al. Vasculitis affecting the kidney: presentation, histopathology and long-term outcome. Q J Med 1984; 53: 181–207.

67.

Veldman

Immune-mediated sensorineural hearing loss. Auris Nasus Larynx 1998; 25: 309–317.

68.

Reinhold-Keller

Beuge

Latza

, et al. An interdisciplinary approach to the care of patients with Wegener’s granulomatosis: long-term outcome in 155 patients. Arthritis Rheum 2000; 43: 1021–1032.

69.

Hoffman

Kerr

Leavitt

, et al. Wegener granulomatosis: an analysis of 158 patients. Ann Intern Med 1992; 116: 488–498.

70.

Anderson

Coles

Crane

, et al. Wegener’s granuloma. A series of 265 British cases seen between 1975 and 1985. A report by a sub-committee of the British Thoracic Society Research Committee. Q J Med 1992; 83: 427–438.

71.

Abdou

Kullman

Hoffman

, et al. Wegener’s granulomatosis: survey of 701 patients in North America. Changes in outcome in the 1990s. J Rheumatol 2002; 29: 309–316.

72.

Fauci

Haynes

Katz

, et al. Wegener’s granulomatosis: prospective clinical and therapeutic experience with 85 patients for 21 years. Ann Intern Med 1983; 98: 76–85.

73.

Makhzoum

J-P

Grayson

Ponte

, et al. Pulmonary involvement in primary systemic vasculitides. Rheumatology (Oxford, England) 2021; 61: 319–330.

74.

Hazebroek

Kemna

Schalla

, et al. Prevalence and prognostic relevance of cardiac involvement in ANCA-associated vasculitis: eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis and granulomatosis with polyangiitis. Int J Cardiol 2015; 199: 170–179.

75.

McGeoch

Carette

Cuthbertson

, et al. Cardiac involvement in granulomatosis with polyangiitis. J Rheumatol 2015; 42: 1209–1212.

76.

Bischof

Jaeger

Hadden

RDM

, et al. Peripheral neuropathy in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitides. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm 2019; 6: e615.

77.

Seror

Mahr

Ramanoelina

, et al. Central nervous system involvement in Wegener granulomatosis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2006; 85: 53–65.

78.

de Groot

Schmidt

Arlt

, et al. Standardized neurologic evaluations of 128 patients with wegener granulomatosis. Arch Neurol 2001; 58: 1215–1221.

79.

Furuta

Chaudhry

Hamano

, et al. Comparison of phenotype and outcome in microscopic polyangiitis between Europe and Japan. J Rheumatol 2014; 41: 325–333.

80.

Doubelt

Cuthbertson

Carette

, et al. Clinical manifestations and long-term outcomes of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis in North America. ACR Open Rheumatol 2021; 3: 404–412.

81.

Abu-Shakra

Smythe

Lewtas

, et al. Outcome of polyarteritis nodosa and Churg-Strauss syndrome. An analysis of twenty-five patients. Arthr Rheumat 1994; 37: 1798–1803.

82.

Han

Rehman

Jayaratne

, et al. Microscopic polyangiitis complicated by cerebral haemorrhage. Rheumatol Int 2006; 26: 1057–1060.

83.

Sokolowska

Szczeklik

Wludarczyk

, et al. ANCA-positive and ANCA-negative phenotypes of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA): outcome and long-term follow-up of 50 patients from a single Polish center. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2014; 32(3Suppl. 82): S41–S47.

84.

Holle

Gross

Holl-Ulrich

, et al. Prospective long-term follow-up of patients with localised Wegener’s granulomatosis: does it occur as persistent disease stage. Ann Rheum Dis 2010; 69: 1934–1939.

85.

Koldingsnes

Nossent

JC.

Baseline features and initial treatment as predictors of remission and relapse in Wegener’s granulomatosis. J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 80–88.

86.

Suppiah

Robson

Grayson

, et al. 2022 American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology classification criteria for microscopic polyangiitis. Ann Rhum Dis 2022; 81: 321–326.

87.

Suppiah

Robson

Grayson

, et al. 2022 American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology classification criteria for microscopic polyangiitis. Arthritis Rheumatol 2022; 74: 400–406.

88.

Robson

Grayson

Ponte

, et al. 2022 American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology classification criteria for granulomatosis with polyangiitis. Arthritis Rheumatol 2022; 74: 393–399.

89.

Robson

Grayson

Ponte

, et al. 2022 American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology classification criteria for granulomatosis with polyangiitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2022; 81: 315–320.

90.

Grayson

Ponte

Suppiah

, et al. 2022 American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology classification criteria for eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis. Arthritis Rheumatol 2022; 74: 386–392.

91.

Grayson

Ponte

Suppiah

92.

Coordes

Loose

Hofmann

, et al. Saddle nose deformity and septal perforation in granulomatosis with polyangiitis. Clin Otolaryngol 2018; 43: 291–299.

93.

Borie

Crestani

Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated lung fibrosis. Semin Respir Crit Care Med 2018; 39: 465–470.

94.

Suzuki

Sakamoto

Kurosaki

, et al. Chest high-resolution CT findings of microscopic polyangiitis: a Japanese first nationwide prospective cohort study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019; 213: 104–114.

95.

Neumann

Manger

Schmid

, et al. Cardiac involvement in Churg-Strauss syndrome: impact of endomyocarditis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2009; 88: 236–243.

96.

Guillevin

Cohen

Gayraud

, et al. Churg-Strauss syndrome. Clinical study and long-term follow-up of 96 patients. Medicine (Baltimore) 1999; 78: 26–37.

97.

Sablé-Fourtassou

Cohen

Mahr

, et al. Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies and the Churg-Strauss syndrome. Ann Intern Med 2005; 143: 632–638.

98.

Devaney

Travis

Hoffman

, et al. Interpretation of head and neck biopsies in Wegener’s granulomatosis. Am J Surg Pathol 1990; 14: 555–564.

99.

Daum

Specks

Colby

, et al. Tracheobronchial involvement in Wegener’s granulomatosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995; 151(2Pt1): 522–526.

100.

Agadi

Raghav

Mahadevan

, et al. Usefulness of superficial peroneal nerve/peroneus brevis muscle biopsy in the diagnosis of vasculitic neuropathy. J Clin Neurosci 2012; 19: 1392–1396.

101.

Collins

Mendell

Periquet

, et al. Superficial peroneal nerve/peroneus brevis muscle biopsy in vasculitic neuropathy. Neurology 2000; 55: 636–643.

102.

Quintana

Perez

De Sousa

, et al. ANCA serotype and histopathological classification for the prediction of renal outcome in ANCA-associated glomerulonephritis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2014; 29: 1764–1769.

103.

Berden

Ferrario

Hagen

, et al. Histopathologic classification of ANCA-associated glomerulonephritis. J Am Soc Nephrol 2010; 21: 1628–1636.

104.

Iwakiri

Fujimoto

Kitagawa

, et al. Validation of a newly proposed histopathological classification in Japanese patients with anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated glomerulonephritis. BMC Nephrol 2013; 14: 125.

105.

Chang

Liu

, et al. Re-evaluation of the histopathologic classification of ANCA-associated glomerulonephritis: a study of 121 patients in a single center. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2012; 27: 2343–2349.

106.

Hilhorst

Wilde

van Breda Vriesman

, et al. Estimating renal survival using the ANCA-associated GN classification. J Am Soc Nephrol 2013; 24: 1371–1375.

107.

Ford

Polkinghorne

Longano

, et al. Histopathologic and clinical predictors of kidney outcomes in ANCA-associated vasculitis. Am J Kidney Dis 2014; 63: 227–235.

108.

Unlu

Kiremitci

Ensari

, et al. Pauci-immune necrotizing crescentic glomerulonephritis with crescentic and full moon extracapillary proliferation: clinico-pathologic correlation and follow-up study. Pathol Res Pract 2013; 209: 75–82.

109.

Tanna

Guarino

Tam

, et al. Long-term outcome of anti-neutrophil cytoplasm antibody-associated glomerulonephritis: evaluation of the international histological classification and other prognostic factors. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2015; 30: 1185–1192.

110.

Bjorneklett

Sriskandarajah

Bostad

Prognostic value of histologic classification of ANCA-associated glomerulonephritis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2016; 11: 2159–2167.

111.

Chen

Pan

, et al. Histopathological classification and renal outcome in patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies-associated renal vasculitis: a study of 186 patients and metaanalysis. J Rheumatol 2017; 44: 304–313.

112.

Yamagata

Usui

Nagata

, et al. Histopathological classification of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated glomerulonephritis in a nationwide Japanese prospective 2-year follow-up cohort study. Clin Exp Nephrol 2019; 23: 387–394.

113.

Brix

Noriega

Tennstedt

, et al. Development and validation of a renal risk score in ANCA-associated glomerulonephritis. Kidney Int 2018; 94: 1177–1188.

114.

Casal Moura

Fervenza

Specks

, et al. Kidney biopsy chronicity grading in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody associated vasculitis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2021; gfab250: 1–12.

115.

Watts

Robson

Introduction, epidemiology and classification of vasculitis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2018; 32: 3–20.

116.

Seeliger

Sznajd

Robson

, et al. Are the 1990 American College of Rheumatology vasculitis classification criteria still valid? Rheumatology (Oxford) 2017; 56: 1154–1161.

117.

Craven

Robson

Ponte

, et al. ACR/EULAR-endorsed study to develop Diagnostic and Classification Criteria for Vasculitis (DCVAS). Clin Exp Nephrol 2013; 17: 619–621.

118.

Pagnoux

Springer

Editorial: classifying antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitides according to ANCA type or phenotypic diagnosis: salt or pepper?

Arthritis Rheumatol 2016; 68: 2837–2840.

119.

Hogan

Falk

Chin

, et al. Predictors of relapse and treatment resistance in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated small-vessel vasculitis. Ann Intern Med 2005; 143: 621–631.

120.

Pagnoux

Hogan

Chin

, et al. Predictors of treatment resistance and relapse in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated small-vessel vasculitis: comparison of two independent cohorts. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 58: 2908–2918.

121.

Mahr

Katsahian

Varet

, et al. Revisiting the classification of clinical phenotypes of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis: a cluster analysis. Ann Rheum Dis 2013; 72: 1003–1010.

122.

Puéchal

Pagnoux

Perrodeau

, et al. Long-term outcomes among participants in the WEGENT trial of remission-maintenance therapy for granulomatosis with polyangiitis (Wegener’s) or microscopic polyangiitis. Arthritis Rheumatol 2016; 68: 690–701.

123.

Unizony

Villarreal

Miloslavsky

, et al. Clinical outcomes of treatment of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis based on ANCA type. Ann Rheum Dis 2016; 75: 1166–1169.

124.

Watts

RA.

Evolving concepts in classification of systemic vasculitis: where are we and what is the way forward. Int J Rheum Dis 2019; 22(Suppl. 1): 21–27.

125.

Hellmich

Flossmann

Gross

, et al. EULAR recommendations for conducting clinical studies and/or clinical trials in systemic vasculitis: focus on anti-neutrophil cytoplasm antibody-associated vasculitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2007; 66: 605–617.

126.

Herlyn

Hellmich

Seo

, et al. Patient-reported outcome assessment in vasculitis may provide important data and a unique perspective. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2010; 62: 1639–1645.

127.

Luqmani

RA.

Disease assessment in systemic vasculitis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2015; 30(Suppl. 1): i76–i82.

128.

Ponte

Sznajd

O’Neill

, et al. Optimisation of vasculitis disease assessments in clinical trials, clinical care and long-term databases. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2014; 32(5Suppl. 85): S-118–S-125.

129.

Luqmani

Bacon

Moots

, et al. Birmingham vasculitis activity score (BVAS) in systemic necrotizing vasculitis. QJM 1994; 87: 671–678.

130.

Stone

Hoffman

Merkel

, et al. International network for the study of the systemic vasculitides (INSSYS). A disease-specific activity index for Wegener’s granulomatosis: modification of the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score. International Network for the Study of the Systemic Vasculitides (INSSYS). Arthritis Rheumatol 2001; 44: 912–920.

131.

Mukhtyar

Lee

Brown

, et al. Modification and validation of the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (version 3). Ann Rheum Dis 2009; 68: 1827–1832.

132.

Merkel

Aydin

Boers

, et al. The OMERACT core set of outcome measures for use in clinical trials of ANCA-associated vasculitis. J Rheumatol 2011; 38: 1480–1486.

133.

Exley

Bacon

Luqmani

, et al. Development and initial validation of the vasculitis damage index for the standardized clinical assessment of damage in the systemic vasculitides. Arthritis Rheumatol; 40: 371–380.

134.

Basu

McClean

Harper

, et al. The characterisation and determinants of quality of life in ANCA associated vasculitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2014; 73: 207–211.

135.

Robson

Dawson

Cronholm

, et al. Health-related quality of life in ANCA-associated vasculitis and item generation for a disease-specific patient-reported outcome measure. Patient Relat Outcome Meas 2018; 9: 17–34.

136.

Robson

Dawson

Doll

, et al. Validation of the ANCA-Associated Vasculitis Patient-Reported Outcomes (AAV-PRO) Questionnaire. Ann Rheum Dis 2018; 77: 1157–1164.

137.

Yoo

Kim

Jung

, et al. Birmingham vasculitis activity score of more than 9.5 at diagnosis is an independent predictor of refractory disease in granulomatosis with polyangiitis. Int J Rheum Dis 2017; 20: 1593–1605.

138.

Guillevin

Lhote

Gayraud

, et al. Prognostic factors in polyarteritis nodosa and churg-strauss syndrome. Medicine (Baltimore) 1996; 75: 17–28.

139.

Guillevin

Pagnoux

Seror

, et al. The Five-Factor Score revisited: assessment of prognoses of systemic necrotizing vasculitides based on the French Vasculitis Study Group (FVSG) cohort. Medicine (Baltimore) 2011; 90: 19–27.

140.

Stone

Merkel

Spiera

, et al. Rituximab versus cyclophosphamide for ANCA-associated vasculitis. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 221–232.

141.

Tomasson

Grayson

Mahr

, et al. Value of ANCA measurements during remission to predict a relapse of ANCA-associated vasculitis – a meta-analysis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2012; 51: 100–109.

142.

Kemna

Damoiseaux

Austen

, et al. ANCA as a predictor of relapse: useful in patients with renal involvement but not in patients with nonrenal disease. J Am Soc Nephrol 2015; 26: 537–542.

143.

Fussner

Hummel

Schroeder

, et al. Factors determining the clinical utility of serial measurements of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies targeting proteinase 3. Arthritis Rheumatol 2016; 68: 1700–1710.

144.

Monti

Quinn

Christensen

, et al. Use and reporting of outcome measures in randomized trials for anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis: a systematic literature review. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2020; 50: 1314–1325.

145.

Quinn

Monti

Christensen

, et al. Developing a composite outcome tool to measure response to treatment in ANCA-associated vasculitis: a mixed methods study from OMERACT 2020. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2021; 51: 1134–1138.

146.

Yates

Watts

Bajema

, et al. EULAR/ERA-EDTA recommendations for the management of ANCA-associated vasculitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2016; 75: 1583–1594.

147.

Guillevin

Cohen

Mahr

, et al. Treatment of polyarteritis nodosa and microscopic polyangiitis with poor prognosis factors: a prospective trial comparing glucocorticoids and six or twelve cyclophosphamide pulses in sixty-five patients. Arthritis Rheumatol 2003; 49: 93–100.

148.

de Groot

Harper

Jayne

DRW

, et al. Pulse versus daily oral cyclophosphamide for induction of remission in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis. Ann Intern Med 2009; 150: 670–680.

149.

Harper

Morgan

Walsh

, et al. Pulse versus daily oral cyclophosphamide for induction of remission in ANCA-associated vasculitis: long-term follow-up. Ann Rheum Dis 2012; 71: 955–960.

150.

Pagnoux

Quemeneur

Ninet

, et al. Treatment of systemic necrotizing vasculitides in patients aged sixty-five years or older: results of a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial of corticosteroid and cyclophosphamide-based induction therapy. Arthritis Rheumatol 2015; 67: 1117–1127.

151.

Furuta

Nakagomi

Kobayashi

, et al. Effect of reduced-dose vs high-dose glucocorticoids added to rituximab on remission induction in ANCA-associated vasculitis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2021; 325: 2178–2187.

152.

Jones

Cohen-Tervaert

Hauser

, et al. Rituximab versus cyclophosphamide in ANCA-associated renal vasculitis. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 211–220.

153.

KDIGO clinical practice guideline for glomerulonephritis. Kidney Int Suppl 2021; 100: S1–S276.

154.

Casal Moura

Irazabal

Eirin

, et al. Efficacy of rituximab and plasma exchange in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis with severe renal disease. J Am Soc Nephrol 2020; 31: 2688–2704.

155.

Geetha

Hruskova

Segelmark

, et al. Rituximab for treatment of severe renal disease in ANCA associated vasculitis. J Nephrol 2016; 29: 195–201.

156.

Geetha

Specks

Stone

, et al. Rituximab versus cyclophosphamide for ANCA-associated vasculitis with renal involvement. J Am Soc Nephrol 2015; 26: 976–985.

157.

Mansfield

Hamour

Habib

, et al. Prolonged disease-free remission following rituximab and low-dose cyclophosphamide therapy for renal ANCA-associated vasculitis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2011; 26: 3280–3286.

158.

Gulati

Edwards

Prendecki

, et al. Combination treatment with rituximab, low-dose cyclophosphamide, and plasma exchange for severe antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis. Kidney Int 2021; 100: 1316–1324.

159.

Pepper

McAdoo

Moran

, et al. A novel glucocorticoid-free maintenance regimen for anti-neutrophil cytoplasm antibody-associated vasculitis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2019; 58: 260–268.

160.

Cortazar

Muhsin

Pendergraft

3rd , et al. Combination therapy with rituximab and cyclophosphamide for remission induction in ANCA vasculitis. Kidney Int Rep 2018; 3: 394–402.

161.

Exploring durable remission with rituximab in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (ENDURRANCE-1), 2022, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03942887

162.

Chanouzas

McGregor

JAG

Nightingale

, et al. Intravenous pulse methylprednisolone for induction of remission in severe ANCA associated vasculitis: a multi-center retrospective cohort study. BMC Nephrol 2019; 20: 58.

163.

Xiao

Dairaghi

Powers

, et al. C5a receptor (CD88) blockade protects against MPO-ANCA GN. J Am Soc Nephrol 2014; 25: 225–231.

164.

Jayne

DRW

Bruchfeld

Harper

, et al. Randomized trial of C5a receptor inhibitor avacopan in ANCA-associated vasculitis. J Am Soc Nephrol 2017; 28: 2756–2767.

165.

Merkel

Niles

Jimenez

, et al. Adjunctive treatment with avacopan, an oral C5a receptor inhibitor, in patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis. ACR Open Rheumatol 2020; 2: 662–671.

166.

Gabilan

Pfirmann

Ribes

, et al. Avacopan as first-line treatment in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis: a steroid-sparing option. Kidney Int Rep 2022; 7: 1115–1118.

167.

van Leeuwen

Bredewold

van Dam

, et al. Compassionate use of avacopan in difficult-to-treat antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis. Kidney Int Rep 2022; 7: 624–628.

168.

Cartin-Ceba

Diaz-Caballero

Al-Qadi

, et al. Diffuse alveolar hemorrhage secondary to antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis: predictors of respiratory failure and clinical outcomes. Arthritis Rheumatol 2016; 68: 1467–1476.

169.

Specks

Fussner

Cartin-Ceba

, et al. Plasma exchange for the management of ANCA-associated vasculitis: the con position. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2021; 36: 231–236.

170.

Kronbichler

Shin

Wang

, et al. Plasma exchange in ANCA-associated vasculitis: the pro position. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2020; 36: 227–231.

171.

Jayne

Gaskin

Rasmussen

, et al. Randomized trial of plasma exchange or high-dosage methylprednisolone as adjunctive therapy for severe renal vasculitis. J Am Soc Nephrol 2007; 18: 2180–2188.

172.

Yamada

Harada

Hara

, et al. Efficacy of plasma exchange for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated systemic vasculitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arthritis Res Ther 2021; 23: 28.

173.

Shimizu

Morita

Kumanogoh

The therapeutic efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulin in anti-neutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis: a meta-analysis. Rheumatology (Oxford, England) 2020; 59: 959–967.

174.

Crickx

Machelart

Lazaro

, et al. Intravenous immunoglobulin as an immunomodulating agent in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitides: a French nationwide study of ninety-two patients. Arthritis Rheumatol 2016; 68: 702–712.

175.

De Groot

Rasmussen

Bacon

, et al. Randomized trial of cyclophosphamide versus methotrexate for induction of remission in early systemic antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis. Arthritis Rheum 2005; 52: 2461–2469.

176.

Jones

Hiemstra

Ballarin

, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclophosphamide for remission induction in ANCA-associated vasculitis: a randomised, non-inferiority trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2019; 78: 399–405.

177.

Faurschou

Westman

Rasmussen

, et al. Brief Report: long-term outcome of a randomized clinical trial comparing methotrexate to cyclophosphamide for remission induction in early systemic antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis. Arthritis Rheum 2012; 64: 3472–3477.

178.

Wechsler

Akuthota

Jayne

, et al. Mepolizumab or placebo for eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis. N Eng J Med 2017; 376: 1921–1932.

179.

Charles

Terrier

Perrodeau

, et al. Comparison of individually tailored versus fixed-schedule rituximab regimen to maintain ANCA-associated vasculitis remission: results of a multicentre, randomised controlled, phase III trial (MAINRITSAN2). Ann Rheum Dis 2018; 77: 1143–1149.

180.

Pagnoux

Mahr

Hamidou

, et al. Azathioprine or methotrexate maintenance for ANCA-associated vasculitis. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 2790–2803.

181.

Silva

Specks

Kalra

, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil for induction and maintenance of remission in microscopic polyangiitis with mild to moderate renal involvement – a prospective, open-label pilot trial. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2010; 5: 445–453.

182.

Metzler

Miehle

Manger

, et al. Elevated relapse rate under oral methotrexate versus leflunomide for maintenance of remission in Wegener’s granulomatosis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007; 46: 1087–1091.

183.

Casal Moura

Berti

Keogh

, et al. Asthma control in eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis treated with rituximab. Clin Rheumatol 2020; 39: 1581–1590.

184.

Teixeira

Mohammad

Jones

, et al. Efficacy and safety of rituximab in the treatment of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis. RMD Open 2019; 5: e000905.

185.

Charles

Perrodeau

Samson

, et al. Long-term rituximab use to maintain remission of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2020; 173: 179–187.

186.

Jayne

Rasmussen

Andrassy

, et al. A randomized trial of maintenance therapy for vasculitis associated with antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibodies. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 36–44.

187.

Karras

Pagnoux

Haubitz

, et al. Randomised controlled trial of prolonged treatment in the remission phase of ANCA-associated vasculitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2017; 76: 1662–1668.

188.

Hiemstra

Walsh

Mahr

, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil vs azathioprine for remission maintenance in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2010; 304: 2381–2388.

189.

Metzler

Fink

Lamprecht

, et al. Maintenance of remission with leflunomide in Wegener’s granulomatosis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2004; 43: 315–320.

190.

Jayne

Blockmans

Luqmani

, et al. Efficacy and safety of belimumab and azathioprine for maintenance of remission in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis: a randomized controlled study. Arthritis Rheumatol 2019; 71: 952–963.

191.

King

Jr Bradford

Castro-Bernardini

, et al. A phase 3 trial of pirfenidone in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. N Eng J Med 2014; 370: 2083–2092.

192.

Noble

Albera

Bradford

, et al. Pirfenidone in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (CAPACITY): two randomised trials. Lancet 2011; 377: 1760–1769.

193.

Taniguchi

Ebina

Kondoh

, et al. Pirfenidone in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Eur Respir J 2010; 35: 821–829.

194.

Antonelou

Michaelsson

Evans

RDR

, et al. Therapeutic myeloperoxidase inhibition attenuates neutrophil activation, ANCA-mediated endothelial damage, and crescentic GN. J Am Soc Nephrol 2020; 31: 350–364.

195.

Odobasic

Holdsworth

SR.

Emerging cellular therapies for anti-myeloperoxidase vasculitis and other autoimmune diseases. Front Immunol 2021; 12: 642127.

196.

Grasshoff

Comduhr

Monne

, et al. Low-dose IL-2 therapy in autoimmune and rheumatic diseases. Front Immunol 2021; 12: 648408.

197.

Klatzmann

Abbas

AK.

The promise of low-dose interleukin-2 therapy for autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Nat Rev Immunol 2015; 15: 283–294.

198.

Lee

Kim

Choi

ME.

Therapeutic targets for treating fibrotic kidney diseases. Transl Res 2015; 165: 512–530.

199.

Klinkhammer

Goldschmeding

Floege

, et al. Treatment of renal fibrosis-turning challenges into opportunities. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis 2017; 24: 117–129.

200.

Heerspink

HJL

Stefansson

Correa-Rotter

, et al. Dapagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease. New Engl J Med 2020; 383: 1436–1446.

201.

Bajema

Bruijn

Casian

, et al. The European Vasculitis Society 2016 meeting report. Kidney Int Rep 2017; 2: 1018–1031.

202.

Sznajd

Salama

Jayne

, et al. 334. UK & Ireland Vasculitis Registry (Ukivas): cross-sectional data on the first 556 patients. Rheumatology 2014; 53(suppl_1): i184–i185.

203.

Sznajd

Salama

Jayne

, et al. United Kingdom & Ireland Vasculitis Registry (UKIVAS): cross-sectional data on the first 1085 patients. Arthritis Rheumatol 2014; 66(suppl. 10): 773.

204.

Luqmani

Craven

Sznajd

, et al. WS2_1 The UK & Ireland Vasculitis Registry (UKIVAS): cross-sectional data on the first 2290 patients with anti-neutrophil cytoplasm (ANCA) associated vasculitis (AAV). Rheumatology 2017; 56(suppl_3): iii20–iii22.

205.

Solans-Laque

Fraile

Rodriguez-Carballeira

, et al. Clinical characteristics and outcome of Spanish patients with ANCA-associated vasculitides: impact of the vasculitis type, ANCA specificity, and treatment on mortality and morbidity. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96: e6083.

206.

Musiał

Wójcik

Polish vasculitis registry: POLVAS. Polish Arch Int Med 2017; 127: 71–72.

207.

Biedroń

Włudarczyk

Wawrzycka-Adamczyk

, et al. Treatment and its side effects in ANCA-associated vasculitides – study based on POLVAS registry data. Adv Med Sci 2020; 65: 156–162.

208.

Wójcik

Wawrzycka-Adamczyk

Włudarczyk

, et al. Clinical characteristics of Polish patients with ANCA-associated vasculitides – retrospective analysis of POLVAS registry. Clin Rheumatol 2019; 38: 2553–2563.

209.

Padjas

Sznajd

Szczeklik

, et al. Rare disease registries: an initiative to establish vasculitis registry in Poland. Pol Arch Med Wewn 2014; 124: 143–144.

210.

Jancova

Hruskova

Lanska

, et al. SO009 czech registry of ANCA-associated vasculitides 2013 – on behalf of the Czech national clinical registry of AAV. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2013; 28(suppl_1): i1–i2.

211.

Koldingsenes

[NORVAS, Norwegian vasculitis register and biobank], https://unn.no/fag-og-forskning/forskning/biobank/norvasnorsk-vaskulittregister-og-biobank-biobank.

212.

Ponte

Khmelinskii

Teixeira

, et al. Reuma.pt/vasculitis – the Portuguese vasculitis registry. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2020; 15: 110.

213.

Iking-Konert

Wallmeier

Arnold

, et al. The Joint Vasculitis Registry in German-speaking countries (GeVas) – a prospective, multicenter registry for the follow-up of long-term outcomes in vasculitis. BMC Rheumatol 2021; 5: 40.

214.

Thomas

Panagiotopoulos

Banos

, et al. Development of an ANCA-associated vasculitides patient registry in Greece. Mediterr J Rheumatol 2020; 31: 84–86.

215.

VPPRN. VPPRN. Kansas City, MO: Vasculitis Foundation.

216.

FAIRVASC. FAIRVASC – building registry interoperability to inform clinical care, https://fairvasc.eu/