BackgroundThe anti-Programmed Death receptor 1 (anti-PD-1) antibodies nivolumab and pembrolizumab are new treatments in metastatic melanoma. Immunotherapies are best known to be responsible for thrombotic microangiopathy. However, immune interstitial nephritis has been described in a patient treated by nivolumab and ipilimumab concomitantly, and three cases of granulomatous interstitial nephritis have been reported with ipilimumab monotherapy. We report herein a case of acute interstitial immune nephritis in a patient treated with nivolumab after ipilimumab for pulmonary metastatic melanoma.Case presentationInterstitial nephritis was diagnosed after acute kidney injury following three cycles and was confirmed by kidney biopsy. Kidney injury responded rapidly to prednisolone, which was then gradually reduced. As a follow-up computed tomography scan indicated mixed response, with minimal size progression of a pulmonary nodule, but a significant reduction in the size of the other nodules, nivolumab was reintroduced after renal function improvement. Low-dose corticosteroids were first maintained during nivolumab treatment and subsequently discontinued. Only one month after prednisolone discontinuation, creatinine levels increased. A second kidney biopsy confirmed relapse of acute interstitial nephritis.ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first case of nivolumab-induced acute interstitial immune nephritis. This case highlights that anti-PD-1 immunotherapy may be continued when renal function is adequate, and this requires close interaction between dermatologists and nephrologists. This adverse effect should be made known to prescribers as nivolumab is associated with significant improvement of survival in metastatic melanoma and may be used in many different types of cancer.

Background: In Europe, the number of elderly end-stage kidney disease patients is increasing. Few of those patients receive peritoneal dialysis (PD), as many cannot perform PD autonomously. Assisted PD programmes are available in most European countries, but the percentage of patients receiving assisted PD varies considerably. Hence, we assessed which factors are associated with the availability of an assisted PD programme at a centre level and whether the availability of this programme is associated with proportion of home dialysis patients. Methods: An online survey was sent to healthcare professionals of European nephrology units. After selecting one respondent per centre, the associations were explored by χ 2 tests and (ordinal) logistic regression. Results: In total, 609 respondents completed the survey. Subsequently, 288 respondents from individual centres were identified; 58% worked in a centre with an assisted PD programme. Factors associated with availability of an assisted PD programme were Western European and Scandinavian countries (OR: 5.73; 95% CI: 3.07–10.68), non-academic centres (OR: 2.01; 95% CI: 1.09–3.72) and centres with a dedicated team for education (OR: 2.87; 95% CI: 1.35–6.11). Most Eastern & Central European respondents reported that the proportion of incident and prevalent home dialysis patients was <10% (72% and 63%), while 27% of Scandinavian respondents reported a proportion of >30% for both incident and prevalent home dialysis patients. Availability of an assisted PD programme was associated with a higher incidence (cumulative OR: 1.91; 95% CI: 1.21–3.01) and prevalence (cumulative OR: 2.81; 95% CI: 1.76–4.47) of patients on home dialysis. Conclusions: Assisted PD was more commonly offered among non-academic centres with a dedicated team for education across Europe, especially among Western European and Scandinavian countries where higher incidence and prevalence of home dialysis patients was reported.[Formula: see text]

No abstract