Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

New approaches to the treatment of dense deposit disease

  • Richard J.H. Smith
  • , Jessy Alexander
  • , Paul N. Barlow
  • , Marina Botto
  • , Thomas L. Cassavant
  • , H. Terence Cook
  • , Santiago Rodriguez De Córdoba
  • , Gregory S. Hageman
  • , T. Sakari Jokiranta
  • , William J. Kimberling
  • , John D. Lambris
  • , Lynne D. Lanning
  • , Vicki Levidiotis
  • , Christoph Licht
  • , Hans U. Lutz
  • , Seppo Meri
  • , Matthew C. Pickering
  • , Richard J. Quigg
  • , Angelique L. Rops
  • , David J. Salant
  • Sanjeev Sethi, Joshua M. Thurman, Hope F. Tully, Sean P. Tully, Johan Van Der Vlag, Patrick D. Walker, Reinhard Würzner, Peter F. Zipfel
  • University of Iowa
  • University of Edinburgh
  • Imperial College London
  • Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT)
  • University of Helsinki
  • Boys Town National Research Hospital
  • University of Pennsylvania
  • Greater Cedar Rapids Community Foundation
  • Royal Prince Alfred Hospital
  • University of Toronto
  • Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich
  • Radboud University Nijmegen
  • Boston University
  • Mayo Clinic Rochester, MN
  • University of Colorado Denver
  • Milagros Research Fund
  • Nephropathology Associates
  • Innsbruck Medical University
  • Friedrich Schiller University Jena

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

238 Scopus citations

Abstract

The development of clinical treatment protocols usually relies on evidence-based guidelines that focus on randomized, controlled trials. For rare renal diseases, such stringent requirements can represent a significant challenge. Dense deposit disease (DDD; also known as membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis type II) is a prototypical rare disease. It affects only two to three people per million and leads to renal failure within 10 yr in 50% of affected children. On the basis of pathophysiology, this article presents a diagnostic and treatment algorithm for patients with DDD. Diagnostic tests should assess the alternative pathway of complement for abnormalities. Treatment options include aggressive BP control and reduction of proteinuria, and on the basis of pathophysiology, animal data, and human studies, plasma infusion or exchange, rituximab, sulodexide, and eculizumab are additional options. Criteria for treatment success should be prevention of progression as determined by maintenance or improvement in renal function. A secondary criterion should be normalization of activity levels of the alternative complement pathway as measured by C3/C3d ratios and C3NeF levels. Outcomes should be reported to a central repository that is now accessible to all clinicians. As the understanding of DDD increases, novel therapies should be integrated into existing protocols for DDD and evaluated using an open-label Bayesian study design.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2447-2456
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of the American Society of Nephrology
Volume18
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2007

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'New approaches to the treatment of dense deposit disease'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this