Search

Background: Acute interstitial nephritis (AIN) related to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI-AIN) has a not completely understood pathophysiology. Our objectives were to analyze possible biomarkers for the differentiation between acute tubular necrosis (ATN) and AIN, especially in cancer patients, and to study the participation of the immune checkpoint pathway in ICI-AIN., Methods: We performed an observational study. We recruited patients with incident diagnosis of ICI-AIN ( n  = 19). We measured soluble PD-1 (sPD-1), sPD-L1, and sPD-L2 in serum and urine at diagnosis and compared to it patients with non-ICI-related AIN (non-ICI-AIN) ( n  = 18) and ATN ( n  = 21). The findings were validated in an independent cohort from another institution ( n  = 30). Also, we performed PD-L1 and PD-L2 immunostaining of kidney biopsies from patients with ICI-AIN and compared to patients with non-ICI-AIN., Results: Urinary sPD-1 (usPD-1) was higher in patients with AIN compared to ATN ( P  = .03). Patients with AIN also showed higher serum sPD-1 (ssPD-1) than patients with ATN ( P  = .021). In cancer patients, usPD-1 <129.3 pg/ml had a 71.43% sensitivity and 94.44% specificity to differentiate ATN from ICI-AIN, with a likelihood ratio of 12.86. In the external validation cohort, the same cutoff showed a sensitivity of 80%. In kidney biopsies, patients with ICI-AIN showed higher density of PD-L1 positive tubules than patients with non-ICI-AIN ( P  = .02). The proportion of patients having >2.64/mm 2 PD-L2 positive tubules was higher among patients with ICI-AIN compared to non-ICI-AIN ( P  = .034). There was a positive correlation ( P  = .009, r  = 0.72) between usPD-1 and the number of PD-L1 positive tubules., Conclusions: UsPD-1 and ssPD-1 are higher in AIN than ATN. Moreover, there was a strong correlation between usPD-1 and renal tubular PD-L1 expression. Our findings suggest a role of usPD-1 as non-invasive biomarker to differentiate ICI-AIN from ATN, especially in cancer patients, which has been confirmed in an external validation cohort., Competing Interests: None declared., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the ERA.)

Introduction: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) induce acute interstitial nephritis (AIN) in 2-5% of patients, with a clearly higher incidence when they are combined with platinum derivatives. Unfortunately, suitable disease models and non-invasive biomarkers are lacking. To fill this gap in our understanding, we investigated the renal effects of cisplatin and anti-PD-L1 antibodies in mice, assessing PD-1 renal expression and cytokine levels in mice with AIN, and then we compared these findings with those in AIN-diagnosed cancer patients., Methods: Twenty C57BL6J mice received 200 µg of anti-PD-L1 antibody and 5 mg/kg cisplatin intraperitoneally and were compared with those receiving cisplatin (n = 6), anti-PD-L1 (n = 7), or saline (n = 6). After 7 days, the mice were euthanized. Serum and urinary concentrations of TNFα, CXCL10, IL-6, and MCP-1 were measured by Luminex. The kidney sections were stained to determine PD-1 tissue expression. Thirty-nine cancer patients with AKI were enrolled (AIN n = 33, acute tubular necrosis (ATN) n = 6), urine MCP-1 (uMCP-1) was measured, and kidney sections were stained to assess PD-1 expression., Results: Cisplatin and anti PD-L1 treatment led to 40% AIN development (p = 0.03) in mice, accompanied by elevated serum creatinine and uMCP1. AIN-diagnosed cancer patients also had higher uMCP1 levels than ATN-diagnosed patients, confirming our previous findings. Mice with AIN exhibited interstitial PD-1 staining and stronger glomerular PD-1 expression, especially with combination treatment. Conversely, human AIN patients only showed interstitial PD-1 positivity., Conclusions: Only mice receiving cisplatin and anti-PDL1 concomitantly developed AIN, accompanied with a more severe kidney injury. AIN induced by this drug combination was linked to elevated uMCP1, consistently with human AIN, suggesting that uMCP1 can be potentially used as an AIN biomarker., (© 2024. The Author(s).)