J Compr Ped
J Compr Ped

article information

Journal of Comprehensive Pediatrics: Vol.12, issue 2; e109912
published online: May 3, 2021
article type: Research Article
received: October 2, 2020
revised: January 29, 2021
accepted: February 7, 2021
DOI: 10.5812/compreped.109912
Crossmark

The Unique Difference Between Serum Level of Soluble Urokinase Plasminogen Activator Receptor (suPAR) in Steroid-Resistant Nephrotic Syndrome Children Treated with an Alkylating Agent and Calcineurin Inhibitors

authors:

avatar Ahmedz Widiasta ORCID 1 , * , avatar Kurnia Wahyudi ORCID 2 , avatar Husna Nugrahapraja ORCID 3 , avatar Yunia Sribudiani ORCID 4 , avatar Dedi Rachmadi ORCID 1

Pediatric Nephrology Division, Child Health Department, Hasan Sadikin General Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia
Epidemiology and Biostatistics Division, Public Health Department, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia
Life Science and Biotechnology, Bandung Institute of Technology, Bandung, Indonesia
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Division of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia

how to cite: Widiasta A, Wahyudi K, Nugrahapraja H, Sribudiani Y, Rachmadi D. The Unique Difference Between Serum Level of Soluble Urokinase Plasminogen Activator Receptor (suPAR) in Steroid-Resistant Nephrotic Syndrome Children Treated with an Alkylating Agent and Calcineurin Inhibitors. J Compr Ped. 2021;12(2):e109912. doi: 10.5812/compreped.109912.

Abstract

Background:

Steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome (SRNS) is a leading contributor to chronic kidney disease (CKD), and calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) or monoclonal antibodies are currently the best identified therapy. Meanwhile, some developing countries still use alkylating agents (AA) such as cyclophosphamide (CPA) to treat SRNS due to economic reasons.

Objectives:

This study aims to determine the employability of soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) as a biomarker for monitoring therapy in SRNS children and compare the clinical improvement with those treated with an AA and CNIs.

Methods:

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at Hasan Sadikin Hospital, Indonesia. The data was collected from July 2019 to July 2020 from 70 children with FSGS. Clinical signs were evaluated monthly, and serum suPAR level was measured at the third and sixth months following therapy. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA was carried out to compare the differences in suPAR level at baseline with the third and sixth months in SRNS patients who received AA and CNIs.

Results:

The mean age was nearly similar between the two groups based on the t-test (P = 0.140). Steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome was more frequent in boys than in girls (P = 0.020), according to the Chi-square test. Baseline serum suPAR level was not significantly different between the two groups. In the third month, the daily urinary protein level was higher in SRNS patients that received the AA compared to the CNIs group (P < 0.001). There was a significant interaction between time and treatment (F(2,138) = 7.203, P = 0.001), with higher suPAR level in SRNS patients that received the AA compared to those administered with CNIs at the 3rd and 6th months, but this difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05).

Conclusions:

As a noninvasive tool, suPAR is a promising modality in monitoring SRNS therapy, and CNIs have a tendency to achieve faster remission than the AA.

1. Background

Steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome (SRNS) is defined as the presence of persistent proteinuria despite a four-week prednisolone or methylprednisolone therapy (1). This condition is still a threatening problem in pediatric nephrology, with focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) as the most common histological finding. Meanwhile, FSGS is caused by podocyte damage and segmental sclerosis in multiple glomeruli and manifests clinically as proteinuria (2, 3). It decreases children’s quality of life, stunts their growth, and causes chronic kidney disease (CKD), and even end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Furthermore, FSGS is the leading cause of ESKD manifested as glomerular hyperfiltration and massive proteinuria, which progresses to the disruption of the filtration rate resulting in the disease mentioned (4).

Focal segmental glomerulosclerosis patients are treated using a combination of steroids with calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) or alkylating agents (AA). The kidney disease initiatives for global outcomes (KDIGO) recommended the initial combination, and not the latter, because of its gonadal toxicity effect (4, 5). Moreover, the national insurance has a separate policy in verifying monoclonal antibody and CNIs (tacrolimus or cyclosporine A) for every patient. Hence, pediatric nephrologists still treat some SRNS children with an alkylating agent such as cyclophosphamide (CPA). From experience, the results of the latter therapy were as good as the first one as each disease activity was also identified. However, most studies demonstrated the superiority of CNIs to AAs in the management of SRNS. Lin et al. stated that tacrolimus (Tac) treatment had a high value of total remission and low value of proteinuria level when compared to those in cyclophosphamide (CPA) on six-month treatment of patients with membranous nephropathy (6). A meta-analysis conducted by Zhu et al. showed that CPA was comparable with Tac in inducing renal remission of membranous nephropathy patients within one year (7). Li et al. indicated a comparable remission rate with both Tac and CPA, while the long-term effects need further verification (8). Gulati et al., in their meta-analysis study, stated that the combination of Tac and prednisolone is superior to the CPA and prednisolone combination (9). Li et al. stated that cyclosporine A (CsA) is an effective and safe agent in the treatment of patients with SRNS. Yenigun et al. study demonstrated that CsA is not inferior to CPA in SRNS treatment (10).

Soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor is the circulating form of glycosylphosphatidylinositol-anchored three-domain membrane protein expressed in various cells, including the immunologically active and endothelial types and podocytes (11-15). Furthermore, suPAR is a 20 - 55 kD protein, while circulating uPAR is a membrane-bound receptor for UPA and urokinase (3, 11-17). So far, only three known isoforms on humans and mice have been identified, including 1, 2, and 3. Also, suPAR is derived from immature myeloid cells, and its level increases in chronic infections such as HIV, septicemia, and malignancy. Similarly, uPAR is bound to the cell membrane through a moderate glycosylphosphatidylinositol anchor, which circulates in a soluble form (suPAR) and binds to the kidney podocyte's αvβ3 integrin when released. Subsequently, this affects the glomerulus leading to its malformation and structural abnormalities (3, 4, 18, 19). There are no studies on change in suPAR level with alkylating agent and CNIs in FSGS treatment. However, just recently, the usefulness of the soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor as a biomarker in clinically estimating and differentiating SRNS was corroborated (14, 15, 20-27). Some studies also reported that using suPAR level, it is possible to distinguish whether FSGS patients are responsive or resistant to therapy (23, 28). Wei et al. (26) stated that the serum concentrations of this receptor are significantly elevated in patients with FSGS compared to healthy subjects and in pre-transplant patients who later develop the recurrent form of this syndrome after transplantation (26, 29). Furthermore, some studies reported the usefulness of suPAR in identifying podocytopathy-related inflammation (30). In contrast, Peng et al. demonstrated that the receptor’s level helped to differentiate between SRNS and SSNS (23, 28). Therefore, changes in total suPAR are useful as biomarkers of glomerular disease activity (26). Furthermore, this receptor has also been found to not only affect FSGS and CKD, but when increased, it also affects the glomerular podocyte through the activation of integrin αvβ3. This subsequent injury causes further release of sclerosis and fibrosis-associated pro-inflammatory mediators (4). Also, the elevated suPAR levels were correlated with poor proteinuria outcomes in various populations (4, 26, 29, 31-39). In contrast, suPAR has been implicated in the pathogenesis of renal problems, specifically FSGS and diabetic kidney disease (DKD), through interference with podocyte migration and apoptosis (26, 29, 32, 40).

Although suPAR level is established as a FSGS biomarker, as a differentiator of SRNS and SSNS, as well as differentiating disease activity in SLE, there are no previous studies correlating suPAR level with protein loss through the glomerulus in other histological findings of SRNS. Also, no such comparison has been performed between this receptor and the change in urinary protein loss in two separate SRNS groups treated with CNIs and CPA.

2. Objectives

This study aims to specify the employability of suPAR as a noninvasive biomarker for monitoring therapy on SRNS children and compare the differences in clinical improvement in patients treated with AA and CNIs.

3. Methods

This retrospective cohort study was conducted between July 2019 and July 2020 at a single medical center known as Hasan Sadikin General Hospital, Bandung, Indonesia. The scientific and ethics committee of this hospital approved the protocol employed. Meanwhile, the parents and the subjects (when their age is > 12 or < 18) were informed of the potential risks associated with alkylating agents such as CPA and CNIs such as CsA or Tac. Also, written consent was obtained from subjects' parents and the subjects themselves if their age > 12 or < 18. Health insurance in Indonesia covered CPA fully, whereas the CNIs were only partially covered.

3.1. Patients

Seventy children with a working diagnosis of SRNS (age 1 - 18 years old) were enrolled in this study. Data were collected in July 2020 from medical records of the pediatric ward at Hasan Sadikin General Hospital, Bandung, Indonesia. All children diagnosed with SRNS from July 2019 - July 2020 were routinely evaluated for clinical signs and urinary protein every month. Also, the suPAR levels were measured thrice with an interval of three months. Furthermore, the syndrome’s inclusion criteria were based on the presence of nephrotic-range proteinuria, hypoalbuminemia, and swelling. Steroid resistance was defined as a positive urinary protein for more than four weeks of prednisone or methylprednisolone treatment. In addition, SRNS was defined as the persistence of proteinuria for more than four weeks after steroid therapy with a history of swelling and hypoalbuminemia (41, 42). The exclusion criteria included those with systemic diseases and severe infection before alkylating agent (CPA) or CNIs (Tac or CsA) therapy. Also, children with bladder dysfunction were excluded as they are at a high risk for hemorrhagic cystitis due to CPA (5, 43). Finally, individuals having blood dyscrasia, acute kidney injury (AKI), CKD, and severe infections were also excluded, as they are at a high risk for CNIs adverse effects (44, 45).

3.2. Indications for Therapy

Patients willingly decided to receive CNIs treatment (oral Tac or CsA combined with prednisolone given via the same route) or the AA (CPA) after explanation was made. Then, 40 mg/m2 alternative prednisolone dose was administered to the subjects in combination with oral Tac (Prograf, Astellas Pahrma, Hong Kong) of 0.05 mg/kg/day, which was divided into two doses over 12-hour intervals (28), or oral CsA (Sandimmun Neoral, Novartis, Indonesia) of 3 - 8 mg/kg BW/day (46), or intravenous CPA (Endoxan, Baxter, Indonesia) of 500 - 750 mg/m2/day intravenously for six months (6, 46).

3.3. Outcome Variables

The primary outcome measures were completed with partial remission, while the secondary outcomes included suPAR level, side effects, together with renal function during treatment and follow-up. The potential side effects were hemorrhagic cystitis, nocturia, enuresis, amenorrhea, delayed puberty, blood dyscrasia, AKI, and hypertension (8, 46-48).

3.4. Definitions

Complete remission (CR) is defined as the period when there is absence of swelling and proteinuria returns to the normal range (< 0.3 g/day). However, partial remission (PR) is when there is absence of swelling, but the non-nephrotic proteinuria (0.3 - 3.5 g/day) persists. The time required for PR was from the inception of prednisolone + Tac/CsA/CPA treatment to the first day that the partial remission was observed (49, 50).

3.5. Statistical Analysis

Two-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to compare the suPAR level (ng/mL) in SRNS patients receiving the AA and CNIs. This test was also used to compare the urinary protein between both groups. Furthermore, the Mauchly's test was performed for the assumption of sphericity. Independent t-test, chi-square test, and Fisher’s exact test were run to compare the subjects' age, gender, and blood pressure between the groups, respectively, and Mann-Whitney test to compare the urinary protein and baseline suPAR level between the AA and CNIs groups.

4. Results

As described in Table 1, the mean age was nearly similar between the two groups based on t-test (P = 0.140). Steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome was more frequent in boys than girls (P = 0.020) according to the chi-square test, and the trend of higher blood pressure was indicated in the CNIs group. Also, proteinuria was demonstrated to be higher in those treated with the AA than in the CNIs group. However, suPAR levels before therapy were not different between the two groups.

Table 1 shows that the baseline serum suPAR level was not significantly different between the two groups. This was probably because the histopathological findings in both groups were nearly similar as most were FSGS (Table 2).

Table 1. Characteristic of SRNS Children Treated Using the Combination of Steroid with an Alkylating Agent or with CNIs a
VariablesAlkylating Agent (n = 35)CNIs (n = 35)P-Value
Age (y)9.49 ± 3.668.17 ± 3.780.140 b
Gender0.020 c
Girls17 (49)8 (22)
Boys18 (51)28 (78)
Hypertension0.011 d
Stage 135 (100)29 (81)
Stage 20 (0)7 (19)
Urinary protein (g/day)2.5 (2.1, 2.8)2.2 (1.70, 5.18)< 0.001 e
Baseline suPAR1.89 (1.02, 5.18)2.03 (1.66, 5.09)0.142 e

Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.

a Values are expressed as mean ± SD, No. (%) and median (min, max) unless otherwise indicated.

b Independent t-test.

c Chi-square test.

d Fisher’s exact test.

e Mann-Whitney test.

Table 2. Kidney Biopsy Results a
Histopathologic FindingsCPA (n = 35)CsA (n = 35)
FSGS7 (10)8 (11.43)
MPGN3 (4.28)5 (7.14)
Mes-GN1 (1.43)0
MCD6 (8.57)5 (7.14)
Refused biopsy18 (25.71)17 (24.29)

Abbreviations: CPA, cyclophosphamide; CsA, cyclosporine A; FSGS, focal-segmental glomerulosclerosis; MPGN, membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis; Mes-GN, mesangial-proliferative glomerulonephritis; MCD, minimal change disease.

a Values are expressed as No. (%) unless otherwise indicated.

Steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome children have a tendency of experiencing improvement in proteinuria between the 3rd and 6th months of CPA therapy, meanwhile this was achieved earlier in the CNIs (CsA and Tac) group, that is, in the first three months (Figure 1).

Change in suPAR level between baseline, third month, and sixth month of CPA and CNIs therapy
Figure 1.

Change in suPAR level between baseline, third month, and sixth month of CPA and CNIs therapy

Two-way repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted to compare the suPAR level (ng/mL) of SRNS patients that received the AA and CNIs (Table 3). A total of 70 children with SRNS were enrolled based on medical records, with 35 receiving either an AA or CNIs. The receptor's level was measured at baseline and three months and six months later. Also, the complete data was made available at all points in time for the whole patients. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity was met. There was a significant interaction between time and treatment (F(2,138) = 7.203, P = 0.001). Also, the post hoc comparison showed no difference in the suPAR level between both treatment groups at baseline (P = 0.501). Meanwhile, suPAR level was higher in SRNS patients that received alkylating agents than those given CNIs at the 3rd and 6th months; however, the differences were not statistically significant (P = 0.054 and P = 0.086, respectively; Table 3). Furthermore, none of the subjects experienced any adverse effects of CNIs or alkylating agents. Also, in the CNIs group, there were no reported cases of arrhythmia, cordis, AKI, electrolyte imbalance, gynecomastia, hypertrichosis, convulsions, or infections. Similarly, there were no signs of AKI, CKD, hemorrhagic cystitis, or gonadal hormone disorders in those that received alkylating agents. Partial remission was achieved faster in the CNIs group compared to the AA group. Meanwhile, the points at which CR was achieved were nearly similar (Figure 1).

Table 3. Comparison of Estimated Marginal Means of suPAR Level (ng/mL) of Steroid-Resistant Nephrotic Syndrome Patients That Received an Alkylating Agent and Those Given Calcineurin Inhibitors
TimeAlkylating agent (n = 35)CNIs (n = 35)Mean difference (95% CI)F(1,69)P-Value*
Baseline2.398 (0.202)2.590 (0.200)-0.192 (-0.760, 0.375)0.4570.501
Third month2.300 (0.196)1.762 (0.193)0.538 (-0.010, 1.087)3.8310.054
Sixth month1.074 (0.120)0.780 (0.118)0.294 (-0.042, 0.630)3.0390.086

Abbreviations: CI, confidence intervals; CNIs, calcineurin inhibitors.

Two-way repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted to compare the suPAR level (ng/mL) of SRNS patients that received the AA and CNIs (Table 3). A total of 70 children with SRNS were enrolled based on medical records, with 35 receiving either an AA or CNIs. The receptor's level was measured at baseline and three months and six months later. Also, the complete data was made available at all points in time for the whole patients. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity was met. There was a significant interaction between time and treatment (F(2,138) = 7.203, P = 0.001). Also, the post hoc comparison showed no difference in the suPAR level between both treatment groups at baseline (P = 0.501). Meanwhile, suPAR level was higher in SRNS patients that received alkylating agents than those given CNIs at the 3rd and 6th months; however, the differences were not statistically significant (P = 0.054 and P = 0.086, respectively; Table 3). Furthermore, none of the subjects experienced any adverse effects of CNIs or alkylating agents. Also, in the CNIs group, there were no reported cases of arrhythmia, cordis, AKI, electrolyte imbalance, gynecomastia, hypertrichosis, convulsions, or infections. Similarly, there were no signs of AKI, CKD, hemorrhagic cystitis, or gonadal hormone disorders in those that received alkylating agents. Partial remission was achieved faster in the CNIs group compared to the AA group. Meanwhile, the points at which CR was achieved were nearly similar (Figure 1).

Two-way repeated measures ANOVA was also used to compare the daily urinary protein level (mg/day) of SRNS patients in both groups. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity was not met. There was a significant interaction between time and treatment (F(2,138) = 3.395, P < 0.001). Furthermore, Post hoc comparisons indicated no difference in daily urinary protein level between the two treatment groups at baseline (P = 0.177). Meanwhile, at the third month, the daily urinary protein levels were higher in SRNS patients that received an alkylating agent compared to the CNIs group (P < 0.001). Furthermore, at the sixth month, the daily urinary protein levels were lower in the SRNS patients that received the AA compared to those who received CNIs (P = 0.008) (Table 4).

Table 4. Comparison of Estimated Marginal Means of Daily Urinary Protein Level (mg/day) of SNRS Patients Who Received an Alkylating Agent and Those Who Received Calcineurin Inhibitors
TimeAlkylating agent (n = 35)CNIs (n = 35)Mean difference (95% CI)F(1,69)P-Value
Baseline2.489 (0.087)2.321 (0.086)0.167 (-0.077, 0.412)1.8580.177
Three months2.429 (0.052)1.743 (0.052)0.686 (0.539, 0.833)86.704< 0.001
Six months0.349 (0.048)0.532 (0.047)-0.184 (-0.317, -0.051)7.5730.008

Abbreviations: CI, confidence intervals; CNIs, calcineurin inhibitors.

Figure 2 explains the alternative solution to SRNS therapy, notably for those with some difficulty in parent’s consent for repeated kidney biopsy.

The usefulness of suPAR as a noninvasive modality in monitoring SRNS therapy, notably for those having difficulty on repeated kidney biopsy consent
Figure 2.

The usefulness of suPAR as a noninvasive modality in monitoring SRNS therapy, notably for those having difficulty on repeated kidney biopsy consent

5. Discussion

To the author's best knowledge, this study is the first to perform an outcome analysis of SRNS therapy with CNIs and the AA, using suPAR, as a candidate for a non-invasive modality. Our study showed that the treatment of SRNS with CNIs such as tacrolimus (Tac) or cyclosporine A (CsA) causes earlier remission than the AA (CPA). This lowers the tendency of proteinuria development into CKD in those treated with CNIs. However, the AA achieved remission results in the sixth month. The slow remission achievement incites the high risk for side effects with both steroids and CPA (51-55).

In addition, prolonged proteinuria increases the likelihood of developing glomerular sclerosis and even extensive fibrosis (41, 42, 56, 57). Extensive sclerosis or fibrosis stimulates the release of inflammatory mediators that potentially causes further podocyte apoptosis (56, 58). Furthermore, the persistence of this process will slightly loosen the slit diaphragm, thereby aggravating proteinuria leading to CKD deterioration (42). In this study, there was no significant difference in serum suPAR levels of subjects that were treated with CNIs for at least three months compared to those that received the AA treatment. Hence, this is an indication that apoptotic podocyte improved faster with CNIs than the alkylating agent. This finding is in contrast with Peng et al. (28) results, reporting that suPAR level was different between SRNS and SSNS groups. Furthermore, Peng and Mousa et al. also found that supAR was significantly higher in SRNS patients compared to the SSNS, SDNS, and normal population (23).

Soltysiak et al. discovered circulating suPAR as a biomarker of disease severity in children with proteinuric glomerulonephritis (59). Changli Wei et al. and Savin et al. stated that suPAR levels are specifically associated with primary FSGS, and chronic overexpression of suPAR leads to an FSGS-like nephropathy in mice, and treatment with mycophenolate mofetil was associated with a lower serum suPAR level (26, 60). Roca et al. found that in NS children due to FSGS, MCD, and membranous nephropathy significantly associated with age, GFR, and levels of several endothelial markers, including suPAR (61).

Fuentes reported elevated suPAR level in NPHS2 gene mutation (62), and Zhao et al. stated that suPAR levels were positively associated with IgA nephropathy, whereas plasma suPAR levels were not significantly different between FSGS and IgA nephropathy patients (63). Winnicki, in their cross-sectional study, found that higher suPAR level was predictive of FSGS progression to CKD (14). Wada et al (2016) conducted a comprehensive review regarding suPAR as a diagnostic and predictive biomarker of kidney diseases (25). Huang et al. and Stone et al. stated that urinary suPAR was specifically elevated in patients with primary FSGS (24, 64). Shuai et al. found suPAR as a potential biomarker for predicting primary and secondary FSGS (22), Enocsson et al. stated that suPAR levels predict damage accrual in patients with recent onset of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) (65), and Zaitoon et al. found that suPAR may be one of the valuable indicators of disease activity in SLE (66).

This study’s findings were in contrast with previous results, as described above. However, these differences occurred because these studies compared SRNS with other conditions that were non-SRNS, whereas this study compared SRNS in two separate groups treated with CNIs and an AA (CPA). The baseline clinical conditions based on both physical examination and laboratory examination were the same in both groups. However, the situation was different after three months of therapy. Furthermore, the remission state as reflected by proteinuria after the third month was significantly different in the CNIs and AA (CPA) groups. Meanwhile, the clinically different condition was not followed by a significant difference in serum suPAR levels in the two groups. This suggests that serum suPAR level is not a suitable monitoring tool for SRNS, although it is suitable for SSNS.

Also, this study provides data for the developing countries, in that SRNS guidelines should follow KDIGO guidelines which no longer use CPA in SRNS therapy due to slow remission time. Steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome in children is still an enigma, notably in the low-socioeconomic countries. The national health insurance has minimal coverage for the affected children; therefore, to accommodate the financial ability and optimal treatment for SRNS, existing therapeutic and diagnostic modalities are expected to be accessible in addition to being scientifically proven to be useful and safe for patients. Furthermore, this study demonstrated that nephrotic syndrome occurs in boys more frequently than in girls, as most cases were probably secondary SRNS, which originated from MCD. Also, previous studies have proven that NS is more common in boys. Although most of them have good prognosis, a small proportion, however, are at risk of frequent relapses, steroid dependence, and secondary SRNS (67-69).

Podocyte injury in MCD and FSGS potentially progresses in extracellular matrix (ECM) deposition, leading to further sclerotic and even fibrotic glomerulus (41, 57). Furthermore, patients treated with CNIs had a higher blood pressure trend which was possibly due to the greater level of suPAR in the group. Trivedi et al. reported five variants of FSGS, including not otherwise specified (NOS), tip, perihilar, cellular, and collapsing type (70). Also, higher suPAR release and other proinflammatory mediators associated with the collapsing glomerular manifested as hypertension and kidney deterioration tendency (70, 71).

According to Hayek et al. (15), suPAR is the circulating form of a glycosyl-phosphatidylinositol–anchored three-domain membrane protein that is expressed in a variety of cells, including immunologically active and endothelial types as well as podocytes (11, 26, 72). Furthermore, the urokinase receptor is known to be closely linked to inflammation, organ damage, and immune activation in various disease states (21). Therefore, both the circulating and membrane-bound forms are directly involved in regulating cell adhesion and migration through blood vessels (11). Meanwhile, the aforementioned blood pressure was influenced by heart contractility, frequency, intravascular volume, and vascular resistance. Hence, the inflammation on the endothelium notably in kidney vessels leads to increased blood pressure. Moreover, this syndrome is a common histopathological form of secondary SRNS, which was initially in the INS form.

Persistent proteinuria was due to podocyte effacement, injury, or collapse which led to glomerular sclerosis, fibrosis, and the progressive deterioration of the kidney (17, 57, 73, 74). Also, patients diagnosed with FSGS, MPGN, and Mes-GN have a greater tendency for developing hypertension, compared to MCD patients, except for when there is a state of steroid toxicity (68, 75-77). These results were in line with the KDIGO 2020 guidelines, which recommended that SRNS children should be treated with steroid and CNIs or monoclonal antibody. This is based on the fact that the earlier proteinuria is resolved, the lower the risk of getting CKD associated with the persistent form of this condition.

Finally, according to this study, the suPAR level was higher in SRNS patients that received the AA compared to those given CNIs (CsA and Tac) at the third and sixth months; however, this difference was not statistically significant, based on the two-way ANOVA. Meanwhile, the difference between the baseline and the third and sixth months was better in patients that received CNIs compared to the other group. This was evident in the differences between the marginal means of the third month and baseline suPAR level, which was greater in the CNIs group. Therefore, this study matched with the hypothesis stating that remission is achieved earlier in SRNS children treated with CNIs than in their counterpart. Moreover, an alternative solution to SRNS therapy was provided notably for cases that encountered some difficulties in getting parent’s consent for repeated kidney biopsy.

In sum, CNIs have a tendency to achieve faster remission than the alkylating agent. Nevertheless, suPAR is yet not employable as a noninvasive monitoring tool in SRNS treatment. Further multicenter-longitudinal studies with tighter and longer periods of measurement time as well as bigger sample sizes are warranted. Therefore, in some developing or low-socioeconomic countries, proteinuria is still used as a modality to monitor the outcomes of SRNS therapy.

Acknowledgements

References

  • 1.

    Kidney International Supplements. Chapter 4: Steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome in children. Kidney Int Suppl. 2012;2(2):172-6. doi: 10.1038/kisup.2012.17. [PubMed: 25018929]. [PubMed Central: PMC4089623].

  • 2.

    Shankland SJ, Smeets B, Pippin JW, Moeller MJ. The emergence of the glomerular parietal epithelial cell. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2014;10(3):158-73. doi: 10.1038/nrneph.2014.1. [PubMed: 24468766].

  • 3.

    Zeier M, Reiser J. suPAR and chronic kidney disease-A podocyte story. Pflugers Arch. 2017;469(7-8):1017-20. doi: 10.1007/s00424-017-2026-7. [PubMed: 28689240].

  • 4.

    Dande RR, Peev V, Altintas MM, Reiser J. Soluble urokinase receptor and the kidney response in diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Res. 2017;2017:3232848. doi: 10.1155/2017/3232848. [PubMed: 28596971]. [PubMed Central: PMC5449757].

  • 5.

    Wetzels JF. Cyclophosphamide-induced gonadal toxicity: A treatment dilemma in patients with lupus nephritis? Neth J Med. 2004;62(10):347-52. [PubMed: 15683089].

  • 6.

    Lin W, Li HY, Lin S, Zhou T. Efficacy and safety of tacrolimus vs cyclophosphamide in the therapy of patients with idiopathic membranous nephropathy: A meta-analysis. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2019;13:2179-86. doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S209211. [PubMed: 31308629]. [PubMed Central: PMC6613398].

  • 7.

    Zhu LB, Liu LL, Yao L, Wang LN. Efficacy and safety of tacrolimus versus cyclophosphamide for primary membranous nephropathy: A meta-analysis. Drugs. 2017;77(2):187-99. doi: 10.1007/s40265-016-0683-z. [PubMed: 28084563].

  • 8.

    Li YC, Huang J, Li X, Zhao SM. A comparison of cyclophosphamide versus tacrolimus in terms of treatment effect for idiopathic membranous nephropathy: A meta-analysis. Nefrologia. 2019;39(3):269-76. doi: 10.1016/j.nefro.2018.10.008. [PubMed: 30755327].

  • 9.

    Gulati A, Sinha A, Gupta A, Kanitkar M, Sreenivas V, Sharma J, et al. Treatment with tacrolimus and prednisolone is preferable to intravenous cyclophosphamide as the initial therapy for children with steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome. Kidney Int. 2012;82(10):1130-5. doi: 10.1038/ki.2012.238. [PubMed: 22763815].

  • 10.

    Li HY, Zhang X, Zhou T, Zhong Z, Zhong H. Efficacy and safety of cyclosporine a for patients with steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome: a meta-analysis. BMC Nephrol. 2019;20(1):384. doi: 10.1186/s12882-019-1575-8. [PubMed: 31646979]. [PubMed Central: PMC6813125].

  • 11.

    Thuno M, Macho B, Eugen-Olsen J. suPAR: the molecular crystal ball. Dis Markers. 2009;27(3):157-72. doi: 10.3233/DMA-2009-0657. [PubMed: 19893210]. [PubMed Central: PMC3835059].

  • 12.

    Godtfredsen NS, Jorgensen DV, Marsaa K, Ulrik CS, Andersen O, Eugen-Olsen J, et al. Soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor predicts mortality in exacerbated COPD. Respir Res. 2018;19(1):97. doi: 10.1186/s12931-018-0803-2. [PubMed: 29783959]. [PubMed Central: PMC5963104].

  • 13.

    Hayek SS, Sever S, Ko YA, Trachtman H, Awad M, Wadhwani S, et al. Soluble urokinase receptor and chronic kidney disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(20):1916-25. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1506362. [PubMed: 26539835]. [PubMed Central: PMC4701036].

  • 14.

    Winnicki W, Sunder-Plassmann G, Sengolge G, Handisurya A, Herkner H, Kornauth C, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic value of soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) in focal segmental glomerulosclerosis and impact of detection method. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):13783. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-50405-8. [PubMed: 31551522]. [PubMed Central: PMC6760112].

  • 15.

    Hayek SS, Leaf DE, Samman Tahhan A, Raad M, Sharma S, Waikar SS, et al. Soluble urokinase receptor and acute kidney injury. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(5):416-26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1911481. [PubMed: 31995687]. [PubMed Central: PMC7065830].

  • 16.

    Hahm E, Wei C, Fernandez I, Li J, Tardi NJ, Tracy M, et al. Bone marrow-derived immature myeloid cells are a main source of circulating suPAR contributing to proteinuric kidney disease. Nat Med. 2017;23(1):100-6. doi: 10.1038/nm.4242. [PubMed: 27941791]. [PubMed Central: PMC5405698].

  • 17.

    Yonata A, Effendi I, Ali Z, Suhaimi N, Suprapti S. The role of soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) in chronic kidney disease. Indones J Kidney Hypertension. 2018;1(1):18-21. doi: 10.32867/inakidney.2018.010103.

  • 18.

    Schulz CA, Persson M, Christensson A, Hindy G, Almgren P, Nilsson PM, et al. Soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) and impaired kidney function in the population-based malmo diet and cancer study. Kidney Int Rep. 2017;2(2):239-47. doi: 10.1016/j.ekir.2016.11.004. [PubMed: 28367534]. [PubMed Central: PMC5362148].

  • 19.

    Rosenberg AZ, Kopp JB. Focal segmental glomerulosclerosis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017;12(3):502-17. doi: 10.2215/CJN.05960616. [PubMed: 28242845]. [PubMed Central: PMC5338705].

  • 20.

    Alachkar N, Li J, Matar D, Vujjini V, Alasfar S, Tracy M, et al. Monitoring suPAR levels in post-kidney transplant focal segmental glomerulosclerosis treated with therapeutic plasma exchange and rituximab. BMC Nephrol. 2018;19(1):361. doi: 10.1186/s12882-018-1177-x. [PubMed: 30558559]. [PubMed Central: PMC6296111].

  • 21.

    Saleem MA. What is the role of soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator in renal disease? Nephron. 2018;139(4):334-41. doi: 10.1159/000490118. [PubMed: 29909410].

  • 22.

    Shuai T, Pei Jing Y, Huang Q, Xiong H, Liu J, Zhu L, et al. Serum soluble urokinase type plasminogen activated receptor and focal segmental glomerulosclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2019;9(10). e031812. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031812. [PubMed: 31594897]. [PubMed Central: PMC6797292].

  • 23.

    Mousa SO, Saleh SM, Aly HM, Amin MH. Evaluation of serum soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor as a marker for steroid-responsiveness in children with primary nephrotic syndrome. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. 2018;29(2):290-6. doi: 10.4103/1319-2442.229266. [PubMed: 29657195].

  • 24.

    Stone H, Magella B, Bennett MR. The search for biomarkers to aid in diagnosis, differentiation, and prognosis of childhood idiopathic nephrotic syndrome. Front Pediatr. 2019;7:404. doi: 10.3389/fped.2019.00404. [PubMed: 31681707]. [PubMed Central: PMC6805718].

  • 25.

    Wada T, Nangaku M. A circulating permeability factor in focal segmental glomerulosclerosis: The hunt continues. Clin Kidney J. 2015;8(6):708-15. doi: 10.1093/ckj/sfv090. [PubMed: 26613029]. [PubMed Central: PMC4655796].

  • 26.

    Wei C, Trachtman H, Li J, Dong C, Friedman AL, Gassman JJ, et al. Circulating suPAR in two cohorts of primary FSGS. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;23(12):2051-9. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2012030302. [PubMed: 23138488]. [PubMed Central: PMC3507361].

  • 27.

    Lee JM, Yang JW, Kronbichler A, Eisenhut M, Kim G, Lee KH, et al. Increased serum soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) levels in FSGS: A meta-analysis. J Immunol Res. 2019;2019:5679518. doi: 10.1155/2019/5679518. [PubMed: 31089477]. [PubMed Central: PMC6476117].

  • 28.

    Peng Z, Mao J, Chen X, Cai F, Gu W, Fu H, et al. Serum suPAR levels help differentiate steroid resistance from steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome in children. Pediatr Nephrol. 2015;30(2):301-7. doi: 10.1007/s00467-014-2892-6. [PubMed: 25034499].

  • 29.

    Wei C, El Hindi S, Li J, Fornoni A, Goes N, Sageshima J, et al. Circulating urokinase receptor as a cause of focal segmental glomerulosclerosis. Nat Med. 2011;17(8):952-60. doi: 10.1038/nm.2411. [PubMed: 21804539]. [PubMed Central: PMC4089394].

  • 30.

    Sun P, Yu L, Huang J, Wang S, Zou W, Yang L, et al. Soluble urokinase receptor levels in secondary focal segmental glomerulosclerosis. Kidney Dis. 2019;5(4):239-46. doi: 10.1159/000497353. [PubMed: 31768381]. [PubMed Central: PMC6873037].

  • 31.

    Theilade S, Lyngbaek S, Hansen TW, Eugen-Olsen J, Fenger M, Rossing P, et al. Soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor levels are elevated and associated with complications in patients with type 1 diabetes. J Intern Med. 2015;277(3):362-71. doi: 10.1111/joim.12269. [PubMed: 24830873].

  • 32.

    Yoo TH, Pedigo CE, Guzman J, Correa-Medina M, Wei C, Villarreal R, et al. Sphingomyelinase-like phosphodiesterase 3b expression levels determine podocyte injury phenotypes in glomerular disease. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;26(1):133-47. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2013111213. [PubMed: 24925721]. [PubMed Central: PMC4279736].

  • 33.

    de Bock CE, Wang Y. Clinical significance of urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) expression in cancer. Med Res Rev. 2004;24(1):13-39. doi: 10.1002/med.10054. [PubMed: 14595671].

  • 34.

    Backes Y, van der Sluijs KF, Mackie DP, Tacke F, Koch A, Tenhunen JJ, et al. Usefulness of suPAR as a biological marker in patients with systemic inflammation or infection: A systematic review. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38(9):1418-28. doi: 10.1007/s00134-012-2613-1. [PubMed: 22706919]. [PubMed Central: PMC3423568].

  • 35.

    Borne Y, Persson M, Melander O, Smith JG, Engstrom G. Increased plasma level of soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor is associated with incidence of heart failure but not atrial fibrillation. Eur J Heart Fail. 2014;16(4):377-83. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.49. [PubMed: 24464777].

  • 36.

    Eugen-Olsen J, Andersen O, Linneberg A, Ladelund S, Hansen TW, Langkilde A, et al. Circulating soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor predicts cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and mortality in the general population. J Intern Med. 2010;268(3):296-308. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2010.02252.x. [PubMed: 20561148].

  • 37.

    Fuhrman B. The urokinase system in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis. Atherosclerosis. 2012;222(1):8-14. doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2011.10.044. [PubMed: 22137664].

  • 38.

    Lyngbaek S, Marott JL, Sehestedt T, Hansen TW, Olsen MH, Andersen O, et al. Cardiovascular risk prediction in the general population with use of suPAR, CRP, and Framingham Risk Score. Int J Cardiol. 2013;167(6):2904-11. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.07.018. [PubMed: 22909410].

  • 39.

    Eapen DJ, Manocha P, Ghasemzadeh N, Patel RS, Al Kassem H, Hammadah M, et al. Soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor level is an independent predictor of the presence and severity of coronary artery disease and of future adverse events. J Am Heart Assoc. 2014;3(5). e001118. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.114.001118. [PubMed: 25341887]. [PubMed Central: PMC4323820].

  • 40.

    Wei C, Moller CC, Altintas MM, Li J, Schwarz K, Zacchigna S, et al. Modification of kidney barrier function by the urokinase receptor. Nat Med. 2008;14(1):55-63. doi: 10.1038/nm1696. [PubMed: 18084301].

  • 41.

    D'Agati VD, Kaskel FJ, Falk RJ. Focal segmental glomerulosclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(25):2398-411. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1106556. [PubMed: 22187987].

  • 42.

    Reidy K, Kaskel FJ. Pathophysiology of focal segmental glomerulosclerosis. Pediatr Nephrol. 2007;22(3):350-4. doi: 10.1007/s00467-006-0357-2. [PubMed: 17216262]. [PubMed Central: PMC1794138].

  • 43.

    Akhavan S. M, Farahani N, Razavi MR, Heydari H, Arsang-Jang S. Rituximab versus cyclophosphamide for the treatment of children with steroid resistance nephrotic syndrome; A clinical trial study. Immunopathologia Persa. 2019;5(2):e15. doi: 10.15171/ipp.2019.15.

  • 44.

    Au WY, Lie AK, Lam CC, Fan ST, Liu CL, Young K, et al. Tacrolimus (FK 506) induced thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura after ABO mismatched second liver transplantation: salvage with plasmapheresis and prostacyclin. Haematologica. 2000;85(6):659-62. [PubMed: 10870125].

  • 45.

    Pham PT, Peng A, Wilkinson AH, Gritsch HA, Lassman C, Pham PC, et al. Cyclosporine and tacrolimus-associated thrombotic microangiopathy. Am J Kidney Dis. 2000;36(4):844-50. doi: 10.1053/ajkd.2000.17690. [PubMed: 11007689].

  • 46.

    Yenigun EC, Turgut D, Piskinpasa S, Ozturk R, Dede F, Odabas AR. Cyclosporine is not inferior to cyclophosphamide in the treatment of idiopathic membranous glomerulonephritis: Single centre experience. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2016;1:316-22.

  • 47.

    Chen S, Ren S, Wang AY, Tran H, Li Z, Cheng X, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus monotherapy and cyclophosphamide combined with glucocorticoid in the treatment of adult primary membranous nephropathy: Protocol of a multicenter, randomized, controlled, open study. Trials. 2020;21(1):219. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-4144-3. [PubMed: 32093742]. [PubMed Central: PMC7041116].

  • 48.

    Rezakhaniha B, Arianpour N, Siroosbakhat S. Efficacy of desmopressin in treatment of nocturia in elderly men. J Res Med Sci. 2011;16(4):516-23. [PubMed: 22091268]. [PubMed Central: PMC3214357].

  • 49.

    Thompson A, Cattran DC, Blank M, Nachman PH. Complete and partial remission as surrogate end points in membranous nephropathy. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;26(12):2930-7. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2015010091. [PubMed: 26078365]. [PubMed Central: PMC4657845].

  • 50.

    Polanco N, Gutierrez E, Covarsi A, Ariza F, Carreno A, Vigil A, et al. Spontaneous remission of nephrotic syndrome in idiopathic membranous nephropathy. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;21(4):697-704. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2009080861. [PubMed: 20110379]. [PubMed Central: PMC2844306].

  • 51.

    Kim J, Patnaik N, Chorny N, Frank R, Infante L, Sethna C. Second-line immunosuppressive treatment of childhood nephrotic syndrome: A single-center experience. Nephron Extra. 2014;4(1):8-17. doi: 10.1159/000357355. [PubMed: 24575119]. [PubMed Central: PMC3934602].

  • 52.

    Ren H, Shen P, Li X, Pan X, Zhang W, Chen N. Tacrolimus versus cyclophosphamide in steroid-dependent or steroid-resistant focal segmental glomerulosclerosis: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Nephrol. 2013;37(1):84-90. doi: 10.1159/000346256. [PubMed: 23343906].

  • 53.

    Sinha A, Gupta A, Kalaivani M, Hari P, Dinda AK, Bagga A. Mycophenolate mofetil is inferior to tacrolimus in sustaining remission in children with idiopathic steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome. Kidney Int. 2017;92(1):248-57. doi: 10.1016/j.kint.2017.01.019. [PubMed: 28318625].

  • 54.

    Sinha A, Bajpai J, Saini S, Bhatia D, Gupta A, Puraswani M, et al. Serum-soluble urokinase receptor levels do not distinguish focal segmental glomerulosclerosis from other causes of nephrotic syndrome in children. Kidney Int. 2014;85(3):649-58. doi: 10.1038/ki.2013.546. [PubMed: 24429405].

  • 55.

    Zagury A, Oliveira AL, Montalvao JA, Novaes RH, Sa VM, Moraes CA, et al. Steroid-resistant idiopathic nephrotic syndrome in children: Long-term follow-up and risk factors for end-stage renal disease. J Bras Nefrol. 2013;35(3):191-9. doi: 10.5935/0101-2800.20130031. [PubMed: 24100738].

  • 56.

    Lim BJ, Yang JW, Do WS, Fogo AB. Pathogenesis of focal segmental glomerulosclerosis. J Pathol Transl Med. 2016;50(6):405-10. doi: 10.4132/jptm.2016.09.21. [PubMed: 27744657]. [PubMed Central: PMC5122732].

  • 57.

    Hjorten R, Anwar Z, Reidy KJ. Long-term outcomes of childhood onset nephrotic syndrome. Front Pediatr. 2016;4:53. doi: 10.3389/fped.2016.00053. [PubMed: 27252935]. [PubMed Central: PMC4879783].

  • 58.

    Fogo AB. Causes and pathogenesis of focal segmental glomerulosclerosis. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2015;11(2):76-87. doi: 10.1038/nrneph.2014.216. [PubMed: 25447132]. [PubMed Central: PMC4772430].

  • 59.

    Soltysiak J, Zachwieja J, Benedyk A, Lewandowska-Stachowiak M, Nowicki M, Ostalska-Nowicka D. Circulating suPAR as a biomarker of disease severity in children with proteinuric glomerulonephritis. Minerva Pediatr. 2019;71(1):4-11. doi: 10.23736/S0026-4946.16.04461-3. [PubMed: 27070416].

  • 60.

    Savin VJ, McCarthy ET, Sharma M. Permeability factors in nephrotic syndrome and focal segmental glomerulosclerosis. Kidney Res Clin Pract. 2012;31(4):205-13. doi: 10.1016/j.krcp.2012.10.002. [PubMed: 26889423]. [PubMed Central: PMC4716100].

  • 61.

    Roca N, Jatem E, Martin ML, Munoz M, Molina M, Martinez C, et al. Relationship between soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor and serum biomarkers of endothelial activation in patients with idiopathic nephrotic syndrome. Clin Kidney J. 2021;14(2):543-9. doi: 10.1093/ckj/sfz173. [PubMed: 33623677]. [PubMed Central: PMC7886542].

  • 62.

    Cara-Fuentes G, Araya C, Wei C, Rivard C, Ishimoto T, Reiser J, et al. CD80, suPAR and nephrotic syndrome in a case of NPHS2 mutation. Nefrologia. 2013;33(5):727-31. doi: 10.3265/Nefrologia.pre2013.Jun.12085. [PubMed: 24089165].

  • 63.

    Zhao Y, Liu L, Huang J, Shi S, Lv J, Liu G, et al. Plasma soluble urokinase receptor level is correlated with podocytes damage in patients with IgA nephropathy. PLoS One. 2015;10(7). e0132869. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132869. [PubMed: 26167688]. [PubMed Central: PMC4500560].

  • 64.

    Huang J, Liu G, Zhang YM, Cui Z, Wang F, Liu XJ, et al. Urinary soluble urokinase receptor levels are elevated and pathogenic in patients with primary focal segmental glomerulosclerosis. BMC Med. 2014;12:81. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-12-81. [PubMed: 24884842]. [PubMed Central: PMC4064821].

  • 65.

    Enocsson H, Wettero J, Skogh T, Sjowall C. Soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor levels reflect organ damage in systemic lupus erythematosus. Transl Res. 2013;162(5):287-96. doi: 10.1016/j.trsl.2013.07.003. [PubMed: 23916811].

  • 66.

    Zaitoon YA, Shehab AA, Mohamed NA, Morad CS, Yassine EM. Plasma soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor levels in systemic lupus erythematosus patients. Egypt J Immunol. 2018;25(1):35-43. [PubMed: 30242996].

  • 67.

    Noone DG, Iijima K, Parekh R. Idiopathic nephrotic syndrome in children. Lancet. 2018;392(10141):61-74. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30536-1. [PubMed: 29910038].

  • 68.

    Vivarelli M, Massella L, Ruggiero B, Emma F. Minimal change disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017;12(2):332-45. doi: 10.2215/CJN.05000516. [PubMed: 27940460]. [PubMed Central: PMC5293332].

  • 69.

    Eddy AA, Symons JM. Nephrotic syndrome in childhood. Lancet. 2003;362(9384):629-39. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14184-0. [PubMed: 12944064].

  • 70.

    Trivedi M, Pasari A, Chowdhury AR, Abraham-Kurien A, Pandey R. The spectrum of focal segmental glomerulosclerosis from eastern India: Is it different? Indian J Nephrol. 2018;28(3):215-9. doi: 10.4103/ijn.IJN_115_17. [PubMed: 29962672]. [PubMed Central: PMC5998723].

  • 71.

    Widiasta A, Sribudiani Y, Nugrahapraja H, Hilmanto D, Sekarwana N, Rachmadi D. Potential role of ACE2-related microRNAs in COVID-19-associated nephropathy. Noncoding RNA Res. 2020;5(4):153-66. doi: 10.1016/j.ncrna.2020.09.001. [PubMed: 32923747]. [PubMed Central: PMC7480227].

  • 72.

    Huai Q, Mazar AP, Kuo A, Parry GC, Shaw DE, Callahan J, et al. Structure of human urokinase plasminogen activator in complex with its receptor. Science. 2006;311(5761):656-9. doi: 10.1126/science.1121143. [PubMed: 16456079].

  • 73.

    Campbell KN, Tumlin JA. Protecting podocytes: A key target for therapy of focal segmental glomerulosclerosis. Am J Nephrol. 2018;47 Suppl 1:14-29. doi: 10.1159/000481634. [PubMed: 29852493]. [PubMed Central: PMC6589822].

  • 74.

    Kronbichler A, Saleem MA, Meijers B, Shin JI. Soluble urokinase receptors in focal segmental glomerulosclerosis: A review on the scientific point of view. J Immunol Res. 2016;2016:2068691. doi: 10.1155/2016/2068691. [PubMed: 27504461]. [PubMed Central: PMC4967695].

  • 75.

    Gee HY, Zhang F, Ashraf S, Kohl S, Sadowski CE, Vega-Warner V, et al. KANK deficiency leads to podocyte dysfunction and nephrotic syndrome. J Clin Invest. 2015;125(6):2375-84. doi: 10.1172/JCI79504. [PubMed: 25961457]. [PubMed Central: PMC4497755].

  • 76.

    Lennon R, Watson L, Webb NJA. Nephrotic syndrome in children. Paediatr Child Health. 2010;20(1):36-42. doi: 10.1016/j.paed.2009.10.001.

  • 77.

    Hoefele J, Beck BB, Weber LT, Brinkkötter P. Steroid-resistentes nephrotisches syndrom. Medizinische Genetik. 2018;30(4):410-21. doi: 10.1007/s11825-018-0215-1.

Copyright © 2021, Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.