Prospective analysis reveals proteinuria and acute kidney injury in patients receiving CAR-T therapy, indicating systemic inflammation impacts kidney health.
Background The nephrotoxicity of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy has been reported, yet data on urinary abnormalities remain limited. This study aimed to characterize proteinuria, acute kidney injury (AKI), and associated electrolyte disorders in patients treated with CAR-T therapy. Methods A prospective analysis was conducted on 63 patients treated with CAR-T therapy between June 2020 and December 2023. Blood tests were collected daily during hospitalization and a first morning urine void was collected on day of infusion (D0), +7 (D7) and +14 (D14). Results During the study period, 12 patients (19 %) developed AKI. The median urine protein-to-creatinine ratio (uPCR) increased significantly from 0.12 0.17 g/g on D0 to 0.39 g/g on D7, returning to baseline levels at D14. Proteinuria greater than 0.5 g/g was detected in 38% of patients at day +7. Patients with AKI before D7 had higher proteinuria than patients without AKI or AKI after D7. Proteinuria was associated with higher levels of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), interleukin-6 levels and cytokine release syndrome (CRS) grade ≥3. Patients with higher proteinuria had more progression of hematological disease and increased mortality in the first year. Additionally, 60 patients (95%) experienced at least one electrolyte disorder, hypophosphatemia being the most frequent. Higher proteinuria was associated with lower levels of phosphorus, potassium and sodium. Conclusions CAR-T therapy is associated with transient renal adverse effects, including proteinuria, AKI and electrolyte disorders. Systemic inflammation-mediated tubular injury contributed to these adverse effects. These findings enhance our understanding of CAR-T therapy nephrotoxicity. Proteinuria levels at D0 may help predict the risk of be associated with disease progression and mortality within the first year.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moncho et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: