Article Text

Download PDFPDF
CASE REPORT
Minimal change disease with maximum immunosuppression: successful treatment of steroid-dependent minimal change disease with rituximab
  1. Helena Pinto1,
  2. Nuno Oliveira1,
  3. Fátima Costa1,
  4. Rui Alves1,2
  1. 1Nephrology, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
  2. 2Clínica Universitária de Nefrologia, Universidade de Coimbra Faculdade de Medicina, Coimbra, Portugal
  1. Correspondence to Dr Helena Pinto, helenasofiapinto{at}gmail.com

Summary

Minimal change disease (MCD) is usually steroid sensitive, although in case of steroid dependent and multiple relapses we can struggle with different immunosuppressive agents, sometimes with no response. Rituximab has been emerging as an alternative therapeutic option.

We describe a case of a young patient with MCD that had frequent relapses and steroid dependency, with no response to several immunosuppressive agents during 15 years of disease. He was kept under high-dose steroids and ciclosporin. He started treatment with rituximab (two administrations of 1 g 2 weeks apart, repeating after 6 months). The steroids dose was gradually reduced and the ciclosporin was stopped. During the entire 2 years follow-up period, he remained in remission and had no adverse events.

This remarkable outcome reinforces the option of using rituximab in difficult cases, allowing the reduction of steroid burden and its adverse effects, which is of extreme importance, especially in young patients.

  • renal system
  • nephrotic syndrome
  • therapeutic indications

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors HP contributed to the article with the conception of the manuscript, to the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data and drafting the work. NO contributed to the article with the conception of the manuscript, with bibliographic research and revising it critically for important intellectual content. FC contributed to the article with the conception of the manuscript, to revising it critically for important intellectual content and to the approval of the final version of the manuscript. RA contributed to the article revising it critically for important intellectual content and to the approval of the final version of the manuscript.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Obtained.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.