Lupus nephritis: current update

Lupus nephritis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. The general consensus is that 60% of lupus patients will develop clinically relevant nephritis at some time in the course of their illness. Prompt recognition and treatment of renal disease is important, as early response to therapy is correlated with better outcome. The present review summarizes our current understanding of the pathogenic mechanisms underlying lupus nephritis and how the disease is currently diagnosed and treated.

Ideally, urinary protein excretion is gauged using a 24-hour urine collection. Although universally practiced, variable results may occur over a short period of time, probably due to changes in physical activity or collection errors. Th e latter problem can be remedied by quantifying total creatinine in the same 24-hour urine collection. Th e total creatinine measurement should approximate values obtained in 24-hour urine collections from the same patient and should be comparable with average values obtained in population studies of men (20 mg/kg/ day) and women (15 mg/kg/day). Alternatively, the urinary protein excretion rate can be estimated by assaying the protein/creatinine ratio in a random daytime urinary sample. Th is ratio approximates the total number of grams per day of proteinuria, but it would be optimal to confi rm the validity of this method in individual patients, as described [5].
Th e urinary sediment is also useful for characterizing renal disease activity, since the presence of hematuria, leukocyturia or casts are typical only during periods of disease activity. Interestingly, in one large series of 520 cases of SLE, red cell casts were only present in 39 cases (7.5% of patients). In descending order, the most common abnormal urinary sediment fi ndings in LN are leukocyturia, hematuria, granular casts and hyaline casts [6].
A rising anti-DNA antibody titer and hypo-complement emia, especially with low complement C3, are strong indicators of active lupus renal disease, although serology cannot be used in isolation to diagnose or monitor renal disease. Hypo-albuminemia accompanied by signifi cant proteinuria is a component of the nephrotic syndrome that may accompany active lupus renal disease. Hypercholesterolemia is another marker and also a clinical complication of the nephrotic syndrome that can accompany active LN [5].
Th ere is increasing recognition of the importance of tubulo interstitial injury in LN. In the majority of patients, the severity of interstitial infl ammation parallels the degree of involvement of the glomerulus. Tubular damage, fi brosis and atrophy can be associated with hyperuricemia and renal tubular acidosis [5].

Histologic diagnosis of lupus nephritis
Kidney biopsy is the mainstay for the diagnosis of LN. Material obtained by renal biopsy is evaluated by light microscopy, immunofl uorescence and electron micro scopy. In many cases, renal biopsy is instrumental in establishing the diagnosis of SLE because nephritis can be the fi rst clinical manifestation of SLE in up to 15 to 20% of patients [5]. In the majority of cases, however, the diagnosis of SLE is already established. In such situations, renal biopsy helps to establish a precise diagnosis of LN, the extent of histopathological chronicity and activity, disease prog nosis, and also serves as a guide for therapy. Th e appearance of any new markers of kidney disease such as proteinuria, hematuria, active urinary sediment or rise in serum creatinine in a SLE patient should also prompt a renal biopsy. Moreover, one should consider a follow-up biopsy in a stable patient with established LN if the aforesaid markers reappear or worsen.

Histologic classifi cation of lupus nephritis
Because of the extremely diverse histopathology of LN, several classifi cations have been proposed over the past four decades -the earliest schemes being proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1974, further refi ned by Austin and colleagues [7,8]. In order to further standardize defi nitions and to facilitate uniformity in reporting, as well as to eliminate ambiguities and inconsistencies in the WHO classifi cation, the International Society of Nephrology/Renal Pathology Society (ISN/ RPS) classifi cation was formulated in 2003, as detailed in Table 1 [9]. Th is classifi cation defi nes more precisely all glomerulo nephritis (GN) classes and clearly delineates activity and chronicity.
Two recent studies demonstrate the superior reproduci bility of the ISN/RPS classifi cation compared with the WHO classifi cation of LN [10,11]. In a large study involving 20 centers in the UK, renal pathologists classifi ed cases of LN using the WHO system and then reclassifi ed the same cases using the ISN/RPS 2003 classi fi cation scheme one year later. A signifi cantly higher inter observer reproducibility was observed using the ISN/RPS (2003) classifi cation than using the modifi ed WHO (1982) classifi cation [10].

Pathogenesis of lupus nephritis
Multiple mechanisms lead to LN, as reviewed elsewhere [12][13][14]. Th e pathogenic events leading to LN can be parsed into two phases: systemic events in the immune system, and local events in the end organs (see Figure 1) . Th e present review focuses on the cellular and molecular mechanisms that drive LN pathogenesis within the kidneys. Systemic events that orchestrate autoimmunity in SLE have been discussed in previous reviews [12][13][14], and will not be examined here.

Role of lymphocytes in lupus nephritis
T cells rank among the most conspicuous infl ammatory cells within the infl amed kidney in both SLE patients and mouse models of LN [15,16]. T cells cloned from the renal interstitium of MRL/lpr lupus mice have been shown to be autoreactive to renal antigens, to induce tubular epithelial and mesangial cell proliferation, and to produce cytokines such as IFNγ. Th e pathogenic role of T cells within the kidneys has been demonstrated through the use of renal transplantation in MHC II-defi cient or CD4 -/lupus-prone mice and treatment with anti-CD4 antibody [17][18][19][20]. Radeke and colleagues have demonstrated that CD4 + T cells alone were suffi cient as initiators and eff ectors in nephritis, by recognizing specifi c antigens expressed within the glomeruli in an experimental mouse model of GN [21]. Although the antigen specifi city of intrarenal T cells in LN remains elusive, their eff ector function has been shown to be mediated through a couple of key cell-surface molecules and released cytokines. Substantial evidence has been garnered for the pathogenic role of CD40 ligand (CD40L), a member of the TNF family [21][22][23][24][25][26]. Th e interaction of T-cell CD40L and CD40 ex pressed on B cells plays a central role in humoral immune responses, having the capacity to induce clonal expan sion, immunoglobulin class switch and diff erentiation of B cells into plasma cells. In addition, CD40 is expressed on various eff ectors cells, such as macrophages, neutro phils, dendritic cells (DCs), as well as resident renal cells, suggesting that CD40-CD40L interactions may be important in driving eff ector functions of other CD40-expressing cells within the kidneys [27][28][29][30][31]. CD40 expression is markedly upregulated in proliferative lupus nephritis (PLN), in parallel with the increased presence of CD40L-bearing T cells in kidneys [29]. Activated T cells co-cultured with renal tubular epithelial cell elaborate high levels of monocyte chemotactic protein-1, RANTES, IL-8 and interferon-inducible protein-10 from tubular epithelial cells, mediated in part through CD40-CD40L interactions [30,31].
Among the cytokines released by T cells, a predominance of T-helper type 1 response has been documented by several studies in human LN [32][33][34][35][36], further supported by blocking (or gene ablation) studies in Blocking this axis is emerging as a promising therapeutic avenue, based on recent clinical trials. (4) CD20, CD22, and CD19 are receptors on B cells. Several trials are aimed at depleting B cells in SLE, using antibodies to these B-cell molecules. (5) The activation of autoreactive B cells (and other leukocytes) in SLE is mediated by several signaling axes; some of these have been therapeutically targeted with success in preclinical models of the disease, and in limited clinical trials. (6) Type 1 interferon-elicited gene signatures have emerged as a distinctive feature of SLE. Based on these exciting leads, therapeutics targeting this axis are currently in active trials. (7) Activated lymphocytes and myeloid cells utilize a variety of cell adhesion molecules in order to gain access to the target organs. Therapeutics targeting these adhesion molecules and/or vascular addressins have shown promise in preclinical models of lupus. (8) Clearance of immune complexes is mediated by complement (receptor) and Fc/FcR-mediated mechanisms; targeting these nodes has also shown promise in murine lupus. (9) Activated leukocytes (as well as resident renal cells) elaborate a large spectrum of disease mediators, including various cytokines and chemokines. Blockade of these mediators also hold promise in ameliorating LN, although we are in the infancy of these studies. murine LN [37][38][39][40]. However, there is also some evidence that T-helper type 2 cytokines can also have a potential impact on LN. In several lupus-prone mouse models, engineering the upregulation of IL-4 worsens LN, whereas IL-4 blockade or gene ablation ameliorates disease [41][42][43][44]. Given that IL-4 has also been implicated in fi broblast proliferation, collagen gene expression, collagen synthesis and transforming growth factor beta (TGFβ) production, IL-4 may directly act upon renal cells to perpetuate glomerulosclerosis and chronic renal fi brosis, partly through its eff ect on extracellular matrix generation [44].

Role of myeloid cells in lupus nephritis
Besides lymphocytes, myeloid cells also play critical roles in LN. Within normal human kidneys, at least two myeloid DC subtypes characterized by BDCA-1 + DC-SIGN + and BDCA-1 + DC-SIGNand one plasmacytoid DC subtype defi ned as BDCA-2 + DC-SIGNare abundantly located in the tubulointerstitium, but are rarely observed within the glomeruli [45][46][47]. In LN patients, strong renal infi ltrates of BDCA1 + , BDCA3 + and BDCA4 + DCs have been reported. Notably, DCs infi ltrated both the tubulointerstitium and the glomeruli, with the extent of infi ltration correlating well with the severity of renal damage, notably class III/IV LN [48,49]. As in normal kidneys, DC infi ltrates in diseased human kidneys were mostly immature, marked by the absence of DC-LAMP + cells [45,48]. In contrast to the renal DCs, a signifi cant decrease of myeloid DCs and/or plasmacytoid DCs has been observed in the peripheral blood of lupus patients [48][49][50][51]. It has been suggested that the decreased number of DCs in peripheral blood may be a consequence of their enhanced migration into the end organs [49,52]. Studies in murine models have also reported increased infi ltration of DCs into the renal glomeruli and tubulointerstitium [53][54][55][56]. Relatively little is known about how renal infi ltrating DCs contribute to the pathogenesis of LN, although a couple of scenarios have been suggested. First, DCs may elaborate proinfl ammatory and profi brotic factors, including TNFα, IL-6, IL-1, IL-18, IFNα and TGFβ [57]. Second, DCs can migrate to local lymph nodes and potentially present renal autoantigens to T lymphocytes [58]. Th ird, since renal DCs express various co-stimulatory molecules such as CD40L, MHC II and chemokine receptors such as CCR1 and CCR5, they could directly interact with and activate intrinsic renal cells and other infi ltrating infl ammatory cells, hence perpetuating disease [58][59][60].
Macrophages represent a second myeloid cell type that is recruited to the kidneys in LN [54,[61][62][63]. Recruited macrophages are located in both the glomerular tuft and tubulointerstitium, and constitute the major cell type in glomerular crescents [61][62][63][64]. Renal infi ltrating macrophages exhibit elevated expression of CD11b, OX40L, CD80 and CD86, being markers of disease onset in LN. Once recruited, activated macrophages could play a wide variety of roles in meditating renal injury, largely by secreting various proinfl ammatory mediators (including TNF and IL-1), reactive oxygen species and proteolytic enzymes. Although the obligatory role for macrophages has been demonstrated in experimental GN models [65][66][67][68], whether they are equally essential for LN remains unknown.

Role of resident renal cells in lupus nephritis
Th e major resident cells in the kidney include mesangial cells, endothelial cells and epithelial cells. Th ese intrinsic renal cells represent both the cause and the victim of various insults leading to GN [69,70]. Perhaps the most compelling evidence that intrinsic renal cells play an important role in immune-meditated GN has come from bone-marrow transfer or kidney-transplant studies in mice subjected to anti-glomerular basement membrane nephritis. Studies of this nature have helped outline the disease role of MHC II, TNF and Fn14 on intrinsic renal cells [71][72][73].
Beside these isolated examples, we know very little about whether other molecules need to be intrinsically expressed within resident renal cells in order for immune-mediated GN to ensue. Some studies have suggested that resident renal cells from lupus-prone mice are intrinsically aberrant; for example, it has been reported that mesangial cells from lupus mice have a decreased threshold for the production of infl ammatory mediators, and do indeed elaborate more monocyte chemo tactic protein-1 and osteopontin [74][75][76]. We currently have no insights into whether intrinsic renal cells may be fundamentally diff er ent in human LN compared with what we know about the role of infi ltrating leukocytes in LN. Th erefore, our understanding of how intrinsic renal cells contribute to disease is rudimentary.

Role of cytokines and chemokines in lupus nephritis
As alluded to above, cytokines have emerged as important players in the pathogenesis of LN. Whereas some cytokines that aggravate LN may act predominantly in a systemic fashion (for example, BAFF), other cytokines such as IL-17, IFNα and TGFβ have been shown to have a role in systemic autoimmunity as well as local renal disease. Increased IL-17-producing T cells have been documented within the kidneys in both SLE patients and SNF1 lupus-prone mice, with disease treatment being associated with reduced numbers of these cells [77,78]. Several independent experiments have found peripheral blood mononuclear cells from SLE patients to exhibit a prominent type I interferon-inducible gene expression profi le, referred to as the interferon signature, supporting the hypothesis that type I interferons may play a key role in lupus pathogenesis [79][80][81]. Although IFN-I is known to impact systemic immunity in a variety of ways, recent evidence indicates that IFN-I produced by resident renal cells may be also contribute to renal infl ammation [82].
TGFβ is a potent multifunctional cytokine that exerts an anti-infl ammatory and immunosuppressive role systemically, but a profi brotic role locally within diseased kidneys. Th e action of persistent, dysregulated TGFβ production on the extracellular matrix drives progressive renal disease in LN [83]. Elevated TGFβ expression has been found in SLE renal tissue, correlating well with histological activity [84][85][86]. Also, disease remission in LN is related to decreased renal TGFβ expression [85]. Th e collective data in the fi eld strongly indicate that reduced TGFβ in immune cells predisposes mice to immune dysregulation and autoantibody production, where as enhanced TGFβ expression within the kidneys leads to dysregulated tissue repair, progressive fi bro genesis and eventual end-organ damage [87]. Hence, TGFβ is a double-edged sword -subduing systemic immunity, but aggravating chronic nephritis.
Since most of the above cytokines and chemokines can be elaborated systemically as well as locally within the kidneys, it remains to be established whether renal expression of any of these molecules is necessary for LN. Th e complex pathogenic cascades leading to SLE lend themselves to therapeutic intervention at multiple nodes, some systemic and some intrarenal, some of which are discussed in Figure 1. Several of the indicated therapeutic strategies have only been tried in preclinical models of LN, whereas others are currently in active clinical trials, as discussed below. As we gain better insights into these molecular cascades and their druggability, the goal is to eventually identify the optimal combinatorial regimes that could potentially silence all critical pathways leading to disease.

Treatment of lupus nephritis
Before the advent of immunosuppressive regimens, a 2-year survival rate <10% was observed in patients with diff use PLN treated with low-dose steroids [114]. Since then, the survival of patients with PLN has improved considerably due to earlier recognition of renal disease, aggressive immunosuppression and improved supportive care [115]. Numerous prognostic factors have been identifi ed in LN. Among others, nonwhite race (for exam ple, black, Afro-Caribbean, Hispanic), poor socio economic status, uncontrolled hypertension, a high activity and chronicity index on kidney biopsy, renal impairment at baseline, poor initial response to therapy and nephritic relapses have been associated with poor outcome. Lack of adherence to therapy is an underestimated cause of treatment failure [116,117]. Th e therapeutic goals for a patient with newly diagnosed LN are to achieve prompt renal remission using induction therapy, to avoid renal fl ares and chronic renal impairment using maintenance therapy, and to minimize treatment-associated toxicity. Th ese goals are discussed further below.

Induction therapy with intravenous cyclophosphamide
In 1986, Austin and colleagues from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) published the results of a large randomized trial demon strating the role of intravenous (i.v.) cyclophosphamide (CYC) as an induction therapy, as listed in Table 2 [118]. In a later NIH trial, combination therapy of i.v. methyl prednisolone and i.v. CYC was shown to achieve a higher rate of renal remission than i.v. methylprednisolone alone [119]. After a median followup of 11 years, none of the 20 patients who received combination therapy experi enced end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Despite excellent effi cacy, i.v. CYC treatment is associated with a high rate of premature ovarian failure (ranging from 38 to 52% of women at risk), increased risk of severe infections, a signifi cant percentage of treatment failures and a high rate of renal relapse [120].
In order to reduce total CYC exposure and toxicity, low-dose intermittent i.v. CYC was next investigated. Th e Euro-Lupus Nephritis Trial compared a NIH-like highdose regimen of i.v. CYC (six monthly pulses followed by two quarterly pulses) with the Euro-Lupus low-dose regimen (six pulses of i.v. CYC every 2 weeks at a fi xed dose of 500 mg) [121]. Th e rates of renal remission were not statistically diff erent between the two groups, but treatment-related adverse eff ects were less frequent with the reduced-dose regimen. Limitations of the Euro-Lupus trial include a population with relatively milder renal disease (mean creatinine 1 to 1.3 mg/dl; mean proteinuria 2.5 to 3.5 g/day for both groups), with almost 85% of the patients being Caucasian. Nevertheless, lowdose i.v. CYC is an option -particularly for low-risk Caucasians with less severe PLN.

Noncyclophosphamide induction regimens: mycophenolate mofetil
Recently, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) has emerged as a promising alternative therapy for both induction and maintenance treatment of LN. Mycophenolic acid, the active metabolite of MMF, is an inhibitor of the ratelimiting enzyme (inosine monophosphate dehydro ge nase) involved in de novo purine synthesis [122]. As lymphocytes do not possess a salvage pathway for the generation of these nucleotides, MMF results in selective blockade of Bcell and T-cell proliferation. Unlike CYC, mycophenolic acid has little impact on other tissues with high proliferative activity (for example, neutrophils, skin, intestine, bone marrow, gonads), which do possess a salvage pathway for nucleotide synthesis. Th is accounts for the metabolite's more favorable toxicity profi le com pared with CYC, and this renders MMF particularly attractive.
As listed in Table 2, Chan and colleagues randomized 42 patients with PLN to 6 months of induction with MMF (2 g/day) or oral CYC (2.5 mg/kg/day), both with concurrent oral prednisolone [123]. During the maintenance phase, those patients in the MMF arm continued the drug at a reduced dose (1 g/day) and those in the CYC arm switched to azathioprine (AZA) (1.5 mg/kg/ day) for 6 months. Th is study suggested that induction treatment with MMF was as eff ective as oral CYC, but with fewer side eff ects. Although this study included only Chinese patients and excluded patients with poor prognostic indicators, a more recent study has demonstrated the increased effi cacy of MMF induction in a high-risk, multiracial, American population in which 56% of the patients were African American [124] ( Table 2). Limitations of the latter study included its short follow-up duration, the crossover design and the fact that patients with rapidly progressive renal failure were excluded. Later on, another US study, the Aspreva Lupus Management Study, comprising high risk population with proliferative LN demonstrated similar effi cacies of MMF and intravenous CYC as induction therapies [125] ( Table 2). Furthermore, it was observed that, race, ethnicity and geographical region may aff ect treatment response; more Black and Hispanic patients responded to MMF than i.v. CYC. As the study was not designed for this sub-group analysis, it is diffi cult to draw fi rm conclusions about their importance.

Maintenance therapies
Once a patient has attained remission, immunosup pression is given to help maintain remission, to prevent relapse, and to decrease the risk of developing ESRD. In the NIH trials, i.v. CYC at 3-month intervals for 18 to 24 months was used as maintenance therapy [118]. In the past decade, sequential regimens of short-term CYC induction therapy, followed either by MMF or AZA maintenance, have proven to be effi cacious and safe, with reduced hazards, compared with long-term exposure to CYC. Using a similar regime, Contreras and colleagues have reported similar fi ndings in a randomized controlled study that included a large number of high-risk non-Caucasian patients, predominantly African Americans and Hispanics [126] (Table 2). In a recently concluded Euro-Lupus Nephritis Trial multi-center trial (MAINTAIN Nephritis Trial) comprising 105 patient with proliferative LN, no signifi cant diff erence in renal fl ares was observed between AZA and MMF as maintenance therapy over 3 years of follow up [127].
Another trial comparing MMF against AZA as remission-maintaining treatment for PLN following induction with a short course of intravenous CYC, the main tenance phase of the Aspreva Lupus Management Study [125], has recently been concluded and the results were presented at the American Society of Nephrology Meeting in 2010. It did not show any diff erence in renal fl ares between the two maintenance therapies (Table 3).

Adjunctive therapy
As co-morbidities can signifi cantly worsen outcome, these have to be actively managed in LN. Accelerated athero genesis and coronary vascular disease are now recognized complications of SLE [128]. Recognized risk factors include hypertension, hyperlipidemia, nephrotic syn drome, prolonged corticosteroid use, anti phospholipid antibody syndrome and, in some cases, the vascular risks asso ciated with chronic kidney disease. Th is underscores the importance of aggressively managing these modifi able risk factors [129]. Although few data are available specifi cally for patients with LN, it appears prudent to apply the knowledge gleaned from studying the general population with chronic kidney disease. Tight blood pressure control, the use of angiotensin-converting en zyme inhibi tors and/or angiotensin receptor blockers, and correction of dyslipid emia are thus strongly recom mended. More over, patients with chronic kidney disease should be screened and treated for complications such as anemia and bone and mineral disease (secondary hyper para thyroidism, hyperphosphatemia, vitamin D defi ci ency). In addition, measures should be taken to prevent glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, including the use of calcium, vitamin D supplements, and bisphosphonates when necessary [130].

Novel approaches in the treatment for PLN
Despite recent strides in the treatment of LN, about 20% of patients do not respond but progress to ESRD. Moreover, toxicity of the current immunosuppressive regimens remains unacceptably high. With a better under standing of the molecular mechanisms underlying LN, as discussed above (Figure 1), several newer and targeted therapeutic approaches are currently being tested, aimed at improved effi cacy and reduced toxicity. Th ese include LPJ394, rituximab, epratuzumab, belimumab, and abatacept, as summarized in Table 3. Th is targeted therapy constitutes another area of research that is rapidly burgeoning with ongoing contributions from academia and from industry. As ongoing eff orts in transcriptomics and proteomics further elucidate the molecular basis of lupus pathogenesis, the drugs that dominate the therapeutic landscape are likely to evolve rapidly.

Treatment of resistant lupus nephritis
While there has been signifi cant improvement in how we manage LN, up to 20% of patients with LN are refractory to initial induction treatment, while 30 to 50% of patients still progress to ESRD [136]. Many of these patients have poor prognostic factors including African American race, delayed initiation of treatment, poor compliance, and arterial hypertension at presentation [137]. More aggressive CYC regimens have been tried in these patients. One method involves the use of oral CYC instead of i.v. CYC. As the cumulative dose is higher in patients who receive daily oral dosing, it may be expected to be more eff ective albeit being more toxic; hence, this treatment regime should be limited to 6 months and should only be given to patients with multiple poor prognostic factors [138].

Intravenous immunoglobulin
Intravenous immunoglobulin is another modality that has been tested. Th e effi cacy of intravenous immunoglobulin in controlling disease activity and ameliorating classical disease manifestations ranges from 33 to 100% in diff erent case series surveyed in a recent meta-analysis [139]. Other analyses have documented similar positive results, with particular improvements in the clinical and histological readouts of nephritis [140]. Despite encourag ing reports describing the effi cacy of intravenous immunoglobulin therapy in SLE, most of the data are based on case reports and small series. Furthermore, the long-term effi cacy, optimal dosage and duration of therapy of intravenous immunoglobulin in LN remain to be established. Nevertheless, intravenous immuno globulin can be considered in patients with LN either as salvage immunotherapy in severe cases that are nonresponsive or nontolerant to conventional treatment or in patients who experience severe infectious complications.

Calcineurin inhibitors
Open-labeled uncontrolled studies have reported effi cacy and tolerability of cyclosporin A in the treatment of PLN [141]. No published comparative trials between CYC and cyclosporin A in adult SLE patients are currently available. In an open study of 11 patients with LN, eight of whom were resistant or intolerant to CYC or AZA, signifi cant improvement in proteinuria and anti-dsDNA titers was reported after treatment with cyclosporin A for 12 months [142].

Immunoablative therapy
Immunoablative therapy (that is, daily high doses of CYC followed by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplan tation is another option that can be entertained in severe refractory LN. Clinical remissions have been observed in about 65% of cases [143]. However, the relatively high incidence of toxicities and mortality remains a concern. Conclusion LN remains a major manifestation of SLE, as 60% of SLE patients may develop this end-organ involvement. Th e epidemiology and clinical manifestations of LN have been well studied over the past few decades. Th e 2003 addition to the ISN/RPS classifi cation of the modifi ed WHO schema of histo logical classifi cation of LN has signifi cantly improved how the disease is classifi ed, managed and prognos ticated. In terms of the underlying pathogenic mecha nisms, we have gained signifi cant insights regarding the cells and molecules that orchestrate the systemic as well as the target organ phases of the disease. How we manage LN has also evolved signifi cantly over the past decade, thanks to multiple clinical trials. Currently, the optimal induction therapy appears to be i.v. CYC or oral myco phenolate, while maintenance is best achieved using oral mycophenolate, AZA or i.v. CYC. Newer targeted therapeutics built upon recent molecular insights are likely to revolutionize how LN is managed in the clinic in the coming years.