Maxime Taghavi

Catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome (CAPS) is a rare and life-threatening condition characterized by the persistence of antiphospholipid antibodies and occurrence of multiple vascular occlusive events. CAPS currently remains a diagnostic challenge and requires urgent treatment. The diagnosis of CAPS is made difficult by classification criteria used as diagnostic criteria in clinical practice, knowledge derived from retrospective data and case reports, confounding clinical and biological features, and its rapid onset and mortality. The absence of prospective studies of CAPS limits the strength of evidence for guideline treatment protocols. This comprehensive review summarizes the current understanding of the disease, and discusses how the 2023 ACR/EULAR Antiphospholipid Syndrome Classification Criteria impact the definition and therapeutic management of CAPS, which is considered the most severe form of APS. The correct integration of 2023 ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria is poised to facilitate CAPS diagnosis, particularly in critical situations, offering a promising avenue for improved outcomes.

Assessing transplant suitability can be a meticulous process, involving multiple investigations and various specialties. This process is well described in the latest KDIGO guidelines. We recently asked ourselves if those guidelines are still relevant to current clinical practice given the rapid evolution of modern medicine, especially in the field of oncology. We present the complicated case of a 60-year-old woman with ESKD (end-stage kidney disease) and a prior history of cancer, with secondary urological complications, to illustrate different interesting considerations for KT (kidney transplant). Our patient was diagnosed with rectal cancer at the age of 46, for which she was treated with surgery and radiotherapy before developing chronic radiation cystitis. This was followed by repeated urinary tract infections and secondary nephrolithiasis, ultimately leading to severe bilateral hydronephrosis and obstructive ESKD. We know that the type of cancer and its characteristics should be evaluated in detail, and we should offer patient-tailored recommendations after a multidisciplinary evaluation. In our case, the prior rectal cancer is not to be feared because curative treatment has been achieved and the patient has been cancer-free for 14 years, knowing that this type of cancer is not at high risk of recurrence after transplantation. The frail urological anatomy, however, represents a bigger challenge. Not only does it complicate the technical feasibility of KT but it also increases the risk of complications and graft failure. It is difficult to clearly determine KT possibility when considering it in such patients. What is clear on the other hand is that such a decision should be taken considering the choice of the patient and the involved physicians. We should also consider the potential benefits and risks of KT in order to make an informed decision.