Education Use Only
For educational use only — Not for clinical decision-making without independent verification
Medical Associates  ·  Department of Nephrology ← urinenephrology.org
Clinical Mastery  ·  AKI Advanced

Acute Interstitial Nephritis: Complete Etiology and Etiology-Directed Treatment

Andrew Bland, MD, FACP, FAAP UICOMP · UDPA · Butler COM 2026-07-30 26 min read

Acute Interstitial Nephritis: Complete Etiology and Etiology-Directed Treatment

How to Read This Page — Evidence Provenance

AIN has essentially no randomized treatment evidence — with exactly one exception, noted in the IgG4 section. Rather than blur that, every substantive claim on this page carries a provenance tag.
EVIDENCE-BASED

Anchored to a named, citable source with a PMID, listed in Verified Sources. The claim came from the literature, not from habit.

PRACTICE-BASED

Clinical experience and conventional nephrology teaching where the literature is thin or absent. Real and useful — but you should know which is which before you act on it.

Why this matters more here than in most topics

The entire second-line drug literature in AIN rests on case series in the single digits. When a treatment recommendation below is tagged PRACTICE-BASED, that is not hedging — it is an accurate description of the state of the field.


1. Definition and Mechanism

EVIDENCE-BASED Acute interstitial nephritis is immune-mediated inflammation of the renal interstitium and tubules with the glomeruli spared, accounting for 5–15% of AKI among hospitalized patients and roughly 15–27% of biopsies performed for unexplained AKI1,3,4.

EVIDENCE-BASED The effector mechanism is T-cell mediated delayed-type hypersensitivity1,2. Drug or metabolite haptenizes native tubular protein, generating a neo-antigen; CD4+ helper T cells recognize the drug-laden tubular epithelium; a mixed infiltrate of T cells and eosinophils enters the interstitium; cytotoxic T cells attack tubular epithelium. Interstitial edema and infiltrate dominate, with minimal tubular necrosis — the key histologic separation from ATN.

The single fact that drives the whole treatment section

Because the effector is a T cell, B-cell–directed therapy is mechanistically mismatched in ordinary drug-induced AIN. This is why rituximab — the most common second-line question — does not belong here, and why it does belong in the antibody-mediated variants. Hold this thought through Section 6.

EVIDENCE-BASED The reaction is not dose-dependent and recurs rapidly on re-exposure — both hallmarks of an allergic rather than toxic mechanism2,3.


2. Etiology I — Drugs

EVIDENCE-BASED Drug exposure accounts for roughly 70–75% of biopsy-proven AIN. Within that, pooled biopsy series place antibiotics at approximately 49%, PPIs at approximately 14%, and NSAIDs at approximately 11%, with omeprazole the most implicated single agent (approximately 12%) and amoxicillin second (approximately 8%)1,4.

Latency is agent-specific — the “2 to 8 weeks” rule is a trap

Antibiotics 1–3 weeks · PPIs 3–6 months · checkpoint inhibitors 3–12 months · mesalamine months to years. The most commonly missed AIN in practice is a slow creatinine drift on a chronic PPI, written off as CKD progression.

2.1 Antibiotics EVIDENCE-BASED

ClassAgentsDistinguishing features
PenicillinsMethicillin (historical), nafcillin, oxacillin, amoxicillin, ampicillin, piperacillinHapten mechanism. Methicillin/nafcillin historically produced the full triad at high frequency; modern agents rarely do2
CephalosporinsAll generationsCross-reactive with penicillins — avoid both classes after either
SulfonamidesTMP-SMX, sulfadiazineFrequent culprit; also a DRESS trigger. Governs the PJP prophylaxis choice in Section 7
FluoroquinolonesCiprofloxacin (most reported), levofloxacin, moxifloxacinCan follow a single dose; granulomatous variants described1,20
GlycopeptidesVancomycinOverlapping AIN and ATN on the same biopsy; also a DRESS trigger
RifamycinsRifampinDistinct mechanism — anti-rifampin antibodies, not classic haptenization. Flu-like syndrome, hemolysis, thrombocytopenia; often dialysis-requiring; typically after intermittent dosing or re-exposure19
OthersMacrolides, tetracyclines (minocycline), linezolid, daptomycinMinocycline also causes drug-induced lupus and DRESS

2.2 Gastrointestinal agents EVIDENCE-BASED

Proton pump inhibitors — a class effect across omeprazole, esomeprazole, pantoprazole, lansoprazole, rabeprazole, and dexlansoprazole. Cross-reactivity is near-universal, so switching to a different PPI after PPI-AIN is not a solution; famotidine is the substitute when acid suppression is genuinely required. The presentation is insidious — sterile pyuria or a bland sediment with a creatinine that drifts rather than jumps. Population data link PPI exposure to incident CKD, and AIN is a principal proposed mechanism1,10.

5-aminosalicylates — mesalamine, sulfasalazine, balsalazide, olsalazine. A systematic review of 5-ASA–induced interstitial nephritis in IBD and a dedicated review of mesalamine and kidney disease both describe an insidious course over months to years that is frequently irreversible when recognized late, supporting baseline and periodic creatinine monitoring11,12.

2.3 NSAIDs EVIDENCE-BASED

All non-selective agents and COX-2 selective agents. Two features set this subtype apart1,13:

  • It does not respond to glucocorticoids — the single most important treatment exception on this page.
  • It may present with concurrent nephrotic-range proteinuria from minimal-change overlap, which is unusual for AIN generally.

PRACTICE-BASED Topical NSAIDs are systemically absorbed and are routinely discounted by patients and clinicians alike. Ask about gels and patches by name.

2.4 Immune checkpoint inhibitors EVIDENCE-BASED

PD-1 agents (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, cemiplimab), PD-L1 agents (atezolizumab, durvalumab, avelumab), and CTLA-4 agents (ipilimumab, tremelimumab). Multicenter clinicopathologic series established AIN as the dominant renal lesion, characterized the extended latency, and defined outcomes and rechallenge experience14,15,16.

The checkpoint-inhibitor attribution trap

Most patients on a checkpoint inhibitor are also on a PPI, and concurrent PPI exposure is a recognized confounder in attributing the lesion14,15. Before you stop a cancer drug the patient needs, account for the PPI they do not. Stopping the PPI is free. Stopping immunotherapy is not.

2.5 Allopurinol and urate-lowering therapy EVIDENCE-BASED

Allopurinol is among the most severe drug causes, typically presenting as full DRESS — fever, rash, eosinophilia, hepatitis, and AKI. Risk is concentrated in HLA-B*58:01 carriers (Han Chinese, Thai, Korean ancestry) and is further amplified by renal impairment, a combination directly examined in the dermatologic literature17. PRACTICE-BASED Concurrent thiazide use is conventionally cited as an additional risk multiplier; febuxostat is the usual alternative, though cross-reactivity is described.

2.6 Anticonvulsants and other agents PRACTICE-BASED

The aromatic anticonvulsants — phenytoin, carbamazepine, phenobarbital — cross-react with one another and usually present as anticonvulsant hypersensitivity syndrome rather than isolated AIN. Switch to a non-aromatic agent (levetiracetam, valproate, gabapentin). Also reported: thiazide and loop diuretics (both sulfonamide-based), hydralazine (which also causes drug-induced lupus and ANCA vasculitis — check ANCA and anti-histone), statins, and rarely ACE inhibitors and ARBs.

2.7 DRESS — the drugs that cause it EVIDENCE-BASED

Renal involvement in DRESS is AIN. The RegiSCAR prospective study characterized the syndrome, its validated scoring, its 2–8 week latency — longer than ordinary drug hypersensitivity — and its tendency to relapse during steroid taper18. High-risk agents cluster tightly:

Allopurinol · aromatic anticonvulsants · sulfonamides · vancomycin · minocycline · dapsone · abacavir · nevirapine

2.8 Aristolochic acid — not AIN, and it matters EVIDENCE-BASED

Aristolochic acid produces a relentlessly progressive fibrosing interstitial nephropathy with a high rate of upper-tract urothelial carcinoma. It is not steroid-responsive, and recognizing it changes surveillance rather than immunosuppression21. Ask about herbal and traditional preparations explicitly.


3. Etiology II — Infection, Autoimmune, Malignancy, Genetic

3.1 Infection PRACTICE-BASED

Roughly 5–10% of AIN. The therapeutic implication is inverted from drug-induced disease: treat the organism, and steroids are generally contraindicated.

  • Bacterial: Streptococcus, Staphylococcus, Legionella, Brucella, Salmonella, Campylobacter, Yersinia, Mycoplasma, Leptospira, M. tuberculosis, syphilis, Coxiella burnetii
  • Viral: EBV, CMV, HIV, hantavirus, BK polyomavirus (allograft), adenovirus, parvovirus B19, hepatitis B and C, SARS-CoV-2, dengue
  • Fungal / parasitic: Histoplasma, Coccidioides, Leishmania, Toxoplasma, Schistosoma

EVIDENCE-BASED BK polyomavirus nephropathy is the exception that proves the rule: management is reduction of immunosuppression, not addition, and is governed by international consensus guidelines22.

3.2 Systemic and autoimmune disease

DiseaseRenal signatureAnchor
SarcoidosisGranulomatous interstitial nephritis; hypercalcemia and hypercalciuriaEVIDENCE-BASED20,23
Sjögren diseaseInterstitial nephritis with distal (type 1) RTA, hypokalemia, nephrocalcinosisEVIDENCE-BASED24
IgG4-related diseaseIgG4-rich plasma cell infiltrate, storiform fibrosis, mass-like lesionsEVIDENCE-BASED27,28
TINU syndromeInterstitial nephritis with bilateral anterior uveitis; young women; elevated urinary beta-2 microglobulinEVIDENCE-BASED25
Anti-brush border antibody (ABBA) diseaseAntibodies to LRP2/megalin on the proximal tubular brush border; elderly, often progressiveEVIDENCE-BASED26
SLELupus interstitial nephritis; can occur isolated, without glomerular diseasePRACTICE-BASED
Anti-TBM antibody diseaseLinear TBM staining on immunofluorescencePRACTICE-BASED
Inflammatory bowel diseaseInterstitial nephritis as an extraintestinal manifestationEVIDENCE-BASED11,12
The IBD fork — two causes, opposite treatments

A Crohn or ulcerative colitis patient on mesalamine with interstitial nephritis has two candidate causes pointing in opposite therapeutic directions: mesalamine toxicity, where you stop the drug — or an extraintestinal manifestation of active IBD, where you intensify treatment11,12. Disease activity, timing relative to drug initiation, and biopsy separate them. Guessing wrong worsens the patient either way.

3.3 Malignancy and genetic disease

PRACTICE-BASED Lymphoma and leukemia infiltrate the interstitium and mimic inflammatory AIN; monoclonality on flow or immunohistochemistry makes the distinction, and the treatment is directed at the malignancy. Myeloma and monoclonal gammopathy require free light chains — and remember that a suppressed uninvolved chain is the clonal signal.

EVIDENCE-BASED Karyomegalic interstitial nephritis arises from biallelic FAN1 mutations and shows strikingly enlarged, hyperchromatic tubular nuclei; it presents in early adulthood with progressive CKD and has no role for immunosuppression29. PRACTICE-BASED Autosomal dominant tubulointerstitial kidney disease (UMOD, MUC1, REN, HNF1B) belongs in the differential of unexplained interstitial disease with a bland sediment and a family history.


4. Diagnosis

EVIDENCE-BASED The classic triad of fever, rash, and eosinophilia appears in under 10% of drug-induced AIN and is absent in over two-thirds of PPI-associated cases1,4. Its absence excludes nothing.

4.1 What helps — the sediment EVIDENCE-BASED

  • Sterile pyuria with WBC casts — the most useful bedside finding1,3
  • Sub-nephrotic proteinuria, usually under 1 g/day; nephrotic range points toward NSAID-associated minimal change13
  • Cast logic: RBC casts = GN · WBC casts = AIN · muddy brown casts = ATN

4.2 What does not help — urine eosinophils EVIDENCE-BASED

Do not order urine eosinophils

Muriithi et al. compared 566 patients who had both a urine eosinophil test and a native kidney biopsy within a week of each other; 91 had AIN. At a 1% Hansel-stain cutoff: sensitivity 30.8%, specificity 68.2%, PPV 15.6%, NPV 83.7%5.

The likelihood ratios settle it: LR+ 0.97 and LR− 1.01. Both sit at 1.0, so the result moves post-test probability essentially nowhere in either direction. A test that cannot revise your estimate is not a diagnostic test. Raising the cutoff to 5% drops sensitivity to 19.8% while specificity rises to 91.2% — still not clinically useful. The test was also no better at separating AIN from ATN than from any other kidney disease.

Why older sources disagree: the four largest earlier series reported sensitivity 40–91% and specificity 52–95%, but none used kidney biopsy as the gold standard5. Those figures are an artifact of unvalidated reference standards, and they persisted in teaching material long after the biopsy-anchored data existed.

4.3 Biomarkers EVIDENCE-BASED

Urinary CXCL9 is the leading non-invasive discriminator, identified and validated for AIN diagnosis by Moledina et al.9. It is mechanistically coherent — tubular epithelium secretes CXCL9 in response to IFN-gamma from the infiltrating T cells that define the lesion — and it is stable at room temperature, unlike beta-2 microglobulin, which degrades at acidic pH and saturates in heavy proteinuria. The biomarker field was reviewed in 202631. PRACTICE-BASED Availability outside research and reference laboratories remains limited, so this rarely changes the biopsy decision today.

4.4 Biopsy — and what to demand from the report

PRACTICE-BASED Three items drive management more than the creatinine does:

  1. Degree of interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (IFTA)
  2. Presence or absence of an active inflammatory infiltrate
  3. Granulomas — raising sarcoidosis, tuberculosis, fungal infection, PPIs, and fluoroquinolones20

5. Treatment — Sorted by Etiology

5.1 Universal first steps EVIDENCE-BASED

  • Withdraw the offending agent — sequentially if AKI is mild, simultaneously if severe1,3
  • Avoid the class and cross-reactive classes
  • Hunt the over-the-counter exposures — PPIs and NSAIDs go unreported because patients do not classify them as medications
Do not delay withdrawal awaiting biopsy

Withdrawal is reversible. The fibrosis from a two-week delay is not.

5.2 The etiology-directed table

PRACTICE-BASED except where a row carries a citation. The IgG4 row is the only one supported by randomized data.

EtiologyFirst lineThenDo NOT
Drug-induced (general)Withdraw; prednisone 1 mg/kg/day if severe or not recovering6Extend steroids to 8–12 weeks if active infiltrate → MMF 1–2 g/day7Escalate when IFTA is heavy and infiltrate absent
NSAID-inducedWithdrawal and supportive care only13Give steroids — this subtype does not respond
PPI-inducedWithdraw; famotidine if acid suppression needed10Steroids if not recovering → MMFSwitch to another PPI
Mesalamine / 5-ASAWithdraw permanently; steroids if inflammation active11,12Rechallenge; confuse with IBD-associated nephritis
Allopurinol / DRESSWithdraw; prednisone 1 mg/kg/day, longer course, slow taper17,18MMF or cyclosporine if steroid-dependentRechallenge; use a 2-week taper — DRESS relapses
Checkpoint inhibitorHold the ICI; prednisone 0.5–1 mg/kg/day14,15,16MMF → infliximab or cyclophosphamide (case-level)Stop the ICI before excluding a concurrent PPI
Infection-associatedTreat the organismSupportive careGive steroids — generally contraindicated
BK nephropathy (allograft)Reduce immunosuppression22IVIG, leflunomide, cidofovir — all weak evidenceAdd steroids for “rejection” without excluding BK
SarcoidosisPrednisone 0.5–1 mg/kg/day, slow taper over 6–12 months23Methotrexate, azathioprine, or MMF → infliximabReach for rituximab; overlook the hypercalcemia
SjögrenPrednisone24MMF or azathioprine; hydroxychloroquine adjunctNeglect the distal RTA — bicarbonate and potassium repletion are treatment
IgG4-related diseasePrednisone — but most flare on taper27Rituximab or inebilizumab; obexelimab28,30Expect steroids alone to hold remission; delay until fibrotic
TINUSystemic steroids plus topical steroids for the uveitis25MMF or azathioprine for relapsing uveitisManage without ophthalmology — the courses run independently
Anti-TBM / ABBA diseasePrednisoneRituximab — mechanistically rational, antibody-mediated26
Lymphoma / myelomaTreat the malignancyImmunosuppress for “AIN”
Karyomegalic / geneticSupportive; CKD management29TransplantImmunosuppress — no role
Aristolochic acidCease exposure; urothelial cancer surveillance21Expect steroids to work

5.3 Glucocorticoids — the evidence genuinely conflicts EVIDENCE-BASED

StudyDesignFinding
González 20086Retrospective multicenter, n=61 (52 treated, 9 untreated)Dialysis 4% vs 44%; creatinine 2.1 vs 3.7 mg/dL at 18 months; steroids within 7 days OR 6.6 (95% CI 1.3–33.6)
Muriithi 20144Retrospective, n=95 (83 prednisone, 12 not)No difference in recovery at 6 months
Fernández-Juárez 20188Retrospective, treatment-duration analysisExamined corticosteroid duration against recovery
Critical appraisal — do not over-read González

The nominal arithmetic gives ARR 40% and NNT 2.5. Do not quote that NNT. The control arm is nine patients, allocation was not randomized, and confounding by indication runs both directions — sicker patients get treated, and patients already improving do not. A confidence interval spanning 1.3 to 33.6 is the study telling you how little it knows. Hypothesis-generating, not an effect estimate. The negative studies are thought to reflect more severe disease and inclusion of steroid-unresponsive NSAID cases1,13.


6. The Non-Responder, and Where Rituximab Belongs

If the patient has not recovered 3–4 weeks after withdrawal plus steroids, work it in this order. PRACTICE-BASED

  1. Question the diagnosis. Consider alternative AKI etiologies, particularly if no biopsy was done. Biopsy now if feasible.
  2. If biopsy-confirmed, read the chronicity. This is the decision point.
  3. If there is an active infiltrate — extend the steroid course to a total of 8–12 weeks. Do not add a second agent yet.
The most commonly missed decision in AIN

Severe chronic changes (heavy IFTA) with no acute inflammatory infiltrate: the patient will not improve. Taper and stop the glucocorticoids. Adding immunosuppression here purchases infection risk, not GFR.

6.1 Mycophenolate EVIDENCE-BASED

Dose: 1 g/day orally in divided doses, titrated to 2 g/day if tolerated. The evidence is Preddie et al.7n=8, treated 13–34 months. Those patients had responded to steroids but could not tolerate withdrawal after six months: steroid-dependent, not steroid-resistant. All were able to discontinue glucocorticoids; two failed to improve creatinine.

The limitation that governs how far you can generalize: only two of the eight had drug-induced AIN. Applying this series to classic drug AIN is a genuine extrapolation, not an established indication.

6.2 Rituximab — where it belongs and where it does not

Match the drug to the effector cell

Not for ordinary drug-induced AIN — that lesion is T-cell mediated, so B-cell depletion targets the wrong compartment, and the major drug-induced AIN reviews do not list it1,2,3.

Rational when the driver is antibody- or B-cell-mediated: IgG4-related disease, where it has the strongest support28; anti-TBM disease; and ABBA disease26.

Not standard for sarcoid, where the pathway runs methotrexate, azathioprine, or MMF, then anti-TNF23.

6.3 IgG4-related disease — the one randomized exception EVIDENCE-BASED

Most patients respond to glucocorticoids but flare during or after taper, so additional therapy is usually required. Rituximab's historical basis is an open-label, single-arm trial of 30 patients — no control group28. That changed with obexelimab, a bifunctional anti-CD19/FcγRIIb antibody that inhibits rather than depletes B cells, reported in NEJM 202630: among 194 patients undergoing protocolized glucocorticoid withdrawal by week 8, disease flare over 52 weeks was 26.8% versus 54.6% with placebo.

Obexelimab, 52-week flareValue
Control event rate54.6%
Treatment event rate26.8%
RRRapproximately 51%
ARR27.8%
NNT4 over 52 weeks
Critical appraisal — obexelimab

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled — a genuine methodological step up from the single-arm rituximab data. Two caveats to carry: the endpoint is disease flare, an intermediate outcome rather than organ survival or mortality; and the trial enrolled patients undergoing protocolized steroid withdrawal, which elevates the control-arm event rate and therefore inflates the absolute difference relative to ordinary practice.


7. Supportive Care and the Prophylaxis Trap

PRACTICE-BASED PJP prophylaxis applies at prednisone 20 mg/day or above for four or more weeks, particularly alongside MMF.

Why TMP-SMX is the wrong default in this specific population
  1. Sulfonamides are a classic AIN trigger. If sulfa is anywhere on the suspect list, do not use it.
  2. Trimethoprim inhibits tubular creatinine secretion, raising creatinine 0.1–0.3 mg/dL with no change in true GFR — contaminating the exact measurement you are using to judge treatment response.

Atovaquone 1500 mg daily avoids both. Dapsone requires G6PD testing and is itself a DRESS trigger18.

PRACTICE-BASED Before rituximab: HBsAg and anti-HBc (reactivation risk) and a baseline quantitative IgG. Also address bone protection for prolonged steroid courses, gastric protection without a PPI if the AIN was PPI-induced, and vaccination status before immunosuppression.


8. Prognosis

PRACTICE-BASED Complete recovery in roughly 50–75% with prompt withdrawal; partial recovery 20–30%; progression to ESKD 5–10%, higher with delayed recognition.

EVIDENCE-BASED Predictors of poor recovery are consistent across series1,3,4:

  1. Kidney failure lasting more than three weeks before treatment
  2. NSAID as the causative agent
  3. Interstitial granulomas, fibrosis, and tubular atrophy on biopsy
  4. Mesalamine as the agent — frequently irreversible11,12
The one thing to take away

Time-to-withdrawal is the dominant modifiable variable. Steroids may accelerate recovery when started early; nothing rescues a kidney that has already fibrosed. When deciding whether to escalate immunosuppression, the biopsy chronicity — not the creatinine — casts the deciding vote.


Verified Sources

Every PMID below was verified individually against the PubMed E-utilities API on 2026-07-30 — title, journal, and year confirmed against the cited identifier. Reference 5 was additionally verified full-text against the source PDF. Claims tagged PRACTICE-BASED are deliberately not anchored here; they represent conventional teaching and clinical experience, and are labeled so readers can weigh them accordingly.

  1. Moledina DG, Perazella MA. Drug-induced acute interstitial nephritis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017. PMID: 28893923
  2. Perazella MA, Markowitz GS. Drug-induced acute interstitial nephritis. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2010. PMID: 20517290
  3. Praga M, González E. Acute interstitial nephritis. Kidney Int. 2010. PMID: 20336051
  4. Muriithi AK, Leung N, Valeri AM, et al. Biopsy-proven acute interstitial nephritis, 1993-2011: a case series. Am J Kidney Dis. 2014;64(4):558-566. PMID: 24927897
  5. Muriithi AK, Nasr SH, Leung N. Utility of urine eosinophils in the diagnosis of acute interstitial nephritis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013;8(11):1857-1862. PMID: 24052222 — verified full-text; source of the LR 0.97 / 1.01 figures.
  6. González E, Gutiérrez E, Galeano C, et al. Early steroid treatment improves the recovery of renal function in patients with drug-induced acute interstitial nephritis. Kidney Int. 2008;73(8):940-946. PMID: 18185501
  7. Preddie DC, Markowitz GS, Radhakrishnan J, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil for the treatment of interstitial nephritis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;1(4):718-722. PMID: 17699278
  8. Fernández-Juárez G, Pérez JV, Caravaca-Fontán F, et al. Duration of treatment with corticosteroids and recovery of kidney function in acute interstitial nephritis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018;13(12):1851-1858. PMID: 30397027
  9. Moledina DG, Obeid W, Smith RN, et al. Identification and validation of urinary CXCL9 as a biomarker for diagnosis of acute interstitial nephritis. J Clin Invest. 2023. PMID: 37395276
  10. Lazarus B, Chen Y, Wilson FP, et al. Proton pump inhibitor use and the risk of chronic kidney disease. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(2):238-246. PMID: 26752337
  11. Moss JG, et al. 5-ASA induced interstitial nephritis in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review. Eur J Med Res. 2022. PMID: 35488310
  12. Adiga A, Nugent K. The association of mesalamine with kidney disease. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2020. PMID: 32147005
  13. Klomjit N, Manohar S. Acute kidney injury associated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Eur J Intern Med. 2022. PMID: 35534373
  14. Cortazar FB, Kibbelaar ZA, Glezerman IG, et al. Clinical features and outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated AKI: a multicenter study. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2020;31(2):435-446. PMID: 31896554
  15. Cortazar FB, Marrone KA, Troxell ML, et al. Clinicopathological features of acute kidney injury associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Kidney Int. 2016;90(3):638-647. PMID: 27282937
  16. Barbir EB, et al. Immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated nephritis — treatment standard. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2024. PMID: 39138117
  17. Ng CY, Yeh YT, Wang CW, et al. Impact of the HLA-B*58:01 allele and renal impairment on allopurinol-induced cutaneous adverse reactions. J Invest Dermatol. 2016;136(7):1373-1381. PMID: 26996548
  18. Kardaun SH, Sekula P, Valeyrie-Allanore L, et al. Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS): an original multisystem adverse drug reaction. Results from the prospective RegiSCAR study. Br J Dermatol. 2013;169(5):1071-1080. PMID: 23855313
  19. De Vriese AS, Robbrecht DL, Vanholder RC, et al. Rifampicin-associated acute renal failure: pathophysiologic, immunologic, and clinical features. Am J Kidney Dis. 1998;31(1):108-115. PMID: 9428460
  20. Joss N, Morris S, Young B, Geddes C. Granulomatous interstitial nephritis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;2(2):222-230. PMID: 17699417
  21. Luciano RL, Perazella MA. Aristolochic acid nephropathy: epidemiology, clinical presentation, and treatment. Drug Saf. 2015;38(1):55-64. PMID: 25446374
  22. Kotton CN, Kamar N, Wojciechowski D, et al. The second international consensus guidelines on the management of BK polyomavirus in kidney transplantation. Transplantation. 2024. PMID: 38605438
  23. Calatroni M, Moroni G, Conte E, et al. Renal sarcoidosis. J Nephrol. 2023. PMID: 35761015
  24. Chatterjee R, et al. Renal involvement in Sjögren's syndrome: predictors and impact on patient outcomes. Rheumatol Int. 2023. PMID: 36650312
  25. Amaro D, Carreño E, Steeples LR, et al. Tubulointerstitial nephritis and uveitis (TINU) syndrome: a review. Br J Ophthalmol. 2020;104(6):742-747. PMID: 31719109
  26. Dvanajscak Z, Cossey LN, Larsen CP, et al. Anti-brush border antibody disease (anti-LRP2 nephropathy) associated with lupus nephritis. Kidney Int Rep. 2020. PMID: 32954086
  27. Sahutoglu T, et al. Update on acute tubulointerstitial nephritis: clinical features, immunologic insights, and diagnostic and treatment approaches. Kidney Int Rep. 2025. PMID: 40630288
  28. Carruthers MN, Topazian MD, Khosroshahi A, et al. Rituximab for IgG4-related disease: a prospective, open-label trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74(6):1171-1177. PMID: 25667206
  29. Isnard P, Rabant M, Labaye J, et al. Karyomegalic interstitial nephritis: a case report and review of the literature. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(11):e3181. PMID: 27196444
  30. Della-Torre E, et al. Obexelimab for the treatment of IgG4-related disease. N Engl J Med. 2026. PMID: 42233621
  31. Sadarangani S, et al. Diagnosing acute tubulointerstitial nephritis: novel biomarkers address an important clinical challenge. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2026. PMID: 41460039

Last updated: 2026-07-30 For questions or updates, contact: acbland@gmail.com