4.6 Article

Simultaneous Positivity for Anti-DNA, Anti-Nucleosome and Anti-Histone Antibodies is a Marker for More Severe Lupus Nephritis

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 33, Issue 2, Pages 378-387

Publisher

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10875-012-9825-6

Keywords

Lupus nephritis; antinuclear antibodies; autoantibodies; renal disease activity; serological diagnosis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective The purpose of this study is to examine autoantibody profile of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients with lupus nephritis (LN) and to establish the correlation between the antibody reactivity and disease activity of LN. Methods Autoantibodies and serological parameters were measured and analyzed in 589 SLE patients. The associations of the co-positivity of anti-dsDNA, -nucleosome and - histone antibodies (3-pos) with clinical, serological and outcome parameters were analyzed. Results At the study entry, the prevalence for anti-dsDNA (61.52 % vs. 34.11 %, P<0.0001), anti-nucleosome (56.09 % vs. 37.21 %, P=0.0002) and anti-histone (49.35 % vs. 33.33 %, P=0.0013) antibodies in patients with LN were significantly higher than that in patients without LN. Patients with 3-pos had a higher proportion of proliferative renal lesions (class III+IV). The incidence of a poor renal outcome (7.14 % vs. 2.52 %, P=0.0174) in LN patients with 3-pos was significantly higher than those without 3-pos. Moreover, the rate of remission (73.63 % vs. 82.37 %, P=0.0245) was significantly reduced and recurrence increased (58.90 % vs. 23.44 %, P<0.0001) in 3-pos patients as compared to that in non 3-pos within the LN group. Conclusion Our data indicate a strong association between the 3-pos and renal disease activities, especially proliferative glomerulonephritis. The ability of 3-pos to predict renal flares may lead to major additional benefits in the follow-up of these patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available