4.4 Article

Validity of the Oxford classification of IgA nephropathy in children

Journal

PEDIATRIC NEPHROLOGY
Volume 27, Issue 5, Pages 783-792

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00467-011-2061-0

Keywords

Crescents; Endocapillary hypercellularity; Cox gression; Renal failure; Segmental glomerulosclerosis; Tubular atrophy

Funding

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24390265, 23591192] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In 2009, the Oxford classification of IgA nephropathy was published. However, its validity has not been fully examined in children. This study aimed to assess this system in an independent large-scale cohort of children. We analyzed 161 consecutive children with newly diagnosed IgA nephropathy from 1977 to 1989 retrospectively. We examined the ability of each variable in the Oxford classification as a predictor of renal outcome defined as a parts per thousand yen stage III chronic kidney disease (CKD) (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) using Cox regression analysis. The mean mesangial score, and ratios of segmental glomerulosclerosis, endocapillary hypercellularity, tubular atrophy, and crescents were 0.49, 0.8%, 13.1%, 3.3%, and 9.2% respectively. Seven cases reached a parts per thousand yen stage III CKD. In univariate analyses, mesangial hypercellularity score, endocapillary hypercellularity, tubular atrophy, and crescents were significant predictors of renal outcome. In a multivariate analysis, only mesangial hypercellularity score, tubular atrophy, and crescents were significant though, depending on models. Segmental glomerulosclerosis was not a significant predictor of renal outcome. Although the significance of crescents was not addressed in the Oxford classification, crescents were important predictors of outcome. The Oxford classification appears to be valid for predicting renal outcome in children.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available