4.7 Article

Persistent proteinuria and dyslipidemia increase the risk of progressive chronic kidney disease in lupus erythematosus

期刊

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL
卷 79, 期 8, 页码 914-920

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/ki.2010.525

关键词

chronic kidney disease; inflammation; proteinuria; systemic lupus erythematosus

资金

  1. Physicians Services Foundation
  2. courtesy of the physicians of Ontario
  3. AMGEN-CIHR
  4. Canadian Institute of Health Research (QNT) [78341]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Advances in immunotherapy have improved survival of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus who now face an increasing burden of chronic diseases including that of the kidney. As systemic inflammation is also thought to contribute directly to the progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD), we assessed this risk in patients with lupus, with and without a diagnosis of nephritis, and also identified modifiable risk factors. Accordingly, we enrolled 631 patients (predominantly Caucasian), of whom 504 were diagnosed with lupus within the first year and followed for an average of 11 years. Despite the presence of a chronic inflammatory disease, the rate of decline in renal function of 238 patients without nephritis was similar to that described for non-lupus patient cohorts. Progressive loss of kidney function developed exclusively in patients with lupus nephritis who had persistent proteinuria and dyslipidemia, although only six required dialysis or transplantation. The mortality rate was 16% with half of the deaths attributable to sepsis or cancer. Thus, despite the presence of a systemic inflammatory disease, the risk of progressive CKD in this lupus cohort was relatively low in the absence of nephritis. Hence, as in idiopathic glomerular disease, persistent proteinuria and dyslipidemia (modifiable risks) are the major factors for CKD progression in lupus patients with renal involvement. Kidney International (2011) 79, 914-920; doi: 10.1038/ki.2010.525; published online 19 January 2011

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据