4.3 Article

The association of lupus nephritis with adverse pregnancy outcomes among women with lupus in North America

期刊

LUPUS
卷 31, 期 11, 页码 1401-1407

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/09612033221123251

关键词

Pregnancy; nephritis; systemic lupus erythematosus

资金

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [1K18HS023443-01A1]
  2. American Kidney Fund
  3. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases [RO-1 AR069572]
  4. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences [1KL2TR002554]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed cohorts of pregnant women with SLE and found that LN was associated with fetal loss and preeclampsia. Active nephritis was associated with poor pregnancy outcome and fetal loss.
Objectives We evaluated the association of lupus nephritis (LN) and adverse pregnancy outcomes in prospective cohorts of pregnant women with SLE (systemic lupus erythematosus). Methods We conducted a patient-level pooled analysis of data from three cohorts of pregnant women with SLE. Pooled logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association of LN and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a fixed effect model by enrolling cohort. Results The pooled cohort included 393 women who received care at clinics in the United States and Canada from 1995 to 2015. There were 144 (37%) women with a history of LN. Compared to women without LN, those with LN had higher odds of fetal loss (OR: 1.90; 95% CI: 1.01, 3.56) and preeclampsia (OR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.01, 4.13). Among the 31 women with active nephritis (defined as urine protein >= 0.5 g/24 h) there was a higher odds of poor pregnancy outcome (OR: 3.08; 95% CI: 1.31, 7.23) and fetal loss (OR: 6.29; 95% CI: 2.52, 15.70) compared to women without LN. Conclusions In this pooled cohort of women with SLE, a history of LN was associated with fetal loss and preeclampsia. Active nephritis was associated with poor pregnancy outcome and fetal loss.

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

4.3
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