4.5 Article

Bone Marrow Megakaryocytes May Predict Therapeutic Response of Severe Thrombocytopenia in Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

期刊

JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 43, 期 6, 页码 1038-1044

出版社

J RHEUMATOL PUBL CO
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.150829

关键词

SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS THROMBOCYTOPENIA; BONE MARROW; MEGAKARYOCYTE

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To analyze the predictive value of megakaryocyte counts in bone marrow (BM-MK) for determining the therapeutic response of severe thrombocytopenia (TP) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Methods. Thirty-five patients with SLE with severe TP (platelet count <= 50 x 10(9)/l) from the Peking Union Medical College Hospital admitted between 2007 and 2014 with appreciable bone marrow aspiration results were analyzed retrospectively. The associations between therapeutic response and clinical manifestations, laboratory findings including BM-MK counts, were evaluated. Results. Seventeen (49%) and 8 (23%) patients achieved a complete response (CR) and a partial response (PR), respectively, and 10 had no response (NR). The BM-MK counts in each group were 102 +/- 25 (0-322), 136 +/- 48 (2-419), and 28 +/- 12 (0-105) per slide, respectively. Significant differences were observed in the counts of BM-MK between patients who achieved a clinical response (CR + PR) and those who did not (NR; p = 0.007). Patients in the NR group exhibited fewer BM-MK compared with those in the CR and PR groups (p = 0.017 and p = 0.006, respectively). A receiver-operation characteristic analysis identified that a cutoff value of BM-MK counts at 20 performed pretty well in discriminating patients with differential responses to immunotherapy, with sensitivity and specificity and area under the curve of 88%, 70%, and 0.798, respectively. Conclusion. BM-MK count may serve as a good predicting factor for immunotherapeutic response in patients with SLE with severe TP. Patients with BM-MK counts < 20 per slide tend to exhibit poor clinical response.

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

4.5
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