3.8 Article

Hepatic steatosis index at diagnosis has the potential for forecasting end-stage kidney disease in patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis

期刊

JOURNAL OF RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 260-267

出版社

KOREAN COLL RHEUMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.4078/jrd.2023.0032

关键词

Hepatic steatosis index; End-stage renal disease; Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody; Vasculitis; Forecasting

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that the hepatic steatosis index (HSI) at diagnosis of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis (AAV) can predict poor outcomes during the disease course, especially the increased risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD).
Objective: This study evaluated whether the hepatic steatosis index (HSI) at antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vas-culitis (AAV) diagnosis could forecast poor outcomes during the disease course in AAV patients.Methods: This study included 260 AAV patients. The equation for HSI is as follows: HSI=8x(alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase)+body mass index+(2, diabetes mellitus)+(2, female). The cut-off of HSI was obtained using the receiver operating characteristic curve.Results: The median age of the 260 patients was 59.5 years, and 65.0% were female. Among the continuous variables excluding the parameters composing the equation for HSI, HSI was significantly correlated with Birmingham vasculitis activity score, five-factor score, haemoglobin, blood urea nitrogen, serum creatinine, and total cholesterol. Among poor outcomes, the area under the curve of HSI for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) was significant, and the cut-off of HSI for ESRD was set at <= 30.82. AAV patients with HSI <= 30.82 exhibited a significantly higher risk of ESRD (relative risk 3.489) and a significantly lower cumulative ESRD-free survival rate than those with HSI >30.82.Conclusion: This study is the first to demonstrate that HSI at AAV diagnosis could forecast ESRD during the disease course in AAV patients.

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

3.8
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