4.7 Review

Oxford Classification of IgA nephropathy 2016: an update from the IgA Nephropathy Classification Working Group

期刊

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL
卷 91, 期 5, 页码 1014-1021

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.kint.2017.02.003

关键词

chronic kidney disease; glomerulonephritis; IgA nephropathy; proteinuria

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K09694] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Since the Oxford Classification of IgA nephropathy (IgAN) was published in 2009, MEST scores have been increasingly used in clinical practice. Further retrospective cohort studies have confirmed that in biopsy specimens with a minimum of 8 glomeruli, mesangial hypercellularity (M), segmental sclerosis (5), and interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy (T) lesions predict clinical outcome. In a larger, more broadly based cohort than in the original Oxford study, crescents (C) are predictive of outcome, and we now recommend that C be added to the MEST score, and biopsy reporting should provide a MEST-C score. Inconsistencies in the reporting of M and endocapillary cellularity (E) lesions have been reported, so a web-based educational tool to assist pathologists has been developed. A large study showed E lesions are predictive of outcome in children and adults, but only in those without immunosuppression. A review of S lesions suggests there may be clinical utility in the subclassification of segmental sclerosis, identifying those cases with evidence of podocyte damage. It has now been shown that combining the MEST score with clinical data at biopsy provides the same predictive power as monitoring clinical data for 2 years; this requires further evaluation to assess earlier effective treatment intervention. The IgAN Classification Working Group has established a well-characterized dataset from a large cohort of adults and children with IgAN that will provide a substrate for further studies to refine risk prediction and clinical utility, including the MEST-C score and other factors.

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