4.3 Article

Factors associated with poor outcomes in patients with lupus nephritis

期刊

LUPUS
卷 14, 期 11, 页码 890-895

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1191/0961203305lu2238oa

关键词

chronic renal failure; death and predictors; lupus nephritis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to identify the factors associated with important clinical outcomes in a case-control study of 213 patients with lupus nephritis. Included were 47% Hispanics, 44% African Americans and 9% Caucasians with a mean age of 28 years. Fifty-four (25%) patients reached the primary composite outcome of doubling serum creatinine, end-stage renal disease or death during a mean follow-up of 37 months. Thirty-four percent African Americans, 20% Hispanics and 10% Caucasians reached the primary composite outcome (P < 0.05). Patients reaching the composite outcome had predominantly proliferative lupus nephritis (WHO classes: 30% III, 32% IV, 18% V and 5% 11, P < 0.025) with higher activity index score (7 +/- 6 versus 5 +/- 5, P < 0.05), chronicity index (CI) score (4 +/- 3 versus 2 +/- 2 unit, P < 0.025), higher baseline mean arterial pressure (MAP) (111 +/- 21 versus 102 +/- 14 mmHg, P < 0.025) and serum creatinine (1.9 +/- 1.3 versus 1.3 +/- 1.0 mg/dL, P < 0.025), but lower baseline hematocrit (29 +/- 6 versus 31 + 5% P < 0.025) and complement C3 (54 +/- 26 versus 65 + 33 mg/dL, P < 0.025) compared to controls. More patients reaching the composite outcome had nephrotic range proteinuria compared to controls (74% versus 56%, P < 0.025). By multivariate analysis, CI (hazard ratio [95% CI] 1.18 [1.07-1.30] per point), MAP (HR 1.02 [1.00-1.03] per mmHg), and baseline serum creatinine (HR 1.26 [1.04-1.54] per mg/dL) were independently associated with the composite outcome. We concluded that hypertension and elevated serum creatinine at the time of the kidney biopsy as well as a high CI are associated with an increased the risk for chronic renal failure or death in patients with lupus nephritis.

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