4.3 Article

Predictors of poor renal outcome in patients with lupus nephritis treated with combined pulses of cyclophosphamide and methylprednisolone

期刊

LUPUS
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 287-296

出版社

ARNOLD, HODDER HEADLINE PLC
DOI: 10.1191/0961203303lu340oa

关键词

lupus nephritis; prognostic factors; hypocomplementaemia; cyclophosphamide

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lupus nephritis remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Although the renal prognosis has improved, the optimal therapeutic regime has not been definitively established, and significant challenges remain in the management of disease progression and recurrent renal relapse. We performed a prospective study to evaluate the outcome of 38 patients with severe lupus nephritis treated with standard cyclophosphamide and methylprednisolone pulse therapy, and to determine the variables associated with poor outcome. Five patients developed end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (13%), 10 (26%) developed persistent proteinuria (>1 g/24 h) and 15 (39%) suffered at least one relapse after 8 years of follow-up. A high chronicity index, interstitial fibrosis (P=0.04), persistent hypertension (P < 0.0001) and hypocomplementaemia (P=0.002) after treatment were the major variables associated with ESR-D. Tubular atrophy (P=0.01), persistent hypertension (P=0.0001) and hypocomplementaemia after treatment (P=0.0281) were associated with persistent proteinuria. Persistence of anti-dsDNA antibodies and hypocomplementaemia after treatment (P=0.0118) were associated with renal relapse. Our data suggest that the group of patients with persistence of hypocomplementaemia and raised anti-dsDNA antibodies titres are at high risk of renal relapse and may be candidates for continuation of immunosuppressive treatment. Patients with persistent proteinuria alone or a high chronicity index are less likely to respond to immuno suppression, and strict control of the hypertension may be the best approach.

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