4.6 Article

Urinary Procollagen III Aminoterminal Propeptide (PIIINP): A Fibrotest for the Nephrologist

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.06610909

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objectives: Kidney biopsy (KB), to date the only tool for the evaluation of renal fibrosis, carries specific risks, and its relevance is limited by the small size of renal parenchyma assessed. Thus, a noninvasive alternative to KB is required. Collagen type III amino-terminal propeptide (PIIINP) is a degradation product of collagen type III, the increase of which may reflect an ongoing fibrotic process. Design, setting, participants, & measurements: In a prospective study including 199 patients with various stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD), the association between urinary PIIINP/creatinine ratio (UPIIINP/Cr), patients' characteristics, and renal fibrosis was assessed. Results: A total of 118 of the patients had UPIIINP/Cr measured simultaneously with the performance of a KB. In patients, median UPIIINP/Cr was 290 ng/mmol versus 93.7 ng/mmol in controls. In univariate analysis, UPIIINP/Cr was correlated with serum creatinine, estimated GFR, CKD stage, presence of coronary artery disease, and nephropathy type (glomerulonephritis versus other types). In multivariate analysis, only estimated GFR and nephropathy type were correlated with UPIIINP/Cr. UPIIINP/Cr was closely correlated with the extent of interstitial fibrosis in KB assessed using two different methods. Moreover, UPIIINP/Cr >800 ng/mmol had a negative predictive value of 94% to detect patients in whom KB will eventually prove noninformative (KB leading neither to a definite diagnosis of nephropathy nor to specific treatment). Conclusions: UPIIINP/Cr is a promising fibro-test for the kidney and may alleviate the need for KB in some patients with CKD. Its predictive value for CKD progression deserves evaluation in prospective studies. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 5: 205-210, 2010. doi: 10.2215/CJN.06610909

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

4.6
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