4.5 Article

Circulating Angiogenic Factors and the Risk of Preeclampsia in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Pregnancies

期刊

JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 42, 期 7, 页码 1141-1149

出版社

J RHEUMATOL PUBL CO
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.141571

关键词

PREECLAMPSIA; PREGNANCY; ANGIOGENIC FACTORS; SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To investigate whether angiogenic factors are associated with risk of developing preeclampsia in pregnant women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Methods. We performed a nested case-control study within a cohort of SLE women with singleton pregnancies. The study included 42 patients with SLE who eventually developed preeclampsia and 75 normal SLE pregnancies. Serum samples were collected at 4-week intervals (from weeks 12 to 36). Serum samples were analyzed for soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 (sFlt-1), placental growth factor (PlGF), and soluble endoglin (sEng). Results. Women destined to develop preeclampsia had lower PlGF levels and higher sFlt-1 and sEng levels, and a higher sFlt-1/PlGF ratio than normal pregnancies. These changes became significant at 12 weeks in patients destined to develop either early onset (< 34 weeks, p <= 0.003) or late-onset preeclampsia (>= 34 weeks, p <= 0.02). The risk to develop preeclampsia was higher among patients with PlGF concentration values in the lowest quartile or with sFlt-1 and sEng levels, and sFlt-1/PlGF ratio, in the highest quartile of the normal SLE pregnancies distribution. The OR were higher and appeared earlier in patients destined to develop early onset preeclampsia (OR >= 16.2, from Week 12 onward) than in patients who presented preeclampsia later (OR >= 8.9, from Week 24 onward). Conclusion. Changes in circulating concentrations of sFlt-1, PlGF, sEng, and the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio precede the onset of preeclampsia in SLE pregnancies. The risk profile of circulating angiogenic factors for developing preeclampsia distinctly evolves depending on whether this condition is manifested earlier or later.

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

4.5
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