4.3 Article

The ratio of erythrocyte sedimentation rate to C-reactive protein is useful in distinguishing infection from flare in systemic lupus erythematosus patients presenting with fever

期刊

LUPUS
卷 27, 期 7, 页码 1123-1129

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0961203318763732

关键词

Biomarkers; inflammation; systemic lupus erythematosus

资金

  1. Herb and Carol Amster Lupus Research Fund
  2. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [UL1RR024986, K01ES019909]
  3. NIH [K12HD001438]
  4. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Both C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) can be elevated in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) flare and infection, and are therefore of limited utility for distinguishing between the two conditions in febrile SLE patients. Methods: A medical records review of hospitalizations (1997-2006) of SLE patients in the Michigan Lupus Cohort was performed. Eligible hospitalizations were those in which patients presented with a temperature of >100.3 degrees F or with subjective fevers as a presenting complaint at admission. Detailed demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the associations between ESR and CRP and the outcome of flare vs infection, adjusted for confounders. Results: Among 557 SLE patients screened, there were 53 eligible hospitalizations (28 flares and 25 infections). Each unit increase in the ratio of ESR:CRP was associated with a 17% increase in the odds of fever being attributable to SLE flare compared to infection (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04, 1.31; p=0.009), when adjusted for white blood cell count, SLE duration, sex, race, and age. ESR and CRP were not individually associated with flare vs infection when modeled with their ratio. Conclusions: The ratio of ESR:CRP may provide diagnostic value beyond individual ESR and CRP levels in distinguishing flare vs infection in SLE patients presenting with fever.

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