4.6 Article

Elevated Subclinical Double-Stranded DNA Antibodies and Future Proliferative Lupus Nephritis

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.01910213

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objectivesElevated anti-double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) antibody and C-reactive protein are associated with proliferative lupus nephritis (PLN). Progression of quantitative anti-dsDNA antibody in patients with PLN has not been compared with that in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) without LN before diagnosis. The temporal relationship between anti-dsDNA antibody and C-reactive protein elevation has also not been evaluated.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsThis case-control Department of Defense Serum Repository (established in 1985) study compared longitudinal prediagnostic quantitative anti-dsDNA antibody and C-reactive protein levels in 23 patients with biopsy-proven PLN (Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 1993-2009) with levels in 21 controls with SLE but without LN matched for patient age, sex, race, and age of serum sample. The oldest (median, 2601 days; 25%, 1245 days, 75%, 3075 days), the second to last (368; 212, 635 days), and the last (180; 135, 477 days) serum sample before diagnosis were analyzed.ResultsMore patients with PLN had an elevated anti-dsDNA antibody level than did the matched controls at any point (78% versus 5%; P<0.001), <1 year (82% versus 8%; P<0.001), 1-4 years (53% versus 0%; P<0.001), and >4 years (33% versus 0%; P=0.04) before diagnosis. A rate of increase >1 IU/ml per year (70% versus 0%; P<0.001) was most specific for PLN. The anti-dsDNA antibody levels increased before C-reactive protein did in most patients with an antecedent elevation (92% versus 8%; P<0.001).ConclusionsElevated anti-dsDNA antibody usually precedes both clinical and subclinical evidence of proliferative LN, which suggests direct pathogenicity. Absolute anti-dsDNA antibody level and rate of increase could better establish risk of future PLN in patients with SLE.

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