Ahmed El-Gohary1, Ann Hegazy1, Mostafa Abbas2, Noha Kamel3, Samah Ismail Nasef4. 1. Clinical Pathology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt. 2. Community medicine and Public Health Department, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt. 3. Clinical Pathology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt. nkamel30@yahoo.com. 4. Rheumatology and Rehabilitation Department, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lupus nephritis is a serious manifestation of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The objective of this study was to identify the sensitivity, specificity, and cut-off values of IP-10 in the serum and urine of patients with lupus nephritis compared to renal biopsy, albumin/creatinine ratio, and serum anti-dsDNA. METHODS: Thirty female SLE patients were included. SLEDAI was calculated and blood and urine samples were collected. Patients were divided into 10 SLE patients with renal involvement (six active and four inactive), 10 active SLE, and 10 inactive SLE patients. Ten age-matched healthy (control) were included. Serum and urinary levels of IP-10 were measured by ELISA. Anti-dsDNA, urine albumin/creatinine ratio were performed. RESULTS: Serum and urinary IP-10 in active SLE patients had significantly increased levels as compared to inactive SLE patients (P = 0.015, P = 0.033, respectively). However, there was no difference in serum and urinary levels between active renal and active non-renal patients. Albumin/creatinine ratio is a better marker in differentiating between lupus nephritis and SLE with no renal involvement. Any of serum and urinary IP-10, albumin/creatinine ratio, and anti-dsDNA did not correlate with the class of lupus nephritis in renal biopsy. CONCLUSION: Urinary and serum IP-10 are useful markers of lupus activity, but not indicative of renal activity. Albumin/creatinine ratio is superior in identifying lupus nephritis and renal activity.
BACKGROUND:Lupus nephritis is a serious manifestation of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The objective of this study was to identify the sensitivity, specificity, and cut-off values of IP-10 in the serum and urine of patients with lupus nephritis compared to renal biopsy, albumin/creatinine ratio, and serum anti-dsDNA. METHODS: Thirty female SLEpatients were included. SLEDAI was calculated and blood and urine samples were collected. Patients were divided into 10 SLEpatients with renal involvement (six active and four inactive), 10 active SLE, and 10 inactive SLEpatients. Ten age-matched healthy (control) were included. Serum and urinary levels of IP-10 were measured by ELISA. Anti-dsDNA, urine albumin/creatinine ratio were performed. RESULTS: Serum and urinary IP-10 in active SLEpatients had significantly increased levels as compared to inactive SLEpatients (P = 0.015, P = 0.033, respectively). However, there was no difference in serum and urinary levels between active renal and active non-renal patients. Albumin/creatinine ratio is a better marker in differentiating between lupus nephritis and SLE with no renal involvement. Any of serum and urinary IP-10, albumin/creatinine ratio, and anti-dsDNA did not correlate with the class of lupus nephritis in renal biopsy. CONCLUSION: Urinary and serum IP-10 are useful markers of lupus activity, but not indicative of renal activity. Albumin/creatinine ratio is superior in identifying lupus nephritis and renal activity.
Authors: Jan J Weening; Vivette D D'Agati; Melvin M Schwartz; Surya V Seshan; Charles E Alpers; Gerald B Appel; James E Balow; Jan A Bruijn; Terence Cook; Franco Ferrario; Agnes B Fogo; Ellen M Ginzler; Lee Hebert; Gary Hill; Prue Hill; J Charles Jennette; Norella C Kong; Philippe Lesavre; Michael Lockshin; Lai-Meng Looi; Hirofumi Makino; Luiz A Moura; Michio Nagata Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Stephan Segerer; Bernhard Banas; Markus Wörnle; Holger Schmid; Clemens D Cohen; Matthias Kretzler; Matthias Mack; Eva Kiss; Peter J Nelson; Detlef Schlöndorff; Hermann-Josef Gröne Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Linda Petrone; Angela Cannas; Francesco Aloi; Martin Nsubuga; Joseph Sserumkuma; Ritah Angella Nazziwa; Levan Jugheli; Tedson Lukindo; Enrico Girardi; Klaus Reither; Delia Goletti Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-08-05 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Makayla P Brady; Saiteja Chava; Shweta Tandon; Madhavi J Rane; Michelle T Barati; Dawn J Caster; David W Powell Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-03 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Isabella Batten; Mark W Robinson; Arthur White; Cathal Walsh; Barbara Fazekas; Jason Wyse; Antonia Buettner; Suzanne D'Arcy; Emily Greenan; Conor C Murphy; Zoe Wigston; Joan Ní Gabhann-Dromgoole; Edward M Vital; Mark A Little; Nollaig M Bourke Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-04-15 Impact factor: 4.379