| Literature DB >> 27590021 |
Eve Mary Dorothy Smith1, Andrea Lyn Jorgensen2, Angela Midgley3, Louise Oni3, Beatrice Goilav4, Chaim Putterman5, Dawn Wahezi6, Tamar Rubinstein6, Diana Ekdawy3, Rachel Corkhill3, Caroline Ann Jones7, Stephen David Marks8, Paul Newland9, Clarissa Pilkington10, Kjell Tullus8, Michael William Beresford3,11.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conventional markers of juvenile-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (JSLE) disease activity fail to adequately identify lupus nephritis (LN). While individual novel urine biomarkers are good at detecting LN flares, biomarker panels may improve diagnostic accuracy. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of a biomarker panel to identify active LN in two international JSLE cohorts.Entities:
Keywords: BILAG; Glomerulonephritis; Lupus nephritis; Systemic lupus erythematosus; Urine biomarkers
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27590021 PMCID: PMC5203828 DOI: 10.1007/s00467-016-3485-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pediatr Nephrol ISSN: 0931-041X Impact factor: 3.714
Clinical, demographic and laboratory measurements at the time of urinary biomarker quantification
| Variables | Exploratory Cohort 1 (UK JSLE Cohort) | Validation Cohort 2 [Einstein Lupus Cohort (USA)] | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active-LNa ( | Non-LNa ( |
| Active-LNa ( | Non-LNa ( |
| |
| Age at time of analysis (years) | 16 [15–17] | 15 [14–18] | ns | 15 [14–17] | 18 [15–19] | ns |
| Disease duration (years) | 2.8 [0.7–3.9] | 2.4 [0.8–4.8] | ns | 3.1 [1.2–4.8] | 1.7 [0.5–5.6] | ns |
| Femalec | 13 (86.7) | 35 (62.5) | ns | 16 (100) | 10 (71) | ns |
| ACRd | 5 [4–7] | 5 [4–7] | ns | 5 [5.0–5.8] | 5 [4.5–6.0] | ns |
| Ethnicitye | ||||||
| Caucasian | 2 (13) | 23 (50) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | ||
| Africanf | 3 (20) | 5 (11) | 11 (69) | 5 (36) | ||
| Hispanic | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 5 (31) | 8 (57) | ||
| Caribbean | 2 (13) | 2 (4) | ns | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | ns |
| Mixed race | 3 (20) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | ||
| Indian | 3 (21) | 11 (24) | 0 (0) | 1 (7) | ||
| Chinese | 2 (13) | 5 (11) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | ||
| Medication useg | ||||||
| Prednisolone | 12 (80) | 21 (46) | ns | 14 (88) | 12 (86) | ns |
| Mycophenolate mofetil | 11 (73) | 19 (41) | ns | 7 (44) | 3 (21) | ns |
| Cyclophosphamide ever | 3 (20) | 2 (4) | ns | 9 (56) | 4 (29) | ns |
| Rituximab ever | 5 (33) | 0 (0) | 0.02 | 6 (38) | 5 (36) | ns |
| ACEi/AT2 | 4 (27) | 6 (13) | ns | 10 (63) | 1 (7) | 0.03 |
| Glomerular filtration rateh | 100 [70–112] | 116 [105–127] | ns | 126 [90–160] | 110 [100–123] | ns |
| Urinary albumin-to-creatinine (Cr) ratio (mg/mmolCr) | 92 [23–153] | 1 [1–2] | <0.01 | 555 [137–2059] | 9 [3–19] | 0.03 |
| Serum creatinine (μmol/L) | 57 [50–86] | 53 [46–61] | ns | 53 [44–71] | 66 [62–73] | ns |
| dsDNA (IU/L) | 48 [15–263] | 2 [0.1–52] | ns | 156 [96–179] | 87 [23–178] | ns |
| C3 (g/L) | 1.0 [0.5–1.2] | 1.1 [1–1.2] | ns | 0.8 [0.7–1.0] | 1.0 [0.8–1.2] | ns |
| ESR (mm/h)i | 55 [20–90] | 9 [3–23] | <0.01 | − | − | − |
Data are expressed as median values with the interquartile range (IQ) in square brackets, or as numbers with the percentage in parenthesis, as appropriate
JSLE, Juvenile-onset systemic lupus erythematosus; LN, lupus nephritis; ACEi/AT2, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin 2 blocker; dsDNA, anti-double-stranded DNA antibody; C3, complement component 3; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate
aClassification of the patients into active-LN/Non-LN groups is described in section Urine sample selection
b p values are Bonferroni-corrected p values (p c) from Chi-squared tests or univariate binary regression, as appropriate. ns = p c > 0.05
cGender data missing on one Cohort 1 patient
dACR, Number of American College of Rheumatology criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) fulfilled at diagnosis
eSelf-reported ethnicity data shown
fWithin Cohort 2, African American patients were also included in this category
gCurrent medication use is described for regular medications; those medications taken in courses/intermittently are described as having been used ‘ever’
hmls/min
iESR was not routinely measured in Cohort 2
Fig. 1Distribution of biomarker concentrations in active-/non-lupus nephritis (LN) patients with juvenile-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (JSLE) from Cohorts 1 (UK JSLE Cohort) and 2 [Einstein Lupus Cohort (ELC)]. Horizontal line Median value for each group. Mann–Whitney U tests were used to compare the distribution of biomarker concentrations between patient groups within each cohort. A Bonferroni adjustment was applied to account for multiple testing. Corrected p values (p ) are reported. Vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1) biomarker data were not available from one active-LN patient from Cohort 1; neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) data were not available from three active-LN and 15 non-LN patients from Cohort 1. AGP Alpha-1-acid glycoprotein, CP ceruloplasmin, LPGDS lipocalin-like prostaglandin D synthase, TF transferrin, MCP-1 monocyte chemoattractant protein 1, Cr creatinine. See section Urine sample selection for definition of active-/non-LN
Fig. 2Urine biomarker concentrations in active-/non- lupus nephritis (LN) patients with/without extra-renal juvenile-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (JSLE) activity. Biomarker concentrations were standardised to urinary creatinine and expressed as median values. Horizontal line Median value for each group. Mann–Whitney U tests were used to compare biomarker concentrations between patient groups. A Bonferroni adjustment was applied to account for multiple testing. Corrected p values (p ) are reported. Vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1) measurement is missing from one patient; neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) data were not available from three active-LN and 15 non-LN patients
Binary logistic regression models initially including all biomarkers and after variable selection for Cohort 1
| Biomarkers | Model including all biomarkersa | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | Standard error |
| |
| AGP | 0.692 | 0.35 | 0.047 |
| CP | 0.551 | 0.36 | 0.127 |
| VCAM-1 | −0.228 | 0.38 | 0.553 |
| LPGDS | 0.870 | 0.76 | 0.254 |
| MCP-1 | −0.046 | 0.86 | 0.957 |
| TF | 0.256 | 0.23 | 0.275 |
| Model after variable selectionb | |||
| AGP | 0.782 | 2.84 | 0.004 |
| CP | 0.602 | 0.34 | 0.080 |
AGP, Alpha-1-acid glycoprotein; CP, ceruloplasmin; VCAM-1, vascular cell adhesion molecule-1; LPGDS, lipocalin-like prostaglandin D synthase; MCP-1, monocyte chemoattractant protein 1; TF, transferrin
AGP alpha-1-acid glycoprotein
a59 Cohort 1 patients included in the exploratory novel biomarker models including VCAM-1 due to a missing measurements
bModel selected after applying the ‘stepAIC’ function in R
Effect on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of adding biomarkers to the regression model in Cohort 1 and 2 separately or together
| Biomarker combinations included in the binary logistic regression models | Cohort 1a | Cohort 2b | Cohorts 1 and 2 together |
|---|---|---|---|
| AGP + CP | 0.881 | 0.982 | 0.935 |
| AGP + CP + LPGDS | 0.900 | 0.982 | 0.941 |
| AGP + CP + LPGDS + TF | 0.920 | 0.991 | 0.949 |
| AGP + CP + LPGDS + TF + VCAM-1 | 0.920 | 0.987 | 0.952 |
| AGP + CP + LPGDS + TF + VCAM-1 + MCP-1 | 0.920 | NAc | 0.949 |
Values on given as the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC)
AGP alpha-1-acid glycoprotein, CP ceruloplasmin, LPGDS lipocalin-like prostaglandin D synthase, TF transferrin, VCAM-1 vascular cell adhesion molecule-1, MCP-1 monocyte chemoattractant protein 1
a59 Cohort 1 patients were included in the novel biomarker models including VCAM-1 due to missing biomarker measurements
b30 patients were included in Cohort 2 novel biomarker models
cNot available. Patient number (n = 30) precludes fitting of a model including all biomarkers
Fig. 3The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) cure generated from the optimal binary logistic regression model when data from both cohorts were combined. Optimal model includes Alpha-1-acid glycoprotein (AGP), ceruloplasmin, lipocalin-like prostaglandin D synthase (LPGDS), transferrin (TF) and vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1) [area under the ROC curve (AUC) 0.952]
Fig. 4Urine biomarker concentrations in Cohort 2 patients with LN and no recent biopsy (BILAG-defined active LN; n = 11) versus patients with biopsy-defined active LN (n = 12). Closed symbols Median, Whiskers interquartile range. British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG), lupus nephritis (LN)
Area under the ROC curve values corresponding to the ability of traditional biomarkers to identify active lupus nephritis alone and in combination with novel biomarkers
| Traditional biomarkers | AUC | |
|---|---|---|
| Cohort 1 | Cohort 2 | |
| dsDNA | 0.617 | 0.643 |
| C3 | 0.645 | 0.638 |
| C4 | 0.593 | 0.482 |
| ESR | 0.796 | NAa |
| All traditional biomarkers | 0.783 | 0.670b |
| Optimal novel biomarker combination (AGP + CP + LPGDS + TF) + ESR | 0.910 | NAa |
AUC values obtained from logistic regression model probabilities for each traditional biomarker and all biomarkers together
dsDNA double strand DNA, ESR erythrocyte sedimentation rate, AGP Alpha-1-acid glycoprotein, CP ceruloplasmin, LPGDS lipocalin-like prostaglandin D synthase, TF transferrin
aNot available; ESR was not routinely measured in Cohort 2
bESR data missing from the Cohort 2 model