| Literature DB >> 28697742 |
Min Pan1,2, Ji Zhang3, Zhanyuan Li2, Lingwei Jin2, Yu Zheng2, Zhihong Zhou2, Su Zhen3, Guoyuan Lu4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An association between serum complement levels and poor renal prognosis in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy (IgAN) remains controversial.Entities:
Keywords: Chronic kidney disease; Complement; IgA nephropathy; Renal failure
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28697742 PMCID: PMC5505039 DOI: 10.1186/s12882-017-0658-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Nephrol ISSN: 1471-2369 Impact factor: 2.388
Clinical characteristics and the Oxford IgAN classification at the time of renal biopsy in 403 patients with IgAN
| Clinical characteristics | Oxford classification (n [%]) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Female (n [%]) | 223 (55.3) | Mesangial hypercellularity | |
| Age (years, mean [SD]) | 37.1 (11.8) | M0 | 280 (69.4) |
| Systolic blood pressure (mmHg, mean [SD]) | 129.7 (18.1) | M1 | 121 (30.0) |
| Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg, mean [SD]) | 81.4 (12.1) | Endocapillary hypercellularity | |
| MAP (mmHg, mean [SD]) | 97.6 (13.4) | E0 | 274 (68) |
| Hemoglobin (g/L, mean [SD]) | 125.9 (1 9.0) | E1 | 127 (31.5) |
| Serum creatinine (μmol/L, mean [SD]) | 87.7 (46.3) | Segmental glomerulosclerosis | |
| eGFR (ml/min/1.73 m2, mean [SD]) | 94.5 (30.9) | S0 | 101 (25.1) |
| 24 h urinary protein (g/L, median [IQR]) | 1.2 (1.5) | S1 | 300 (74.4) |
| Serum C3 (g/L, mean [SD]) | 0.95 (0.19) | Tubular atrophy/interstitial fibrosis | |
| Serum C4 (g/L, mean [SD]) | 0.22 (0.07) | T0 | 294 (73.0) |
| T1 | 84 (20.8) | ||
| T2 | 23 (5.7) | ||
SD standard deviation, IQR interquartile range
Clinical characteristics of participants at the end of follow-up
| Clinical characteristics | |
|---|---|
| Duration of follow-up (months, median [IQR]) | 35 (11) |
| Serum creatinine (μmol/L, median [IQR]) | 78 (41) |
| UPCR (g/g, median [IQR]) | 0.5 (1.0) |
| eGFR (ml/min/1.73m2, mean [SD]) | 91.1 (34.7) |
| ESRD (n [%]) | 16 (4.0) |
| Endpoint event (n [%]) | 39 (9.8) |
| Immunosuppressive therapy (n [%]) | 202 (50.1) |
| ACEI/ARB (n [%]) | 255 (87.3) |
SD standard deviation, IQR interquartile range
Fig. 1Result from the linear regression analysis of the relationship between serum complement levels and eGFR values. Linear fitting showed that there was no significant correlation between serum C3 levels and eGFR values. Analyses also demonstrated that higher serum C4 levels were associated lower values of eGFR. Grey area outside the fitted line was the confidence interval of the fitted value
Fig. 2The dot plot showed the relationship between the serum complement levels and the grade of each component of the Oxford classification. Variance homogeneity test was tested by a Bartlett test. a: Welch two sample t-test; b: Wilcoxon rank test; c: Kruskal-Wallis rank test. The mean and standard deviation were showed in the pictures. Abbreviations: E, Endocapillary hypercellularity; M, Mesangial hypercellularity; S, Segmental glomerulosclerosis, T, Tubular atrophy/interstitial fibrosis
Univariate and Multivariate Cox proportional-hazard regression analyses for the risk factors of poor outcome
| Factors | Univariate Analysis | Multivariate Analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95%CI) |
| HR (95%CI) |
| |
| Age (Year) | 0.5 (0.3-0.8) | 0.003 | 0.3 (0.2-0.6) | <0.001 |
| Gender | 0.32 | - | ||
| Female | 1 | - | ||
| Male | 1.4 (0.7-2.6) | - | ||
| Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 1.5 (1-2.2) | 0.04 | 1.2 (0.6-2.3) | 0.52 |
| Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 1.5 (1-2.2) | 0.05 | 1.4 (0.7-2.6) | 0.32 |
| 24 h urinary protein (g/L) | 1.4 (1.2-1.6) | <0.001 | 1.4 (1.1-1.7) | 0.003 |
| Serum C3 (g/L) | 0.6 (0.4-0.9) | 0.03 | 0.4 (0.2-0.6) | <0.001 |
| Serum C4 (g/L) | 1.5 (1-2.2) | 0.03 | 2.4 (1.6-3.8) | <0.001 |
| Immunosuppressive therapy | 0.04 | <0.001 | ||
| GS group | 1 | 1 | ||
| non-GS group | 2.0 (1.1-4.0) | 4.0 (1.8-8.8) | ||
HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval
Fig. 3A nomogram to predict the probabilities of three- and five-year event-free survival. Points are assigned for parameters, such as serum C3 and C4 levels by drawing a line upward from the corresponding values to the “Points” line. The sum of these two points, plotted on the “Total points” line, corresponds to the prediction of three- and five-years endpoint events