Shanshan Huang1, Qing Shen2, Ruoqing Yang1, Heng Lai1, Jing Zhang1. 1. Department of Nephrology, First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China. 2. Department of Nephrology, First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China. sq4817@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2010, a new histopathological classification of ANCA-associated glomerulonephritis (ANCA-GN) based on four categories (focal, crescentic, mixed, and sclerotic) was proposed to predict renal outcome. However, this classification was the source of much debate in different populations. We aimed to evaluate this classification scheme in terms of renal survival using Bayesian network meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched Pubmed, Embase, and Medline for articles published between 1 October 2010 and 9 August 2017 that assessed the predictive value of this classification. We pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for end-stage kidney disease (ESRD) among the four categories using a Bayesian random-effects model. Clinical factors that could potentially influence renal outcome among the different trials were explored by meta-regression. RESULTS: Sixteen case-controlled studies, including a total of 1945 patients with 1695 endpoint events, were included. Compared with sclerotic, the HRs for ESRD were 0.45 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26-0.79] for crescentic, 0.34 (0.22-0.51) for mixed, and 0.24 (0.12-0.51) for focal. Pooled results showed no obvious difference between the crescentic and the mixed sub-groups (HR 1.35; 95% CI 0.90-2.0). Baseline eGFR (P = 0.002) and the ANCA serology (P = 0.029) were associated with renal survival. CONCLUSIONS: The 2010 ANCA-GN classification and the extent of ANCA serology and baseline eGFR were shown to be significant predictors of renal outcome, although there was no significant prognostic difference between crescentic and mixed. The ANCA-GN classification scheme should, therefore, be optimized by combining with other established parameters, such as tubular atrophy and the proportion of normal glomeruli.
BACKGROUND: In 2010, a new histopathological classification of ANCA-associated glomerulonephritis (ANCA-GN) based on four categories (focal, crescentic, mixed, and sclerotic) was proposed to predict renal outcome. However, this classification was the source of much debate in different populations. We aimed to evaluate this classification scheme in terms of renal survival using Bayesian network meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched Pubmed, Embase, and Medline for articles published between 1 October 2010 and 9 August 2017 that assessed the predictive value of this classification. We pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for end-stage kidney disease (ESRD) among the four categories using a Bayesian random-effects model. Clinical factors that could potentially influence renal outcome among the different trials were explored by meta-regression. RESULTS: Sixteen case-controlled studies, including a total of 1945 patients with 1695 endpoint events, were included. Compared with sclerotic, the HRs for ESRD were 0.45 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26-0.79] for crescentic, 0.34 (0.22-0.51) for mixed, and 0.24 (0.12-0.51) for focal. Pooled results showed no obvious difference between the crescentic and the mixed sub-groups (HR 1.35; 95% CI 0.90-2.0). Baseline eGFR (P = 0.002) and the ANCA serology (P = 0.029) were associated with renal survival. CONCLUSIONS: The 2010 ANCA-GN classification and the extent of ANCA serology and baseline eGFR were shown to be significant predictors of renal outcome, although there was no significant prognostic difference between crescentic and mixed. The ANCA-GN classification scheme should, therefore, be optimized by combining with other established parameters, such as tubular atrophy and the proportion of normal glomeruli.
Authors: Herbert A Hauer; Ingeborg M Bajema; Hans C van Houwelingen; Franco Ferrario; Laure-Hélène Noël; Rüdiger Waldherr; David R W Jayne; Niels Rasmussen; Jan A Bruijn; E Christiaan Hagen Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: C Lapraik; R Watts; P Bacon; D Carruthers; K Chakravarty; D D'Cruz; L Guillevin; L Harper; D Jayne; R Luqmani; J Mooney; D Scott Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2007-09-05 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: Damien G Noone; Marinka Twilt; Wesley N Hayes; Paul S Thorner; Susanne Benseler; Ronald M Laxer; Rulan S Parekh; Diane Hebert Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2014-08-21 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Robert A F de Lind van Wijngaarden; Herbert A Hauer; Ron Wolterbeek; David R W Jayne; Gill Gaskin; Niels Rasmussen; Laure-Hélène Noël; Franco Ferrario; Rüdiger Waldherr; E Christiaan Hagen; Jan A Bruijn; Ingeborg M Bajema Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2006-07-06 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Ian S D Roberts; H Terence Cook; Stéphan Troyanov; Charles E Alpers; Alessandro Amore; Jonathan Barratt; Francois Berthoux; Stephen Bonsib; Jan A Bruijn; Daniel C Cattran; Rosanna Coppo; Vivette D'Agati; Giuseppe D'Amico; Steven Emancipator; Francesco Emma; John Feehally; Franco Ferrario; Fernando C Fervenza; Sandrine Florquin; Agnes Fogo; Colin C Geddes; Hermann-Josef Groene; Mark Haas; Andrew M Herzenberg; Prue A Hill; Ronald J Hogg; Stephen I Hsu; J Charles Jennette; Kensuke Joh; Bruce A Julian; Tetsuya Kawamura; Fernand M Lai; Lei-Shi Li; Philip K T Li; Zhi-Hong Liu; Bruce Mackinnon; Sergio Mezzano; F Paolo Schena; Yasuhiko Tomino; Patrick D Walker; Haiyan Wang; Jan J Weening; Nori Yoshikawa; Hong Zhang Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2009-07-01 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Marc Hilhorst; Benjamin Wilde; Peter van Breda Vriesman; Pieter van Paassen; Jan Willem Cohen Tervaert Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2013-06-13 Impact factor: 10.121