| Literature DB >> 31138820 |
Kathrin Burgmaier1, Samuel Kilian2, Bert Bammens3,4, Thomas Benzing5,6, Heiko Billing7, Anja Büscher8, Matthias Galiano9, Franziska Grundmann5, Günter Klaus10, Djalila Mekahli11,12, Laurence Michel-Calemard13, Gordana Milosevski-Lomic14, Bruno Ranchin15, Katja Sauerstein9, Susanne Schaefer16, Rukshana Shroff17, Rosalie Sterenborg17, Sarah Verbeeck12, Lutz T Weber1, Dorota Wicher18, Elke Wühl16, Jörg Dötsch1, Franz Schaefer16, Max C Liebau19,20.
Abstract
Autosomal recessive polycystic kidney disease (ARPKD) is a severe pediatric hepatorenal disorder with pronounced phenotypic variability. A substantial number of patients with early diagnosis reaches adulthood and some patients are not diagnosed until adulthood. Yet, clinical knowledge about adult ARPKD patients is scarce. Here, we describe forty-nine patients with longitudinal follow-up into young adulthood that were identified in the international ARPKD cohort study ARegPKD. Forty-five patients were evaluated in a cross-sectional analysis at a mean age of 21.4 (±3.3) years describing hepatorenal findings. Renal function of native kidneys was within CKD stages 1 to 3 in more than 50% of the patients. Symptoms of hepatic involvement were frequently detected. Fourteen (31%) patients had undergone kidney transplantation and six patients (13%) had undergone liver transplantation or combined liver and kidney transplantation prior to the visit revealing a wide variability of clinical courses. Hepatorenal involvement and preceding complications in other organs were also evaluated in a time-to-event analysis. In summary, we characterize the broad clinical spectrum of young adult ARPKD patients. Importantly, many patients have a stable renal and hepatic situation in young adulthood. ARPKD should also be considered as a differential diagnosis in young adults with fibrocystic hepatorenal disease.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31138820 PMCID: PMC6538621 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-43488-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Patient characteristics at time of cross-sectional analysis.
| 45 adult patients with closest visit to age of 26 years (n/total n informative cases (%) OR mean (±SD) of informative cases) | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Age at visit (years) | 21.4 (±3.3) |
| Sex (male) | 24/45 (53.3%) |
| Height (cm; n = 29) | 170.9 (±10.2) |
| Weight (kg; n = 35) | 65.9 (±15.4) |
| BMI (kg/m²; n = 29) | 21.6 (±3.0) |
Figure 1(a) Renal phenotype at cross-sectional analysis of 45 adult patients regarding kidney function and sonographic abnormalities. HD = hemodialysis, KTx = kidney transplant graft survival, CLKTx = combined liver and kidney transplant graft survival, CMD = cortex-medulla differentiation, n = number of informative cases with sufficient available data for the specific analysis. (b) Dot plot of age at first documentation of renal abnormalities regarding clinical and sonographic characteristics with median and IQR. Events after KTx/CLKTx were excluded; n = number of informative cases.
Figure 2(a) Liver-related clinical symptoms and sonographic abnormalities of 39 adult patients without previous LTx/CLKTx at time of cross-sectional analysis; n = number of informative cases. (b) Dot plot of age at first documentation of signs of portal hypertension and/or liver complications with median and IQR. Events after LTx/CLKTx were excluded; n = number of informative cases.
Figure 3(a) Reasons for initial visit of 45 adult patients and initial symptoms at initial presentation (multiple answering possible). (b) Dot plot of age at first documentation of specific extrarenal and extrahepatic organ manifestations or complications with median and IQR; n = number of informative cases.
Figure 4Individual courses of CKD and organ replacement therapies of 49 patients with available longitudinal data. Bars indicate length of CKD, dialysis or transplant graft survival. Bars end with age of last documented visit. Asterix indicates analysed visit for cross-sectional analysis. None of the reported patients deceased. “Tx” indicates timepoint of transplantation in color coding. Note that four patients (No. 35, 36, 37, 41) did not have suitable documented visits for cross-sectional analysis.