| Literature DB >> 31533641 |
Yufeng Liang1, Jianxin Wan2, Yongping Chen1, Yangbin Pan3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The diagnostic value of serum M-type phospholipase A2 receptor antibody (sPLA2R-ab) expression in patients with primary membranous nephropathy (PMN) has been established. However, the association between sPLA2R-ab and clinical remission remains uncertain.Entities:
Keywords: Clinical remission; M-type phospholipase A2 receptor antibody; Membranous nephropathy; Meta-analysis
Year: 2019 PMID: 31533641 PMCID: PMC6749720 DOI: 10.1186/s12882-019-1544-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Nephrol ISSN: 1471-2369 Impact factor: 2.388
Quality assessment (NOS scale, score)
| Included studies | SELECTION | COMPARABILITY | EXPOSURE | NOS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Is the case definition adequate? | Representativeness of the cases | Selection of controls | Definition of controls | Ascertainment of exposure | Same method of ascertainment for cases and controls | Non-response rate | |||
| Hofstra JM 2012 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Ruggenenti P 2015 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Qin W 2011 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Beck LH Jr. 2011 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Kim YG 2015 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 7 |
| Pourcine,F,2017 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Oh YJ 2013 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Timmermans SA 2015 [ | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Bech AP2014 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Wei SY2016 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Song EJ,2018 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
Fig. 1Flow diagram for identification, screening, and inclusion of papers for this meta-analysis
Baseline characteristics of the included studies
| First author | Year | Race | Age | Sex (M/F) | Diagnosis | PRO (g/d) | CREA (mg/dl) | Fo (mo) | DD (mo) | IST n(n%) | TTR (mo) | Sample (n) | sPLA2R-ab(+) n (n%) | sPLA2R-ab (−) n (n%) | AM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hofstra JM [ | 2012 | No-As | 51.6 ± 16.0 | 96/26 | RB | 10.2 (3.6–37.9) | 95 (51–302) | 54 | NA | NA | NA | 109 | 79 (72.5%) | 28 (25.7%) | ELISA /IIFT |
| Ruggenenti P [ | 2015 | No-As | 55.7 ± 15.4 | 100/32 | RB | 9.1 (5.8–12.7) | 1.21 (1.00–1.73) | 144 | 25.8 (11.0–70.3) | 49 (37.7) | NA | 101 | 81 (80.2%) | 20 (19.8%) | ELISA |
| Qin W [ | 2011 | As | 47.2 ± 15.4 | 16/44 | RB | 5.42 (4.39–7.61) | 0.85 ± 0.5 | > 12 | 3.0 (1.25–8.25) | NA | 12 (6.5–22) | 60 | 49 (81.7%) | 11 (18.3%) | WB |
| Beck LH Jr [ | 2011 | No-As | 48.2 ± 11.1 | 5/30 | RB | 10.8 (5.7–26.5) | 1.4 (1.00–1.80) | 24 | 10 (6–17) | NA | NA | 35 | 25 (71.4%) | 10 (28.6%) | WB |
| Timmermans SA [ | 2015 | No-As | 52.4 ± 14.0 | 44/29 | RB | 6.7 (4.0–9.7) | 0.97 (0.89–1.23) | 34.8 | NA | 26 (35.6%) | NA | 73 | 65 (89.0%) | 8 (11.0%) | ELISA |
| Oh YJ [ | 2013 | As | 55.6 ± 13.9 | 56/77 | RB | 6.07 (3.17–9.86) | 0.92 ± 0.35 | 30 | NA | NA | 2.0 (1.0–4.0) | 77 | 56 (72.7%) | 21 (27.3%) | WB |
| Kim YG [ | 2015 | As | 50.7 ± 15.0 | 15/19 | RB | 6.55 ± 3.61 | 0.76 ± 0.14 | 12 | NA | NA | NA | 93 | 41 (44.1%) | 52 (55.9%) | ELISA |
| Bech AP [ | 2014 | No-As | 55(34–7) | 10/37 | RB | 10.1 (3.2–25.2) | 1.60 (0.98–3.37) | 60 | 5 (1–26) | 4 (8.3%) | NA | 48 | 34 (70.8%) | 14 (29.2%) | ELISA |
| Wei SY [ | 2016 | As | 48.2 ± 12.7 | 72/41 | RB | 10.78 ± 6.81 | NA | ≤20 | NA | NA | NA | 93 | 55 (59.1%) | 38 (40.9%) | WB |
| Pourcine F [ | 2017 | No-As | 54(40.5–65.1) | 32/53 | RB | 7.1 (3.5–10.8) | NA | 168 | NA | NA | NA | 85 | 46 (54.1%) | 22 (25.9%) | ELISA |
| Song EJ [ | 2018 | As | 55.35 ± 13.33 | 29/19 | RB | 6.20 ± 3.66 | 0.81 ± 0.33 | 65 | NA | NA | NA | 48 | 25 (52.1%) | 23 (47.9%) | ELISA |
JASN J Am Soc Nephrol, CJSN Clin J Am Soc Nephrol, mo month, No-As none Asian, As Asian, M male, F female, PRO proteinuria, CREA serum creatinine, Fo follow up, TTR time to remission, RB renal-biopsy, DD disease duration, AM assay method, WB Western blotting, ELISA enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, IIFT indirect immunofluorescence staining, IST immunosuppressive treatment
Fig. 2Forest plot for the correlation between sPLA2R-ab and the rate of clinical remission in patients with IMN
Fig. 3Forest plot for the correlation between ‘low’ or ‘high’ sPLA2R-ab titer by ELISA and the rate of clinical remission
Fig. 4Forest plot for the correlation between sPLA2R-ab and the rate of clinical remission based on assay methods (a), ethnicity (b), gender (c), and renal function (d)
Fig. 5Forest plot for the correlation between sPLA2R-ab and the rate of clinical remission based on different treatment strategy
Fig. 6Forest plot for the correlation between sPLA2R-ab and the rate of renal failure in patients with IMN
Fig. 7Forest plot for the correlation between sPLA2R-ab and the rate of relapse in patients with IMN