rss

This article has a correction

Please see: Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:1080

Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:234-237 doi:10.1136/ard.2008.094508
  • Clinical and epidemiological research

Are laboratory tests useful for monitoring the activity of lupus nephritis? A 6-year prospective study in a cohort of 228 patients with lupus nephritis

  1. G Moroni1,
  2. A Radice4,
  3. G Giammarresi2,
  4. S Quaglini3,
  5. B Gallelli1,
  6. A Leoni1,
  7. M L Vecchi2,
  8. P Messa1,
  9. R A Sinico4
  1. 1
    Division of Nephrology, Fondazione Ospedale Maggiore, Mangiagalli, Regina Elena, Milan, Italy
  2. 2
    Chair of Nephrology, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy
  3. 3
    Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica, Universita’ degli Studi di Pavia
  4. 4
    Renal Unit and Clinical Immunology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera, Ospedale San Carlo Borromeo, Milan, Italy
  1. Gabriella Moroni, Divisione di Nefrologia e Dialisi, Fondazione Ospedale Maggiore IRCCS, Via della Commenda 15–20122 Milano (Italy); gmoroni{at}policlinico.mi.it
  • Accepted 3 August 2008
  • Published Online First 21 August 2008

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the role of immunological tests for monitoring lupus nephritis (LN) activity.

Methods: C3, C4, anti-dsDNA and anti-C1q antibodies were prospectively performed over 6 years in 228 patients with LN.

Results: In membranous LN only anti-C1q antibodies differentiated proteinuric flares from quiescent disease (p = 0.02). However, in this group 46% of flares occurred with a normal value of anti-C1q antibodies versus 20% in proliferative LN (p = 0.02). In patients with antiphospholipid antibodies (APL), 33% of flares occurred with normal levels of anti-C1q antibodies versus 14.5% in patients that were APL-negative (p = 0.02). In proliferative LN, anti-C1q antibodies showed a slightly better sensitivity and specificity (80.5 and 71% respectively) than other tests for the diagnosis of renal flares. All four tests had good negative predictive value (NPV). At univariate analysis anti-C1q was the best renal flare predictor (p<0.0005). At multivariate analysis, the association of anti-C1q with C3 and C4 provided the best performance (p<0.0005, p<0.005, p<0.005 respectively).

Conclusions: Anti-C1q is slightly better than the other tests to confirm the clinical activity of LN, particularly in patients with proliferative LN and in the absence of APL. All four “specific” tests had a good NPV, suggesting that, in the presence of normal values of each, active LN is unlikely.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None.

  • Present address for AR: Institute of Microbiology, Azienda Ospedaliera, Ospedale San Carlo Borromeo, Milan, Italy.

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF
  4. A correction has been published
  5. All versions of this article:
    1. ard.2008.094508v1
    2. 68/2/234 most recent

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.