The value of early renal biopsy in systemic lupus erythematosus patients presenting with renal involvement

The goal of this study is to determine the value of early renal biopsy as a therapeutic guide in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients presenting with renal involvement. We retrospectively analyzed renal biopsies findings in SLE patients between January 2000 and December 2009 encountered at a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical nephrology 2012, Vol.77 (1), p.18-24
Hauptverfasser: HSIEH, Yao P, WEN, Yao K, CHEN, Moi L
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The goal of this study is to determine the value of early renal biopsy as a therapeutic guide in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients presenting with renal involvement. We retrospectively analyzed renal biopsies findings in SLE patients between January 2000 and December 2009 encountered at a medical center in Taiwan. An additional criterion for inclusion in this study was kidney biopsy done within 3 months of the first detection of sign(s) of renal disease. There were 131 patients enrolled in this study. In patients presenting with acute renal failure, 91% of patients had proliferative lupus nephritis (Class IV, mixed Class V+III) and 9% had non-proliferative lupus nephropathy (pure Class V). In patients presenting with nephrotic range proteinuria, proliferative lupus nephritis (Class III, IV, mixed Class V+III) and non-proliferative lupus nephropathy (Class II, pure Class V) accounted for 55% and 36% of patients, respectively; and 9% had non-lupus nephropathy. In this group, except that elevated anti-double-stranded DNA antibody levels were more common in proliferative lupus nephritis (p = 0.043), no clinical findings could predict the renal morphology. In patients presenting with subnephrotic proteinuria, 49% of patients had proliferative lupus nephritis (Class III, IV, mixed Class V+III) and 51% had non-proliferative lupus nephropathy (Class II, pure Class V), and decreased C4 levels were more common in patients with proliferative lupus nephritis (p = 0.031). In patients presenting with isolated hematuria, all were not active forms of nephropathy. Immunosuppressive therapy was intensified because of biopsy findings in 29% of patients presenting with acute renal failure, 43% with nephrotic range proteinuria, and 53% with sub-nephrotic proteinuria. Our data suggested that similar clinical renal manifestations may be observed despite very different classes of lupus nephritis. Clinicians tended to wait for histological identification of severe lupus nephritis before initiating potential harmful treatment with aggressive immunosuppressive therapy. Therefore, in SLE patients with clinical sign(s) of renal disease, early renal biopsy may be helpful in planning treatment.
ISSN:0301-0430
DOI:10.5414/CN107094