Serum uric acid levels are associated with lupus nephritis in patients with normal renal function

Uric acid has been recognised as a potential marker of endothelial dysfunction and kidney disease but there are scarce data about its importance in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) nephritis. This study aimed to evaluate serum uric acid (UA) levels in lupus nephritis (LN), by comparing SLE patient...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical rheumatology 2018-05, Vol.37 (5), p.1223-1228
Hauptverfasser: Calich, Ana Luisa, Borba, Eduardo Ferreira, Ugolini-Lopes, Michelle Remião, da Rocha, Luiza Fuoco, Bonfá, Eloisa, Fuller, Ricardo
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Uric acid has been recognised as a potential marker of endothelial dysfunction and kidney disease but there are scarce data about its importance in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) nephritis. This study aimed to evaluate serum uric acid (UA) levels in lupus nephritis (LN), by comparing SLE patients with normal renal function, with and without nephritis. Forty-six female SLE patients were consecutively selected and divided in two groups according to renal activity at the evaluation: presence of a recently diagnosed lupus nephritis (LN+, n  = 18) and absence of lupus nephritis (LN−, n  = 28). Age-matched healthy women were selected (CONTROL, n  = 28). Patients with gout, creatinine clearance lower than 80 ml/min and use of drugs that interfere in UA were excluded. Laboratory and clinical data were analysed by appropriate tests. A multivariate analysis was performed, and a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted, and the area under the curve was calculated to assess the diagnostic strength of UA in LN. The mean age was similar among LN+, LN− and CONTROL groups (32.44 ± 6.09 vs. 30.68 ± 5.36 vs. 30.86 ± 5.00 years, p  = 0.52). UA was significantly higher in LN+ compared to LN− (5.54 ± 1.67 vs. 3.65 ± 1.090 mg/dL, p  
ISSN:0770-3198
1434-9949
DOI:10.1007/s10067-018-3991-8