Worse renal outcome of lupus nephritis in male patients: a case-control study

Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
Citações na Scopus
33
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2011
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
Autores
Citação
LUPUS, v.20, n.6, p.561-567, 2011
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Background: Progression and long-term renal outcome of lupus nephritis (LN) in male patients is a controversial subject in the literature. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of male gender on the renal outcome of LN. Methods: All male (M) LN patients who fulfilled American College of Rheumatology lupus criteria and who were referred for a kidney biopsy from 1999 to 2009 were enrolled in the study. Subjects with end-stage renal disease at baseline, or follow-up time below 6 months, were excluded. Cases were randomly matched to female (F) patients according to the class of LN, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR, Modification of Diet in Renal Disease simplified formula) and follow-up time. Treatment was decided by the clinical staff based on usual literature protocols. The primary endpoint was doubling of serum creatinine and/or end-stage renal disease. The secondary endpoint was defined as a variation of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) per year (Delta GFR/y index), calculated as the difference between final and initial eGFR adjusted by follow-up time for each patient. Results: We included 93 patients (31 M : 62 F). At baseline, M and F patients were not statistically different regarding WHO LN class (II 9.7%, IV 71%, V 19.3%), eGFR (M 62.4 +/- 36.4 ml/min/1.73 m(2) versus F 59.9 +/- 32.7 ml/min/1.73 m(2)), follow-up time (M 44.2 +/- 27.3 months versus F 39.9 +/- 27.9 months), and 24-hour proteinuria (M 5.3 +/- 4.6 g/day versus F 5.2 +/- 3.0 g/day), as well as age, albumin, C3, antinuclear antibody, anti-DNA antibody and haematuria. There was no difference in the primary outcome (M 19% versus F 13%, log-rank p = 0.62). However, male gender was significantly associated with a worse renal function progression, as measured by Delta GFR/y index (beta coefficient for male gender -12.4, 95% confidence interval -22.8 to -2.1, p = 0.02). The multivariate linear regression model showed that male gender remained statistically associated with a worse renal outcome even after adjustment for eGFR, proteinuria, albumin and C3 complement at baseline. Conclusion: In our study, male gender presented a worse evolution of LN (measured by an under GFR recovering) when compared with female patients with similar baseline features and treatment. Factors that influence the progression of LN in men and sex-specific treatment protocols should be further addressed in new studies. Lupus (2011) 20, 561-567.
Palavras-chave
case-control study, lupus nephritis, male gender, worse evolution
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/22651
Referências
  1. Ho CTK, 1998, ANN RHEUM DIS, V57, P437, DOI 10.1136/ard.57.7.437
  2. Weening JJ, 2004, J AM SOC NEPHROL, V15, P241, DOI 10.1097/01.ASN.0000108969.21691.5D
  3. Reckelhoff JF, 1998, AM J HYPERTENS, V11, P97, DOI 10.1016/S0895-7061(97)00360-9
  4. Hochberg MC, 1997, ARTHRITIS RHEUM, V40, P1725, DOI 10.1002/art.1780400928
  5. Crosbie D, 2007, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD005114.pub2
  6. Rovin BH, 2005, J AM SOC NEPHROL, V16, P467, DOI 10.1681/ASN.2004080658
  7. ROUBINIAN JR, 1978, J EXP MED, V147, P1568, DOI 10.1084/jem.147.6.1568
  8. Petri M, 2008, LUPUS, V17, P412, DOI 10.1177/0961203308090026
  9. BOMBARDIER C, 1992, ARTHRITIS RHEUM, V35, P630, DOI 10.1002/art.1780350606
  10. FONT J, 1991, ANN RHEUM DIS, V50, P702, DOI 10.1136/ard.50.10.702
  11. Garcia MA, 2005, LUPUS, V14, P938, DOI 10.1191/0961203305lu2245oa
  12. Miller JA, 1999, KIDNEY INT, V55, P278, DOI 10.1046/j.1523-1755.1999.00260.x
  13. TUCKER LB, 1995, BRIT J RHEUMATOL, V34, P866
  14. Molina JF, 1996, MEDICINE, V75, P124, DOI 10.1097/00005792-199605000-00002
  15. Michels WM, 2010, CLIN J AM SOC NEPHRO, V5, P1003, DOI 10.2215/CJN.06870909
  16. Levey AS, 1999, ANN INTERN MED, V130, P461
  17. Voulgari PV, 2002, LUPUS, V11, P722, DOI 10.1191/0961203302lu253oa
  18. WARD MM, 1990, J RHEUMATOL, V17, P220
  19. Andrade RM, 2007, ARTHRITIS RHEUM, V56, P622, DOI 10.1002/art.22375
  20. Cattran DC, 2008, NEPHROL DIAL TRANSPL, V23, P2247, DOI 10.1093/ndt/gfm919
  21. CARLSTEN H, 1993, SCAND J IMMUNOL, V38, P341, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-3083.1993.tb01736.x
  22. CHURG J, 1982, RENAL DIS CLASSIFICA
  23. Escarcega RO, 2009, LUPUS, V18, P383, DOI 10.1177/0961203308101435
  24. Lahita R G, 1999, Curr Opin Rheumatol, V11, P352, DOI 10.1097/00002281-199909000-00005
  25. LAHITA RG, 1986, SPRINGER SEMIN IMMUN, V9, P305, DOI 10.1007/BF02099028
  26. Lahita RG, 2000, RHEUM DIS CLIN N AM, V26, P951, DOI 10.1016/S0889-857X(05)70178-2
  27. PANDE I, 1994, LUPUS, V3, P181, DOI 10.1177/096120339400300309
  28. ROUBINIAN JR, 1979, J CLIN INVEST, V63, P902, DOI 10.1172/JCI109390
  29. SILBIGER SR, 1995, AM J KIDNEY DIS, V25, P515, DOI 10.1016/0272-6386(95)90119-1
  30. Soto ME, 2004, CLIN EXP RHEUMATOL, V22, P713
  31. STHOEGER ZM, 1987, CLIN EXP RHEUMATOL, V5, P233
  32. TAN EM, 1982, ARTHRITIS RHEUM, V25, P1271, DOI 10.1002/art.1780251101
  33. VENNEMANN F, 1986, Z HAUTKRANKHEITEN, V61, P791
  34. Wallace DJ, 1997, DUBOIS LUPUS ERYTHEM, V5th, P627
  35. YOSHIDA S, 1990, SEMIN ARTHRITIS RHEU, V19, P224, DOI 10.1016/0049-0172(90)90002-W

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MCM
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/16