Blog
About

0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Clinical Implications of Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody Test in Lupus Nephritis

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          To elucidate the prevalence and clinical implications of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) in lupus nephritis (LN), we examined ANCA by indirect immunofluorescence and by ELISA against antilactoferrin (anti-LF) and antimyeloperoxidase (anti-MPO) antibody. To discriminate perinuclear ANCA (pANCA) with antinuclear antibody (ANA), all the ANCA-positive sera were tested again after incubating patients’ sera with single-stranded (SS) and double-stranded (ds) DNA. These results were compared with clinicopathologic manifestations and clinical courses of LN. ANCA was positive in 19 (37.3%) of 51 LN patients. Among these LN patients, 3 had cytoplasmic ANCA (cANCA) and 16 had pANCA. ANCA was not found in 8 SLE patients without nephritis and 30 normal controls. The presence of ANCA, particularly pANCA, was associated with the presence of nephritis (18/51 cases vs. 0/8 cases, p < 0.05), especially with diffuse proliferative lupus nephritis, WHO class IV (17/18 cases vs. 21/31 cases, p < 0.05) as well as the presence of anti-dsDNA antibody (17/19 cases vs. 18/30 cases, p < 0.05). Patients with ANCA frequently had deterioration of renal function (3/16 vs. 0/26 cases). Anti-LF antibody was positive in 13 patients. Among those, 12 patients had nephritis. Five patients with anti-LF antibody did not have ANCA, but 7 had pANCA, and 1 had cANCA. Patients with anti-LF antibody had lower initial creatinine levels than those without it [serum creatinine (mg/dl): 0.78 (0.6–1.0) vs. 1.43 (0.5–5.0), p < 0.05]. Anti-MPO antibody was positive in only 1 patient, suggesting that MPO is a rare antigen for ANCA in LN.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 2

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The value of indirect immunofluorescence and solid phase techniques for ANCA detection

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies in childhood systemic lupus erythematosus.

            The prevalence and antigen specificity of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA) in sera from 23 children with active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) were studied utilizing indirect immunofluorescence and IgG and IgM ELISA using crude neutrophil extract and purified proteinase 3, myeloperoxidase, lactoferrin, cathepsin G and elastase. ANCA were present in 69% of SLE children and consisted of IgM and IgG antibodies of variable specificities, but did not correlate with organ involvement or disease activity. It remains unclear whether they have pathogenic significance or are epiphenomena in the category of polyclonal B-cell activation. However, their presence is entirely compatible with SLE even though they have hitherto been commonly associated with other systemic vasculitides.
              Bookmark

              Author and article information

              Journal
              AJN
              Am J Nephrol
              10.1159/issn.0250-8095
              American Journal of Nephrology
              S. Karger AG
              0250-8095
              1421-9670
              2000
              February 2000
              13 January 2000
              : 20
              : 1
              : 57-63
              Affiliations
              Divisions of aNephrology, bRheumatology and cPathology, College of Medicine, Seoul National University, and dClinical Research Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea
              Article
              13557 Am J Nephrol 2000;20:57–63
              10.1159/000013557
              10644870
              © 2000 S. Karger AG, Basel

              Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

              Page count
              Figures: 2, Tables: 4, References: 23, Pages: 7
              Product
              Self URI (application/pdf): https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/13557
              Categories
              Clinical Study

              Comments

              Comment on this article