MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2016706723 · doi:10.1097/tp.0000000000000643

Lupus After Kidney Donation to an Affected Male Relative

2015· letter· en· W2016706723 sur OpenAlexaff
Edward G. Clark, Greg Knoll, Ann Bugeja, Kevin D. Burns, R. Hal Scofield

Notice bibliographique

RevueTransplantation · 2015
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueRenal Diseases and Glomerulopathies
Établissements canadiensOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Organismes subventionnairesNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Institute of General Medical SciencesU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Mots-clésMedicineLupus nephritisFamily historyOrgan donationSystemic lupus erythematosusInternal medicineDiseaseTransplantation

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

One poorly defined aspect of the evaluation of potential kidney donors concerns the degree to which there is increased future risk of developing systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis (LN) for those who have a family history. We report the case of a female donor given a clinical diagnosis of SLE following kidney donation to her brother who had end-stage renal disease (ESRD) due to LN. Studies assessing the genetics of familial SLE have provided new insights into genetic susceptibility.1 As highlighted by this case, one scenario of particular relevance to the evaluation of living related kidney donors is when the intended recipient is a man and has ESRD due to LN. In this situation, the risk of familial LN may be increased substantially.2 A 50-year-old woman was evaluated for possible kidney donation. She had previously been in good health and was on no medications. Her family history was significant for a brother with SLE and LN resulting in ESRD. She also had a male first cousin who had been diagnosed with SLE but no other family history of autoimmune or connective tissue disease. Physical examination and imaging studies were normal. The patient proceeded to donate her left kidney to her brother without perioperative complications. When seen in clinic 1 year after donation, she reported feeling well. Serum creatinine was 1.1 mg/dL (96 μmol/L), and there was no proteinuria. Two years after donation, the patient developed malar rash, fatigue, and morning stiffness. She reported no fevers or other constitutional symptoms. Her blood pressure was 130/75 mm Hg. No additional abnormalities were noted on physical examination. Her antinuclear antibody was found to be negative but she was found to persistently test positive for anti–double-stranded DNA and had low C4 levels with normal C3. There was no evidence of LN on the basis of blood and urine testing. Table 1 details the results of selected laboratory investigations before, and 2 years after, kidney donation.TABLE 1: Serologic test results before kidney donation and 2 years afterNow, over 1 year after a clinical diagnosis of SLE by her rheumatologist (in the absence of meeting formal American College of Rheumatology SLE classification criteria, which were formulated as research, not clinical-diagnostic, criteria3), her renal function remains stable, and she has not had further manifestations of autoimmune disease after starting treatment with Plaquenil 400 mg daily. Although our patient has no evidence of renal involvement at this time, she is now at increased risk of developing LN. While LN is not traditionally considered an inherited renal condition, the risk is increased in family members.1 Although women are more likely to be diagnosed with SLE by a factor of approximately 10:1,4 men are more likely to have severe disease including LN.5 A study by Stein et al2 demonstrated that women with SLE who have at least one affected first-degree relative who is male are also more likely to have severe disease with kidney involvement. In addition, this study showed that the prevalence of renal disease (with or without a formal diagnosis of SLE using American College of Rheumatology diagnostic criteria) is significantly increased in female family members of men with SLE as compared to that of female family members with an affected female relative (68% vs 43%; P = 0.002). Subsequent studies suggest that, for families with only affected male relatives, the etiology of SLE occurrence relates to a relatively greater genetic predisposition than is present in families with familial SLE but no (or relatively fewer) affected males.6 Although not studied directly, based on the current evidence, it can be inferred that the future risks of developing SLE and LN may be especially elevated for potential kidney donors who are first-degree relatives of SLE-affected men. In conclusion, to our knowledge, this is the first case report of a patient developing clinical features of SLE after donation of a kidney to a relative with ESRD secondary to SLE. Given that first-degree relatives of men with SLE may be at especially increased risks of future SLE and LN,2,6,7 added caution is indicated when assessing potential kidney donors with this particular family history. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors thank the patient who is the subject of this report for providing additional history and for reviewing and agreeing to submission of this letter. The authors also thank Ms. Mary Rada, Ms. Brenda Cyr-Mockler and Ms. Marjetka Sawchyn who assisted with data collection.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Étude de cas · Signal consensuel: Étude de cas
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,017

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,272
Écart entre enseignants0,256 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeÉtude de cas
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueTransplantationMême sujetRenal Diseases and GlomerulopathiesTravaux en français237 207