INTRA-RENAL INVOLVEMENT IN PRIMARY ANTIPHOSPHOLIPID ANTIBODIES SYNDROME: DATA FROM 2 ITALIAN CENTERS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PV020 / #573 Poster Topic: AS03 - Antiphospholipid Syndrome Background/Purpose Antiphospholipid antibodies nephropathy (aPL-N) is defined by thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) early lesions and late lesions such fibro-intimal hyperplasia with luminal obliteration/organized thrombi, fibrous arterial/arteriolar occlusion and focal cortical atrophy.[1] Beyond these distinct microvascular lesions, other glomerular conditions (membranous nephropathy, MN; focal segmental glomerulosclerosis, FSGS), were reported in primary APS (PAPS) patients, even without aPL-related vascular lesions. Objectives. 1) To evaluate clinical/laboratory features associated to intra-renal involvement in PAPS patients; 2) to clinically and histologically characterize PAPS patients with a) aPL-N and b) non-aPL-N intra-renal involvement. Methods Observational retrospective multicentric study including PAPS patients regularly followed (1984-2023). 1) Case-control study: PAPS patients with intra-renal involvement histologically confirmed vs PAPS patients without renal involvement signs. 2) Separate analysis according to renal histologic findings: a) aPL-N and b) non-aPL-N. Results Among 258 PAPS patients (78% females, median age at onset: 32 years, 67% thrombotic phenotype, 54% obstetric phenotype, 41% triple aPL+), 17 (7%) had histologically confirmed intra-renal involvement. It was the first disease manifestation in 10/17 (59%) patients, the main presentation was with isolated urinary abnormalities (IUAs) in 53% of the cases. At renal biopsy 35% had classic aPL-N injuries while 65% showed non-aPL-N intra-renal lesions. 1) Patients with intra-renal involvement suffered less macrovascular thrombotic events and more catastrophic APS (CAPS), thrombocytopenia, epilepsy, and lupus anticoagulant (LA)+ (Table 1). 2a) aPL-N was the first manifestation of APS in 5/6 (83%) cases, presenting with severe arterial hypertension in 17%, CAPS in 33% and IUAs in 50%. Despite therapy with anticoagulant (60%) or antiplatelet (40%) drugs in most patients, the 12-months renal response was complete in only 1/3 of the cases; half of the patients suffered subsequent aPL-related events (3/6 thrombocytopenia; 2/6 thrombotic events). 2b) PAPS patients with non-aPL-N intra-renal lesions had MN in 6/11 and FSGS in 5/11 cases, with some degree of non-specific vascular injury in 64%. As compared to patients with aPL-N, they presented more frequently normal serum creatinine and higher 24h-proteinuria levels (Figure 1) but no differences in systemic autoantibodies/complement levels. All the patients belonging to this subgroup experienced aPL-related events (8/11 thrombotic events, 5/6 obstetric events, 3/11 epilepsy, 2/11 heart valve lesions, 1/11 thrombocytopenia), that in 45% cases were preceded by the renal disease. Table 1. Continuous variables are presented as median (1st-3rd quartile) and compared with Mann-Whitney test; categorical variables are presented as number/number available data (%) and compared with Chi-square test/Fisher’s exact test. *= “extra-criteria” according to Sydney APS criteria 2006. Abbreviations: APS= antiphospholipid syndrome; aPL= antiphospholipid antibodies; LA= lupus anticoagulant; aCL= anticardiolipin antibodies. aβ2GPI= anti-beta2glycoproteinl antibodies; ANA= antinuclear antibodies. Figure 1. aPL-N vs non-aPL-N intra renal involvement: sCr= 1.9 [1.2-2.0] vs 0.98 [0.6-1.2] mg/dL; 24-hours proteinuria= 0.5 [0.4-0.5] vs 3.5 [1.9-3.9] g/24h. Conclusions The present work highlights the importance of conducting appropriate renal study in PAPS patients with renal biopsy, if needed, even in presence of mild IUAs. It underscores that aPL-N, being part of the peculiar microvascular APS subset, may require a treatment strategy beyond anticoagulation.[2] From nephrologists’ perspective, routinary screening for aPL during the assessment of glomerulopathies could be relevant, given the aPL prognostic role in the development of subsequent related events. References: [1.] Barbhaiya M. 2023. [2.] Erkan D. 2021.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».