Coupled plasma filtration adsorption (CPFA) plus continuous veno-venous haemofiltration (CVVH) versus CVVH alone as an adjunctive therapy in the treatment of sepsis

To compare the efficacy of Coupled Plasma Filtration and Adsorption (CPFA) plus Continuous Veno-Venous Haemofiltration (CVVH) versus CVVH alone as an adjunct treatment of sepsis in terms of haemodynamic stability, inotropic requirement and inflammatory mediators. Design and Methods: Prospective randomized controlled trial involving septic patients with/without acute kidney injury (AKI) whom were randomized to receive CPFA + CVVH or CVVH alone. Haemodynamic parameters including inotropic requirements and inflammatory mediators [procalcitonin (PCT) and C reactive protein (CRP)] were measured. Results: Twenty-three patients [CPFA + CVVH (n = 11), CVVH (n = 12)] were enrolled. Haemodynamic stability occurred earlier and sustained in the CPFA + CVVH group with an increase in diastolic blood pressure (p = 0.001 vs. p = 0.226) and mean arterial pressure (p = 0.001 vs. p = 0.575) at the end of treatment with no increment in inotropic requirement. Both groups had a reduction in PCT and CRP (CPFA + CVVH: p = 0.003, p = 0.026 and CVVH: p = 0.008, p = 0.071 respectively). The length of intensive care unit stay, hospital stay and 30 day outcomes were similar between the groups. There was an inverse association between serum albumin and CRP (p = 0.018). Serum albumin positively correlated with systolic blood pressure (p = 0.012) and diastolic blood pressure (p = 0.009). We found a trend between CRP and length of hospital stay (p = 0.056). Patients with a lower PCT at 24 h had a better outcome (survival) than those with a higher PCT (p = 0.045). Conclusion: CPFA is a feasible, albeit expensive adjunctive extracorporeal treatment that may be superior to CVVH alone in the treatment of severe sepsis

Extragonadal germ cell tumor presenting in a woman with systemic lupus erythematosus: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Germ cell tumor of the pituitary gland is a very rare occurrence.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>We describe the case of a 28-year-old Malaysian Malay woman with lupus nephritis who complained of a three month headache and blurring of vision. She was found to have a pituitary mass, which was later proven to be a germ cell tumor. As of writing this case report, her disease is in remission.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The disruption of the pituitary gonad axis could affect the disease activity by reducing immunoregulatory control.</p

Personal non-commercial use only

ABSTRACT. Objective. To assess bone mineral density (BMD) changes in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) undergoing longterm therapy with corticosteroids (CS) while taking calcium, calcitriol, or alendronate. The primary endpoint was BMD changes at 2 years. Methods. Premenopausal SLE patients were randomized into 3 groups according to medication: calcium carbonate 500 mg bd (calcium alone), calcitriol 0.25 µg bd plus calcium carbonate 500 mg bd (calcitriol + calcium), and alendronate 70 mg/week plus calcium carbonate 500 mg bd (alendronate + calcium). BMD was measured at baseline and at the end of the first and second years. Results. Ninety-eight patients were recruited. There were 33 patients taking calcium alone, 33 calcitriol + calcium, and 32 alendronate + calcium. On randomization, median duration of CS use was 2.5 years (range 0-20 yrs). Seventy-seven patients (78.6%) completed the study (23 taking calcium alone, 27 calcitriol + calcium, 27 alendronate + calcium). There were no significant differences in mean CS dosages among the 3 groups at the time of BMD measurements. After 2 years, there were no significant changes in BMD in the calcium-alone and calcitriol + calcium groups, apart from a 0.93% (p &lt; 0.001) reduction in total hip BMD in the calcium-alone group. In contrast, the alendronate + calcium group showed significant increases in BMD of 2.69% (p &lt; 0.001) in the lumbar spine and 1.41% (p &lt; 0.001) in total hip. Conclusion. Both calcium alone and calcitriol + calcium preserved lumbar spine BMD in premenopausal patients with SLE taking longterm CS at 2 years, whereas alendronate + calcium led to increases in BMD in lumbar spine and total hip. Premenopausal women taking CS should be considered for osteoporosis prophylaxis

The classification of glomerulonephritis in systemic lupus erythematosus revisited

The classification of glomerulonephritis in systemic lupus erythematosus revisited.The currently used classification reflects our understanding of the pathogenesis of the various forms of lupus nephritis, but clinicopathologic studies have revealed the need for improved categorization and terminology. Based on the 1982 classification published under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) and subsequent clinicopathologic data, we propose that class I and II be used for purely mesangial involvement (I, mesangial immune deposits without mesangial hypercellularity; II, mesangial immune deposits with mesangial hypercellularity); class III for focal glomerulonephritis (involvin

Urine Monocyte Chemoattractant Protein-1 and Lupus Nephritis Disease Activity: Preliminary Report of a Prospective Longitudinal Study

Objective. This longitudinal study aimed to determine the urine monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (uMCP-1) levels in patients with biopsy-proven lupus nephritis (LN) at various stages of renal disease activity and to compare them to current standard markers. Methods. Patients with LN—active or inactive—had their uMCP-1 levels and standard disease activity markers measured at baseline and 2 and 4 months. Urinary parameters, renal function test, serological markers, and renal SLE disease activity index-2K (renal SLEDAI-2K) were analyzed to determine their associations with uMCP-1. Results. A hundred patients completed the study. At each visit, uMCP-1 levels (pg/mg creatinine) were significantly higher in the active group especially with relapses and were significantly associated with proteinuria and renal SLEDAI-2K. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves showed that uMCP-1 was a potential biomarker for LN. Whereas multiple logistic regression analysis showed that only proteinuria and serum albumin and not uMCP-1 were independent predictors of LN activity. Conclusion. uMCP-1 was increased in active LN. Although uMCP-1 was not an independent predictor for LN activity, it could serve as an adjunctive marker when the clinical diagnosis of LN especially early relapse remains uncertain. Larger and longer studies are indicated

The classification of glomerulonephritis in systemic lupus erythematosus revisited

The currently used classification reflects our understanding of the pathogenesis of the various forms of lupus nephritis, but clinicopathologic studies have revealed the need for improved categorization and terminology. Based on the 1982 classification published under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) and subsequent clinicopathologic data, we propose that class I and II be used for purely mesangial involvement (I, mesangial immune deposits without mesangial hypercellularity; II, mesangial immune deposits with mesangial hypercellularity); class III for focal glomerulonephritis (involving < 50% of total number of glomeruli) with subdivisions for active and sclerotic lesions; class IV for diffuse glomerulonephritis (involving 50% of total number of glomeruli) either with segmental (class IV-S) or global (class IV-G) involvement, and also with subdivisions for active and sclerotic lesions; class V for membranous lupus nephritis; and class VI for advanced sclerosing lesions. Combinations of membranous and proliferative glomerulonephritis(i.e., class III and V or class IV and V) should be reported individually in the diagnostic line. the diagnosis should also include entries for any concomitant vascular or tubulointerstitial lesions. One of the main advantages of the current revised classification is that it provides a clear and unequivocal description of the various lesions and classes of lupus nephritis, allowing a better standardization and lending a basis for further clinicopathologic studies. We hope that this revision, which evolved under the auspices of the International Society of Nephrology and the Renal Pathology Society, will contribute to further advancement of the WHO classification

The classification of glomerulonephritis in systemic lupus erythematosus revisited

The currently used classification reflects our understanding of the pathogenesis of the various forms of lupus nephritis, but clinicopathologic studies have revealed the need for improved categorization and terminology. Based on the 1982 classification published under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) and subsequent clinicopathologic data, we propose that class I and II be used for purely mesangial involvement (I, mesangial immune deposits without mesangial hypercellularity; H, mesangial immune deposits with mesangial hypercellularity); class III for focal glomerulonephritis (involving <50% of total number of glomeruli) with subdivisions for active and sclerotic lesions; class IV for diffuse glomerulonephritis (involving &GE;50% of total number of glomeruli) either with segmental (class IV-S) or global (class IV-G) involvement, and also with subdivisions for active and sclerotic lesions; class V for membranous lupus nephritis; and class VI for advanced sclerosing lesions]. Combinations of membranous and proliferative glomerulonephritis (i.e., class III and V or class W and V) should be reported individually in the diagnostic line. the diagnosis should also include entries for any concomitant vascular or tubulointerstitial lesions. One of the main advantages of the current revised classification is that it provides a clear and unequivocal description of the various lesions and classes of lupus nephritis, allowing a better standardization and lending a basis for further clinicopathologic studies. We hope that this revision, which evolved under the auspices of the International Society of Nephrology and the Renal Pathology Society, will contribute to further advancement of the WHO classification.Univ Amsterdam, Acad Med Ctr, Dept Pathol, NL-1006 AZ Amsterdam, NetherlandsColumbia Univ, Coll Phys & Surg, New York, NY USARush Med Coll, Chicago, IL 60612 USACornell Univ, Weill Med Coll, New York, NY USAUniv Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 USAColumbia Presbyterian Med Ctr, New York, NY 10032 USANIH, Bethesda, MD 20892 USALeiden Univ, Med Ctr, Leiden, NetherlandsImperial Coll Sch Med, London, EnglandSan Carlo Borromeo Hosp, Milan, ItalyVanderbilt Univ, Nashville, TN USASUNY Hlth Sci Ctr, Brooklyn, NY 11203 USAOhio State Univ, Columbus, OH 43210 USAGeorges Pompidou European Hosp, Paris, FranceSt Vincents Hosp, Fitzroy, Vic 3065, AustraliaUniv N Carolina, Sch Med, Chapel Hill, NC USAUniv Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaHop Necker Enfants Malad, Paris, FranceUniv Malaya, Sch Med, Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaOkayama Univ, Grad Sch Med & Dent, Okayama, JapanUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, BrazilUniv Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, JapanUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, BrazilWeb of Scienc

The classification of glomerulonephritis in systemic lupus erythematosus revisited

The currently used classification reflects our understanding of the pathogenesis of the various forms of lupus nephritis, but clinicopathologic studies have revealed the need for improved categorization and terminology. Based on the 1982 classification published under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) and subsequent clinicopathologic data, we propose that class I and II be used for purely mesangial involvement (I, mesangial immune deposits without mesangial hypercellularity; II, mesangial immune deposits with mesangial hypercellularity); class III for focal glomerulonephritis (involving <50% of total number of glomeruli) with subdivisions for active and sclerotic lesions; class IV for diffuse glomerulonephritis (involving 50% of total number of glomeruli) either with segmental (class IV-S) or global (class IV-G) involvement, and also with subdivisions for active and sclerotic lesions; class V for membranous lupus nephritis; and class VI for advanced sclerosing lesions. Combinations of membranous and proliferative glomerulonephritis(i.e., class III and V or class IV and V) should be reported individually in the diagnostic line. The diagnosis should also include entries for any concomitant vascular or tubulointerstitial lesions. One of the main advantages of the current revised classification is that it provides a clear and unequivocal description of the various lesions and classes of lupus nephritis, allowing a better standardization and lending a basis for further clinicopathologic studies. We hope that this revision, which evolved under the auspices of the International Society of Nephrology and the Renal Pathology Society, will contribute to further advancement of the WHO classificatio