Journal Information
Vol. 3. Issue 1.
Pages 25-32 (January - February 2007)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Vol. 3. Issue 1.
Pages 25-32 (January - February 2007)
Originales
Full text access
Influencia de la infección de vías urinarias no complicada en la frecuencia de exacerbaciones en pacientes con nefritis proliferativa difusa lúpica
Influence of non-complicated urinary tract infection on renal relapses in proliferative lupus nephritis
Visits
15681
Juan Manuel Mirandaa,
Corresponding author
jmmlimon@prodigy.net.mx

Correspondencia: Dr. J.M. Miranda Limón. Departamento de Reumatología. Hospital de Especialidades. Centro Médico Nacional La Raza. Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. Seris esq. Zaachila, Col La Raza, Azcapotzalco 02990. México, DF. México.
, Lucero Mendozaa, Luis Javier Jaraa, Ulises Ángelesb
a Departamento de Reumatología. Hospital de Especialidades. Centro Médico Nacional La Raza. Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. México, DF. México
b Departamento de Epidemiología Clínica. Hospital de Especialidades. Centro Médico Nacional La Raza. Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, México, DF. México
This item has received
Article information
Objetivo

Determinar si la infección de vías urinarias (IVU) es un indicador de retraso en el tratamiento inmunodepresor y de recaída renal en pacientes con nefritis lúpica.

Pacientes y metodos

Se analizó a pacientes con nefritis lúpica proliferativa difusa que recibieron tratamiento con ciclofosfamida intravenosa durante, al menos, 6 meses. Al cabo de ese tiempo se realizó un seguimiento prospective asignando a los pacientes a uno de 2 grupos: grupo I (pacientes que durante el seguimiento desarrollaron IVU), y grupo II (grupo control, pacientes sin infección). Se evaluaron bimestralmente la función renal y el número de recaídas durante un año de seguimiento. Para el análisis estadístico, se emplearon la prueba de la t de Student, la prueba de la χ2, el test de Fisher (cuando se requiera) y el análisis bivariado.

Resultados

Se incluyó a 50 pacientes, 25 en cada grupo. Los casos del grupo I correspondieron a IVU no complicada. La edad promedio fue de 30,07±8,15, y el 82% eran mujeres. El uropatógeno descrito con más frecuencia fue Escherichia coli (73%). La presencia de IVU determinó la interrupción temporal del tratamiento en 19 casos (76%), mientras que en el grupo sin IVU esto ocurrió sólo en 3 pacientes (12%), por otras causas, como leucopenia grave, hipersensibilidad y síntomas gastrointestinales graves (odds ratio=23,22; intervalo de confianza del 95%, 5,26-105,1; p=0,001). Durante el año de seguimiento, en el grupo I, el 90,9% alcanzó la remisión parcial en los primeros 3 meses de seguimiento y el 35% logró la remisión completa después de un año; en el grupo II, los porcentajes de remisión fueron del 85 y el 63%, respectivamente. En el grupo I se observó un incremento en la albuminuria (p<0,05), persistencia de hipocomplementemia y títulos elevados de anticuerpos anti-ADN. En este grupo se encontraron 18 exacerbaciones y en el grupo control, 9.

Conclusiones

En pacientes con nefritis lúpica proliferativa difusa, la presencia de IVU no complicada se asocia a un retraso en el tratamiento inmunodepresor y a un incremento en las recaídas renales.

Palabras clave:
Nefritis lúpica
Infección urinaria
Lupus eritematoso sistémico
Recaída renal
Objective

In patients with proliferative lupus nephritis treated with IV cyclophosphamide, analyze urinary tract infection (UTI) as a cause of treatment delay and renal relapses, compared with lupus nephritis patients without infection.

Patients and methods

We studied SLE patients (ACR criteria) with renal biopsy showing nephritis class IV. All patients received monthly intravenous cyclophosphamide (CYC) treatment during 6 months. Thereafter patients were assigned to 2 groups: patients who developed UTI, and those who did not; renal function tests, UTI and renal relapses were bimonthly evaluated during one year (follow-up period). To analyze data, t student test, χ2, Fisher exact (when appropiate), and bivariate analysis, were performed.

Results

We studied 50 patients, 25 with UTI (Group I) and 25 without UTI (G-II).The mean age was 30.07 ± 8.15 years, 82% were female. E. coli was the pathogen most frequently isolated (73%). UTI (G-I) was the cause for treatment delay in 19 cases (76%), compared with 3 patients (12%) in G-II whose treatment was delayed because of some other causes (severe leucopenya, hypersensibility and gastrointestinal side effects) (OR 23.22, 95% CI, 5.26-105.1; P=001). During the follow up, 90.9% of patients in G-I reached partial or complete renal remission within 3 months, but only 35% mantained remission after the year of follow up. Meanwhile, patients in G-II had complet and partial renal remission of 85% and 63%, respectively. In the first group we observed persistent albuminuria (P<05), low complement levels and high ab-dsDNA titers. Renal flares were present in 18 patients in G-I and 9 in G-II.

Conclusiones

UTI in lupus nephritis patients has a negative impact. It leads to delayed CYC therapy and to a higher renal flare rate.

Key words:
Lupus nephritis
Urinary tract infection
Systemic lupus erythematosus
Renal relapse
Full text is only aviable in PDF
Bibliografía
[1.]
D.L. Huong, T. Papo, H. Beaufils, B. Wechsler, O. Bletry, A. Baumelou, et al.
Renal involvement in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: a study of 180 patients from a single center.
Medicine, 78 (1999), pp. 148-166
[2.]
M. ElHacmi, M. Jadoul, C. Lefebe, G. Depresseaux, F.A. Houssiau.
Relapses of lupus nephritis: Incidence, risk factors, serology and impact on outcome.
Lupus, 12 (2003), pp. 692-696
[3.]
J. Cortés-Hernández, J. Ordi-Rios, M. Labrador, A. Segarra, J.L. Tovar, E. Balada, et al.
Predictors of poor renal outcome in patients with lupus nephritis treated with combined pulses of cyclophosphamide and methylprednisolone.
Lupus, 12 (2003), pp. 287-296
[4.]
I. Kang, S.H. Park.
Infectious complications in SLE after immunosupresive therapies.
Curr Opin Rheum, 15 (2003), pp. 528-534
[5.]
C. Hidalgo-Tenorio, J. Jimenez-Alonso, J.D. Luna, M. Tallada, P. Martínez-Brocal.
Urinary tract infections and lupus erythematosus.
Ann Rheum Dis, 63 (2004), pp. 431-437
[6.]
J.C. Graham, A. Galloway.
ACP Best Practice 167: The laboratory diagnosis of urinary tract infection.
J Clin Pathol, 54 (2001), pp. 911-919
[7.]
J. Krieger.
Urinary tract infections: what’s new?.
[8.]
D. Gordon, A. Groutz.
Evaluation of female lower urinary tract symptoms: overview and update.
Curr Opin Obtetrics Gynecol, 13 (2001), pp. 521-527
[9.]
C.P. Mauragani, H.M. Moutsopoulus.
Lupus nephritis: current issues.
Ann Rheum Dis, 62 (2003), pp. 795-798
[10.]
C. Mok, C. Tze, K. Chan.
Predictors and outcome of renal flares after successful cyclophosphamide treatment for difuse proliferative lupus Glomerulonephritis.
Arthritis Rheum, 50 (2004), pp. 2559-2568
[11.]
W.E. Stam, T.M. Hooton.
Current concepts: Management of urinary tract infections in adults.
N Engl J Med, 329 (1993), pp. 1328-1334
[12.]
L. Lliang, X. Yang, Z. Zhan, Y. Ye, X. Yu.
Clinical predictors of recovery and complications in the management of recent-onset renal failure in Lupus Nephritis : a Chinese experience.
J Rheumatol, 31 (2004), pp. 701-706
[13.]
M. Petri, M. Genovese.
Incidence of and risk factors for hospitalizations in systemic lupus erythematosus: a prospective study of the Hopkins Lupus Cohort.
J Rheumatol, 19 (1992), pp. 1559-1565
[14.]
A. Zonana-Nacach, A. Camargo-Coronel, P. Yañez, L. Sánchez, J. Jiménez-Balderas, A. Fraga.
Infection in outpatients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a prospective study.
Lupus, 10 (2001), pp. 505-510
[15.]
G. Illei, H. Austin, M. Crane, L. Collins, M.F. Goorley, C.H. Yarboro, et al.
Combination therapy with pulse cyclophosphamide plus pulse methylprednisolone improves long-term renal outcome without adding toxicity in patients with lupus nephritis.
Ann Intern Med, 135 (2001), pp. 248-257
[16.]
C.C. Mok.
Cyclophosphamide for severe Lupus Nephritis: Where are we now?.
Arthritis Rheum, 50 (2004), pp. 3748-3750
[17.]
C. Mok, R.W.S. Wong, K.N. Lai.
Treatment of severe proliferative lupus nephritis: the current state.
Ann Rheum Dis, 62 (2003), pp. 799-804
[18.]
J. Golbus, W.J. McCune.
Lupus nephritis classification, prognosis, immunopathogenesis and treatment.
Rheumatic Dis Clin N Am, 20 (1994), pp. 213-242
[19.]
G.G. Illei, K. Takada, D. Paokin, H.A. Austin, M. Crane, C.H. Yarboro, et al.
Renal flares are common in patients with severe proliferative lupus nephritis treated with pulse immunosuppressive therapy: long term follow-up of a cohort of 145 patients participating in randomized controlled studies.
Arthritis Rheum, 46 (2002), pp. 995-1002
[20.]
M.F. Gourley, H.A. Austin 3rd, D. Scott, C.H. Yarboro, E.M. Vaughan, J. Muir, et al.
Methylprednisolone and cyclophosphamide, alone or in combination in patients with lupus nephritis. A randomized controlled trial.
Ann Intern Med, 125 (1996), pp. 549-557
[21.]
E. Ciruelo, J. De La Cruz, I. López, J.J. Gómez-Reino.
Cumulative rate of relapse of lupus nephritis after successful treatment with cyclophosphamide.
Arthritis Rheum, 39 (1996), pp. 2028-2034
[22.]
D.T. Boumpas, H.A. Austin, E.M. Vaughan.
Controlled trial of pulse methylprednisolone versus two regimens of pulse cyclophosphamide in severe lupus nephritis.
Lancet, 340 (1992), pp. 741-745
[23.]
G. Moroni, S. Quaglini, M. Maccario, G. Banfi, C. Ponticelli.
Nephritic flares are predictors of bad long-term renal out-come in lupus nephritis.
Kidney Int, 50 (1996), pp. 2047-2053
[24.]
J.P. Ioannidis, K.A. Boki, M.E. Katsorida, A.A. Drosos, F.E. Skopouli, J.M. Boletis, et al.
Remission, relapse, and re-remission of proliferative lupus nephritis treated with cyclophosphamide.
Kidney Int, 57 (2000), pp. 258-264
[25.]
E.M. Tan, A.S. Cohen, Fries, A.T. Masi, D.J. McShane, N.F. Rothfield, et al.
The 1,982 revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus.
Arthritis Rheum, 25 (1982), pp. 1271-1277
[26.]
C. Bombardier, D. Gladman, M.B. Urowitz, D. Caron, C.H. Chang.
Derivation of the SLEIDAI, a disease activity index for lupus patients.
Arthritis Rheum, 35 (1992), pp. 630-640
[27.]
D. Gladman, E. Glinzer, C. Goldsmith, P. Fortin, M. Liang, E. Urowitz, et al.
The development and initial validation of the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index for systemic lupus erythematosus.
Artrhitis Rheum, 39 (1996), pp. 363-369
[28.]
J.M. Miranda-Limón, L. Mendoza, M.A. Saavedra.
Tratamiento inmunosupresor en pacientes con glomerulonefritis lúpica. Revisión de eventos adversos.
Reumatol Clin, 2 (2006), pp. 313-321
Copyright © 2007. Elsevier España S.L Barcelona
Download PDF
Idiomas
Reumatología Clínica (English Edition)
Article options
Tools
es en

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?