ABSTRACT
Objective To evaluate the diagnostic significance of PLA2R and IgG4 in elderly patients with idiopathic membranous nephropathy (IMN).Methods The clinical data were retrospectively analyzed of patients with IMN (49 males and 49 females,aged 66.6 ± 5.4 years) or Non-IMN (57 males and 41 females,aged 67.1 ± 6.5 years) who were admitted in the authors served Department of Nephrology from Apr.2014 to Feb.2016 and accepted renal biopsy.SPSS13.0 was employed to evaluate the sensitivity,specificity and calculate the area under ROC curve (AUC) of serum anti-PLA2R antibody,glomerular PLA2R and IgG1-4 subclasses on diagnosing IMN.Results On diagnosing IMN,the sensitivity and specificity of serum anti-PLA2R antibody were 77.6％ and 89.8％ [AUC=0.869(0.816-0.923)],of glomerular PLA2R were 66.3％ and 94.9％ [AUC=0.805(0.741-0.87)],and of glomerular IgGl-IgG4 were 80.6％ and 78.6％,60.2％ and 83.7％,41.8％ and 84.7％,and 93.9％ and 89.8％,respectively [AUC=0.767(0.696-0.838),0.709(0.635-0.783),0.628(0.549-0.706) and 0.94(0.901-0.978),respectively].As to the combined use of glomerular PLA2R and IgG4 on diagnosing IMN,the sensitivity was 93.9％ when either one of glomerular PLA2R and IgG4 was positive,or the specificity was 96.9％ when both glomerular PLA2R and IgG4 were positive.Conclusion PLA2R and IgG4 can effectively serve the diagnosis of IMN,and the combined use of PLA2R and IgG4 may be better than single indicator alone.
ABSTRACT
<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To assess the effect and safety of therapies in common use for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with failed thrombolytic therapy.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 2, 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2006), EMBASE (1984 to July 2006), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI, 1994 to July 2006), China Biomedicine Database disc (CBMdisc, 1980 to July 2006). We also searched several key Chinese journals in the field of cardiovascular diseases. The language was limited to Chinese and English. We included all the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for acute myocardial infarction patients with failed thrombolytic therapy. Two authors independently assessed the methodological quality of the included studies, the data were analyzed by RevMan 4.2.8 from the Cochrane Collaboration.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Nine RCTs met the inclusion criteria. A significant difference was found between the rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) group and conventional treatment group in the mortality rate at the end of the follow-up [RR=0.64, 95%CI (0.41, 0.98)]. Thromboembolic stroke and bleeding in rescue PCI group were significantly higher than that in conventional treatment group [RR=4.39, 95%CI (1.14, 16.87), and RR=2.79, 95%CI (1.55, 5.02), respectively]. Compared with conventional therapy, rescue thrombolytic treatment was associated with a significantly higher reperfusion rate [RR=2.92, 95%CI (1.75, 4.85)]. Comparison between rescue PCI with rescue thrombolytic treatment revealed that the revascularization rate in rescue PCI group was significantly lower than that in rescue thrombolytic group [RR=0.57, 95%CI (0.34, 0.95)], and the incidence of bleeding was significantly higher in rescue PCI group [RR=2.15, 95%CI (1.27, 3.63)]. Comparison of glycoprotein (GP)IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists with standard treatment showed no significant difference between them in the mortality rate and bleeding rate at the end of the follow-up.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Current evidence does not confirm the effect or safety of the therapies for AMI patients with failed thrombolytic therapy, nor support the routine use of these therapies in clinical practice except for rescue PCI that reduces mortality compared with traditional treatment. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to provide reliable evidence for the treatments of AMI patients with failed thrombolytic therapy.</p>