No abstract

Surgery for intra-abdominal desmoids in selected patients is less hazardous than previously reported. Surgery for abdominal wall and extra-abdominal tumours is safe. However, disease recurrence remains a major problem.

IntroductionGlomerulonephritis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Deposition of autoantibodies in the glomeruli plays a key role in the development of lupus nephritis (LN). Different groups have proposed that either anti-nucleosome antibodies or antibodies that bind the intrinsic renal antigen, α-actinin, are central to the pathogenesis of LN. These theories have been based mainly on cross-sectional studies in patients and on experiments in animal models. No previous longitudinal studies have compared the relationships between levels of these antibodies and markers of renal function. We assessed how well anti-α-actinin, anti-nucleosome and anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibodies reflected renal outcome measures in patients with new-onset LN followed for up to 2 years.MethodsRenal disease activity was monitored by measuring urine protein/creatinine ratio (PCR), serum albumin and a composite outcome of renal remission. At each time point, anti-nucleosome and anti-α-actinin antibodies were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. High-avidity anti-dsDNA antibodies were measured using the Farrzyme assay. We analysed relationships between levels of the three antibodies and between antibody levels and renal outcome measures over time.ResultsLevels of anti-nucleosome and anti-dsDNA were positively correlated with each other (r = 0.6, P = 0.0001) but neither correlated with anti-α-actinin level. At baseline, mean anti-nucleosome levels were higher in patients with LN than in healthy controls (0.32 versus 0.01, P < 0.001). The same was true for anti-dsDNA antibodies (0.50 versus 0.07, P < 0.001) but not for anti-α-actinin (0.33 versus 0.29). Over the follow-up period, anti-nucleosome and anti-dsDNA levels associated positively with urine PCR (P = 0.041 and 0.051, respectively) and negatively with serum albumin (P = 0.027 and 0.032, respectively). Both anti-nucleosome and anti-dsDNA levels were significantly lower during renal remission than when renal disease was active (P = 0.002 and 0.003, respectively). However, there was no relationship between anti-α-actinin levels and urine PCR, serum albumin or remission status.ConclusionsThis prospective longitudinal clinical study is the first to compare levels of anti-nucleosome, anti-dsDNA and anti-α-actinin antibodies in the same patients with SLE. Our results support the concept that, in the majority of patients, anti-nucleosome antibodies play a major role in pathogenesis of LN, in contrast to anti-α-actinin antibodies.

Objective: To investigate factors associated with pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). Methods: A case-control study was used to investigate demographic and behavioural factors, and causative agents associated with PID. Results: A total of 381 participants were recruited: 140 patients, and 105 and 136 controls in tubal ligation and general practice groups, respectively. When compared with a PID-free tubal ligation control group, increased risk of PID was associated with: age ,25 years; age at first sexual intercourse ,20 years; non-white ethnicity; not having had children; a self-reported history of a sexually transmitted disease; and exposure to Chlamydia trachomatis. When compared with a general practice control group, increased risk was associated with: age ,25 years; age at first sexual intercourse ,15 years; lower socioeconomic status; being single; adverse pregnancy outcome; a self-reported history of a sexually transmitted disease; and exposure to C trachomatis. Of the cases, 64% were not associated with any of the infectious agents measured in this study (idiopathic). Conclusions: A high proportion of cases were idiopathic. PID control strategies, which currently focus on chlamydial screening, have to be reviewed so that they can prevent all cases of PID. Behavioural change is a key factor in the primary prevention of PID, and potential modifiable risk factors were associated with PID.