No abstract

Background and objectives: Diarrhea-associated hemolytic uremic syndrome (D؉HUS) is a common cause of acute kidney injury in children. Mutations in alternative pathway (AP) complement regulatory proteins have been identified in severe cases of thrombotic microangiopathy, but the role of the AP in D؉HUS has not been studied. Therefore, we determined whether plasma levels of markers of activation of the AP are increased in D؉HUS and are biomarkers of the severity of renal injury that predict the need for dialysis.Design, setting, participants, & measurements: Patients were randomly selected from among participants in the HUS-SYNSORB Pk trial. Plasma samples were collected on days 1, 4, 7, and 10 after enrollment and day 28 after discharge from the hospital. Levels of two complement pathway products, Bb and SC5b-9, were determined by ELISA.Results: Seventeen children (6 boys and 11 girls; age, 5.4 ؎ 3.5 yr) were studied. Eight (47%) required dialysis support, and two had serious extrarenal events. On the day of enrollment, plasma levels of Bb and SC5b-9 were significantly increased in all patients compared with healthy controls (P < 0.01). The elevated concentrations normalized by day 28 after discharge. Circulating levels of complement pathway fragments did not correlate with severity of renal injury or occurrence of complications.Conclusions: Patients with acute-onset D؉HUS manifest activation of the AP of complement that is temporally related to the onset of disease and that resolves within 1 mo. Therapies to inhibit the AP of complement may be useful in attenuating the severity of renal injury and extrarenal complications.

Patients with elevated aPL levels at their initial prenatal visit had an increase in fetal loss but no increase in maternal pregnancy complications, low birth weight, or low Apgar scores. Immunoglobulin G anticardiolipin antibody was the only single test of aPL significantly associated with fetal loss.

Dysregulation of IL-6 production has been proposed as a pathogenic mechanism in SLE. We asked if serum or urine IL-6 levels could serve as indicators of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) disease activity. Using a sensitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), we measured serum and urine IL-6 in 56 SLE patients. Disease activity was assessed using a standard clinical index, the Systemic Lupus Activity Measure (SLAM). Only seven of 56 SLE patients had elevated serum IL-6 levels, compared with 1 of 32 controls (NS). SLE disease activity did not correlate with serum IL-6 levels. Sixteen of 50 SLE patients in whom urine IL-6 was measured exhibited elevated urine IL-6 levels, compared with 1 of 17 controls (p = < 0.05). Urine IL-6 levels correlated with overall disease activity and with the presence of active urinary sediment. Our results indicate that serum IL-6 is not a predictor of disease activity in SLE, but that urine IL-6 may be a marker of active nephritis.

Objective. To compare the measurement of antinuclear antibodies (ANA) by immunofluorescence and by 6 different commercial enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) in clearly defined patient groups and serum samples. Methods. Serum samples were derived from 3 sources: 1) patients with a known clinical diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) (group 1), 2) sera with known monospecific ANA reactivity (group 2), and 3) sera from consecutive patients for whom ANA testing had been ordered (group 3). Each of these sera was tested for the presence of ANA by immunofluorescence on HEp‐2 cells, and by using each of 6 commercially available ELISA ANA kits. Results. In patients with known clinical SLE, 88% were ANA positive by immunofluorescence. Positivity with the different ELISAs ranged from 62% to 90%. While most ELISAs successfully detected antibodies to SS‐A, RNP, and Sm, there were significant differences between assays in the detection of anticentromere antibodies and anti‐DNA. Measurement of ANA in consecutive patients for whom an ANA test was requested showed that, generally, those assays with high sensitivity for detection of SLE had a high false‐positive rate, whereas those assays with a low false‐positive rate failed to identify some patients with a clinical diagnosis of SLE. Conclusion. There are significant differences in the detection of ANA by immunofluorescence and different ELISA kits. Agreement between different assays is generally marginal. When ordering and interpreting an ANA test, the clinician must be familiar with the specific assay being used to measure ANA and the differences between the various ANA assays.