切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华肾病研究电子杂志 ›› 2025, Vol. 14 ›› Issue (01) : 1 -6. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3216.2025.01.001

论著

男性是老年IgA 肾病患者预后不良的危险因素
张秋月1, 张雨2, 王杰1, 李丽雅1, 徐解关玄1, 陈香美1, 蔡广研1,()   
  1. 1. 100853 北京,解放军总医院第一医学中心肾脏病医学部、肾脏疾病全国重点实验室、国家慢性肾病临床医学研究中心、重症肾脏疾病器械与中西医药物研发北京市重点实验室、数智中医泛血管疾病防治北京市重点实验室、国家中医药管理局高水平中医药重点学科
    2. 300071 天津,南开大学医学院
  • 收稿日期:2024-02-18 出版日期:2025-02-28
  • 通信作者: 蔡广研
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金(82170686)科技领军人才课题(22KJLJ001)

Male gender is a risk factor for the poor prognosis of elderly patients with IgA nephropathy

Qiuyue Zhang1, Yu Zhang2, Jie Wang1, Liya Li1, Guanxuan Xvxie1, Xiangmei Chen1, Guangyan Cai1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Nephrology, First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, State Key Laboratory of Kidney Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Kidney Diseases, Beijing Key Laboratory of Medical Devices and Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Drug Development for Severe Kidney Diseases, Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Intelligent TCM for Prevention and Treatment of Pan-vascular Diseases, Key Disciplines of National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine (zyyzdxk-2023310),Beijing 100853
    2. ankai University School of Medicine, Tianjin 300071; China
  • Received:2024-02-18 Published:2025-02-28
  • Corresponding author: Guangyan Cai
引用本文:

张秋月, 张雨, 王杰, 李丽雅, 徐解关玄, 陈香美, 蔡广研. 男性是老年IgA 肾病患者预后不良的危险因素[J/OL]. 中华肾病研究电子杂志, 2025, 14(01): 1-6.

Qiuyue Zhang, Yu Zhang, Jie Wang, Liya Li, Guanxuan Xvxie, Xiangmei Chen, Guangyan Cai. Male gender is a risk factor for the poor prognosis of elderly patients with IgA nephropathy[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Kidney Disease Investigation(Electronic Edition), 2025, 14(01): 1-6.

目的

通过分析不同性别的老年IgA 肾病患者临床指标及病理特征,探讨性别差异对预后的影响。

方法

回顾性分析2004 年1 月至2022 年8 月于解放军总医院第一医学中心经肾活检确诊的原发性IgA 肾病且年龄≥60 岁患者。 随访截止日期2023 年9 月。 终点事件为终末期肾脏病(ESRD)、规律行肾脏替代治疗,或估算的肾小球滤过率(eGFR)下降≥50%。 有效随访时长为1 年。观察患者的临床及病理特征,采用Kaplan-Meier 生存分析方法比较不同性别老年IgA 患者的肾脏生存率差异,通过Cox 回归模型分析老年IgA 患者的预后影响因素。

结果

本研究共纳入135 例患者,中位数年龄64 岁;其中男性81 例、女性54 例。 男性患者的血清肌酐、血尿素氮、血尿酸水平较高,血清IgA 水平、甘油三酯、总胆固醇水平较低,而且肾小球系膜细胞增生、肾小管萎缩/间质纤维化亦更严重(P 均<0.05)。 中位随访时长58 个月,共有32 例(23.7%)患者发生终点事件,其中男性23 例(28.3%)、女性9 例(16.7%)。 Kaplan-Meier 生存分析显示男性患者的肾脏存活率显著低于女性(P=0.01)。 Cox 回归模型分析显示男性(HR=3.689, 95%CI:1.517~8.977,P=0.004)是老年IgA 肾病患者的不良预后危险因素。

结论

在老年IgA 肾病患者中,男性是其预后不良的独立危险因素。

Objective

To investigate the impact of gender differences on the prognosis of elderly patients with IgA nephropathy (IgAN) by examining their clinical indices and pathological characteristics.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of primary IgAN patients aged ≥ 60 years diagnosed by renal biopsy at the First Medical Center of PLA General Hospital from January 2004 to August 2022.The follow-up deadline was September 2023.The endpoint events were end-stage renal disease (ESRD), regular renal replacement therapy, or decrease of eGFR by no less than 50%.The effective follow-up duration was 1 year.The clinical and pathological characteristics of the patients were observed.Kaplan-Meier survival analysis method was used to compare the differences in renal survival rate between the male and female elderly patients with IgAN.And Cox regression model was used to analyze the prognostic factors of the elderly patients with IgAN.

Results

This study included 135 patients with a median age of 64 years, among whom there were 81 males and 54 females.Compared with the female patients, the male patients showed higher levels of serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, blood uric acid, mesangial cell proliferation, and tubular atrophy/interstitial fibrosis, but lower levels of serum IgA, triglycerides, and total cholesterol (all P<0.05).During a median follow-up of 58 months, a total of 32 patients (23.7%) had endpoint events, including 23 males (28.3%)and 9 females (16.7%).Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that the renal survival rate of the male patients was significantly lower than that of the female patients (P=0.01).Cox regression analysis showed that the male gender (HR=3. 689, 95%CI: 1. 517-8. 977, P= 0.004) was a risk factor for the poor prognosis of the elderly patients with IgAN.

Conclusion

The male gender was an independent risk factor for the poor prognosis in the elderly patients with IgAN.

表1 纳入老年IgA 肾病患者一般临床资料和检验指标比较
指标 全体患者(135 例) 男性组( 81 例) 女性组( 54 例) t / χ 2 / Z P 值
年龄(岁)a 64(62, 67) 64(62, 67) 64(61, 67) 0. 855 0. 393
随访时长(月)a 58(27. 5,109) 50(29, 96) 69. 5(26. 5, 122. 5) -1. 037 0. 191
慢性肾脏病分期[例(%)]b 5. 038 0. 169
CKD1 20(14. 81) 9(11. 11) 11(20. 37)
CKD2 32(23. 70) 24(29. 63) 8(14. 81)
CKD3 64(47. 41) 37(45. 68) 27(50)
CKD4 19(14. 07) 11(13. 58) 8(14. 81)
收缩压(mmHg)a 140(126, 150) 140(125, 150) 140(130, 154) -0. 599 0. 549
舒张压(mmHg)a 80(79, 90) 80(80, 90) 80(79, 89) 1. 259 0. 208
平均动脉压(mmHg)a 100(93, 110) 101(93, 110) 100(93, 107) 0. 407 0. 684
24 h 尿蛋白定量(g/ d)a 2. 00(0. 86, 3. 39) 2. 15(1. 03, 3. 54)  1. 67(0. 77, 2. 94) 1. 213 0. 225
<1 g/ d [例(%)]  38(28. 15) 20(24. 69) 18(33. 33)
1~3. 5 g/ d [例(%)] 65(48. 15) 40(49. 38) 25(46. 30)
≥3. 5 g/ d [例(%)] 32(23. 70) 21(25. 93) 11(20. 37)
eGFR[ml/ (min·1. 73 m2)]a 54. 06(37. 31, 72. 19) 53. 04(36. 37, 70. 72) 55. 03(41. 01, 78. 13) -0. 755 0. 451
血清肌酐(μmol/ L)a 114. 9(92. 00, 159. 20) 130. 40(100. 50, 177. 20) 99(74. 00, 128. 00) 3. 941 0. 001
血尿素氮(mmol/ L)a 7. 78(5. 98, 10. 26) 8. 26(6. 65, 10. 80)  7. 07(5. 42, 9. 61) 2. 491 0. 013
总蛋白(g/ L)a 64. 6(56. 35, 69. 40) 62. 4(55. 2, 68. 6) 66. 55(58. 75, 69. 88) -1. 55 0. 121
白蛋白(g/ L)a 36. 5(31. 15, 39. 7) 35. 1(30, 39) 37. 3(33. 62, 40. 45) -1. 608 0. 108
血尿酸(μmol/ L)c 363. 95±95. 53 381. 05±91. 15 338. 31±97. 03 2. 601 0. 011
总胆固醇( mmol / L)a 4. 86(4. 00, 5. 89) 4. 44(3. 74, 5. 75)  5. 26(4. 55, 6. 08) -3. 200 0. 001
甘油三酯( mmol / L)a 1. 70(1. 17, 2. 26) 1. 51(1. 14, 2. 05)  1. 94(1. 57, 2. 36) -2. 630 0. 009
血红蛋白(g/ L)c 122. 19±21. 39 125. 37±23. 29 117. 43±17. 32 2. 270 0. 025
血清IgA(mg/ dl)a 333(260, 407) 304(245, 390) 364(283. 75, 418. 50) -2. 169 0. 03
血清C3(mg/ dl)a 107(94, 122) 105(91. 4, 121) 111(99. 18, 125) -1. 509 0. 13
肾穿刺前应用免疫抑制剂[例(%)]b 21(15. 56) 10(12. 35) 11(20. 37) 0. 401 0. 527
肾穿刺前应用肾素-血管紧张素系统抑制剂[例(%)]b 56(41. 48) 36(44. 44) 20(37. 04) 0. 732 0. 392
肾病综合征[例(%)]b 19(14. 07) 12(14. 81)  7(12. 96) 0. 092 0. 762
糖尿病[例(%)]b 22(16. 30) 12(14. 81) 10(18. 52) 0. 326 0. 568
高血压[例(%)]b 85(62. 96) 51(62. 96) 34(62. 96) 0 1
表2 老年IgA 肾病患者牛津分型病理特点[例(%)]
图1 不同性别老年 IgA 肾病患者Kaplan-Meier 生存分析结果
表3 老年IgA 肾病预后危险因素的Cox 回归模型分析结果
[1]
Gutiérrez E, Praga M, Rivera F, et al.Changes in the clinical presentation of immunoglobulin A nephropathy: data from the Spanish registry of glomerulonephritis [ J].Nephrol Dial Transplant, 2018, 33(3): 472-477.
[2]
Sevillano AM, Diaz M, Caravaca-Fontán F, et al.IgA nephropathy in elderly patients [J].Clin J Am Soc Nephrol,2019, 14(8): 1183-1192.
[3]
Deng W, Tan X, Zhou Q, et al.Gender-related differences in clinicopathological characteristics and renal outcomes of Chinese patients with IgA nephropathy [J].BMC Nephrol, 2018, 19(1): 31.
[4]
Duan ZY, Cai GY, Chen YZ, et al.Aging promotes progression of IgA nephropathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis [J].Am J Nephrol, 2013, 38(3): 241-252.
[5]
中国医药卫生文化协会肾病与血液净化专业委员会.原发性IgA 肾病管理和治疗中国专家共识[J/OL].中华肾病研究电子杂志, 2024, 13(1): 1-8.
[6]
Xie J, Lv J, Wang W, et al.Kidney failure risk prediction equations in IgA nephropathy: a multicenter risk assessment study in Chinese patients [J].Am J Kidney Dis, 2018, 72(3):371-380.
[7]
Riispere Ž, Laurinavicius A, Kuudeberg A, et al.IgA nephropathy clinicopathologic study following the Oxford classification:progression peculiarities and gender-related differences [J].Medicina (Kaunas), 2016, 52(6): 340-348.
[8]
Donadio JV, Bergstralh EJ, Grande JP, et al.Proteinuria patterns and their association with subsequent end-stage renal disease in IgA nephropathy [J].Nephrol Dial Transplant, 2002,17(7): 1197-203.
[9]
Tan J, Luo X, Yang J, et al.Clinicopathological characteristics and risk factors in elderly patients with biopsy-proven IgA nephropathy [J].Ren Fail, 2022, 44(1): 1026-1036.
[10]
Wen D, Tang Y, Tan L, et al.Sex disparities in IgA nephropathy: a retrospective study in Chinese patients [J].Int Urol Nephrol, 2021, 53(2): 315-323.
[11]
Barbour SJ, Coppo R, Zhang H, et al.Evaluating a new international risk-prediction tool in IgA nephropathy [J].JAMA Intern Med, 2019, 179(7): 942-952.
[12]
Le W, Liang S, Hu Y, et al.Long-term renal survival and related risk factors in patients with IgA nephropathy: results from a cohort of 1155 cases in a Chinese adult population [J].Nephrol Dial Transplant, 2012, 27(4): 1479-1485.
[13]
谢院生, 陈香美.IgA 肾病的诊治研究进展[J/OL].中华肾病研究电子杂志, 2019, 8(1): 1-5.
[14]
邓荣珍.血脂对IgA 肾病患者临床病理特征及肾脏预后的影响研究[D].南宁: 广西医科大学, 2020.
[15]
Moriyama T, Tanaka K, Iwasaki C, et al.Prognosis in IgA nephropathy: 30-year analysis of 1,012 patients at a single center in Japan [J].PLoS One, 2014, 9(3): e91756.
[16]
Reckelhoff JF.Gender differences in hypertension [J].Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens, 2018, 27(3): 176-181.
[17]
Zhuang H, Lin Z, Zeng S, et al.Dyslipidemia may be a risk factor for progression in children with IgA nephropathy [J].Pediatr Nephrol, 2022, 37(12): 3147-3156.
[18]
Lang Y, Song S, Zhao L, et al.Serum IgA/C3 ratio and glomerular C3 staining predict progression of IgA nephropathy in children [J].Transl Pediatr, 2021, 10(3): 666-672.
[19]
Karahisar Şirali S, Büberci R.Correlation between IgAC3 ratio and oxford score in IgA nephropathy [J].Clin Exp Nephrol,2022, 26(10): 982-987.
[20]
Barbour SJ, Espino-Hernandez G, Reich HN, et al.The MEST score provides earlier risk prediction in IgA nephropathy [J].Kidney Int, 2016, 89(1): 167-175.
[21]
黄婷, 张亚莉, 李燕, 等.不同性别IgA 肾病患者相关临床指标及病理特点对比[J].医学信息, 2019, 32(21): 125-128.
[22]
Goto M, Wakai K, Kawamura T, et al.A scoring system to predict renal outcome in IgA nephropathy: a nationwide 10-year prospective cohort study [J].Nephrol Dial Transplant, 2009, 24(10): 3068-3074.
[23]
Carrero JJ, Hecking M, Chesnaye NC, et al.Sex and gender disparities in the epidemiology and outcomes of chronic kidney disease [J].Nat Rev Nephrol, 2018, 14(3): 151-164.
[24]
Seppi T, Prajczer S, Dörler MM, et al.Sex differences in renal proximal tubular cell homeostasis [J].J Am Soc Nephrol, 2016,27(10): 3051-3062.
[1] 李琳琳, 白雪, 赵海东, 梁曦, 李学璐. 21 基因复发风险评分在早期乳腺癌中的应用[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 33-38.
[2] 潘霞, 李琳, 朱磊, 代超, 庞乐. 汉中社区老年人口腔衰弱风险关联性分析与列线图模型构建[J/OL]. 中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 25-32.
[3] 王振宁, 杨康, 王得晨, 邹敏, 归明彬, 王雅楠, 徐明. 腹腔镜直肠癌根治术后预置造口与襻式回肠造口短期疗效评价:一项倾向性评分匹配队列研究[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 21-27.
[4] 陈宝鹤, 张文卓, 王隽. 头尾侧联合入路腹腔镜右半结肠癌根治术的近中期临床观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(02): 153-156.
[5] 韦洋, 赵远权, 王小波, 黄海, 陈洁. BCLC 0/A期肝细胞癌患者术后辅助治疗后早期复发风险分析及预测模型建立[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(02): 157-161.
[6] 李峥, 马晋峰. 基于炎症反应评分系统构建预测根治性术后食管胃结合部腺癌患者预后的列线图模型[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(02): 170-175.
[7] 董家旭, 宋美姿, 毕讯. 射频消融术联合TSH抑制治疗甲状腺微小乳头状癌的效果及生存预后分析[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(02): 200-203.
[8] 吉林霞, 范小春, 梁琴. 胃癌常见术后并发症类型及危险因素研究进展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(02): 220-223.
[9] 杨培容, 潘刚, 周春霞. 胰腺癌术后胰瘘的危险因素及治疗进展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(02): 228-230.
[10] 林宇腾, 延敏博, 许家榕, 黄子豪, 汤育新. 输尿管软镜手术术后住院时间的影响因素分析[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 41-46.
[11] 王俊毅, 薛振峰. 可吸收补片在老年开放腹股沟疝患者中的应用[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 88-91.
[12] 余承澍, 刘红枝, 林科灿, 林起柱, 黄霆峰, 周伟平, 程张军, 楼健颖, 郑树国, 毕新宇, 王剑明, 郭伟, 李富宇, 王坚, 郑亚民, 李敬东, 程石, 曾永毅. 肝内胆管细胞癌术后极早期复发的危险因素[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(01): 53-59.
[13] 汪玥, 陆衡, 曹洁, 陆博文. GNG4蛋白在胃肠道间质瘤中的表达及预后意义[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2025, 15(01): 6-10.
[14] 赵鸿鹰, 江荣科, 王宇, 朱梅, 李艳芳. CEACAM19调控PI3K/AKT信号通路对胃癌发病及预后判断的研究[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2025, 15(01): 16-22.
[15] 段红良, 赵红梅, 李涛, 辛建锋. 结直肠癌组织SPOCD1表达与临床病理特征及术后复发转移的关系[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2025, 15(01): 40-45.
阅读次数
全文


摘要