Abstract

A 34-year-old female patient presented to our hospital with lower extremity edema and proteinuria during pregnancy. Renal biopsy was performed and the patient was diagnosed with nephrotic syndrome due to lupus-like membranous nephropathy. This diagnosis was reached upon as laboratory findings upon admission, wherein both anti-nuclear and anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies revealed negative, did not fulfill the criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) proposed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the patient did not reveal any typical physical manifestations of SLE. Methylprednisolone pulse therapy was started followed by oral administration of prednisolone. Urinary protein excretion diminished after 1 year of treatment. Eleven years later, the same patient was admitted to our hospital again with relapse of nephrotic syndrome. Laboratory findings upon second admission, wherein both anti-nuclear and anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies revealed positive, fulfilled the ACR criteria. Renal biopsy was performed again, resulting in a diagnosis of lupus nephritis. Steroid therapy combined with administration of mycophenolate mofetil led to an incomplete remission. Immunofluorescence studies confirmed the presence of IgG, IgM, C3, and C1q in renal biopsy specimens both at first and second admissions. Furthermore, immunofluorescence studies confirmed the presence of IgG1–4 in the first biopsy and tubuloreticular inclusions (TRIs) were revealed using electron microscopy. The present case represents the possibility that characteristic pathological findings of lupus nephritis, including TRIs, can reveal themselves before a diagnosis of SLE.

Highlights

  • There has been a growing body of reports regarding membranous nephropathy (MN) cases that present like lupus nephritis [1,2,3,4,5,6,7] without fulfilling the classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) proposed by the

  • The importance of pathological findings from renal biopsy specimens has been highlighted by the recently defined classification criteria for SLE, proposed by the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) group in 2012 [11]. These new classification proposals suggest that a diagnosis for SLE can be reached in patients who fulfill at least four criteria, including at least one clinical and one immunological criteria, and in patients with biopsy-proven lupus nephritis combined with the presence of anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA) or anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies [11]

  • CEN Case Reports (2019) 8:301–307 criteria [10], which were formerly conventionally used at first admission, the patient was excluded from a possibility of SLE, despite pathological findings of lupus-like MN, because they tested negative for both ANA and anti-dsDNA antibodies

Read more

Summary

Introduction

There has been a growing body of reports regarding membranous nephropathy (MN) cases that present like lupus nephritis [1,2,3,4,5,6,7] without fulfilling the classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) proposed by the. The importance of pathological findings from renal biopsy specimens has been highlighted by the recently defined classification criteria for SLE, proposed by the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) group in 2012 [11] These new classification proposals suggest that a diagnosis for SLE can be reached in patients who fulfill at least four criteria, including at least one clinical and one immunological criteria, and in patients with biopsy-proven lupus nephritis combined with the presence of anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA) or anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibodies [11]. CEN Case Reports (2019) 8:301–307 criteria [10], which were formerly conventionally used at first admission, the patient was excluded from a possibility of SLE, despite pathological findings of lupus-like MN, because they tested negative for both ANA and anti-dsDNA antibodies. Laboratory findings upon second admission, wherein both ANA and anti-dsDNA antibodies revealed positive, fulfilled both ACR and SLICC criteria [10, 11].

Discussion
Compliance with ethical standards
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.