ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 1558

Should Lupus Podocytopathy Be a Subclass in Class I and Class II Lupus Nephritis?

Whitney Bembry1, Dasha Lopez 2, Christopher Mesa 3, Nirupa Patel 3 and Myriam Guevara 4, 1Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, 2Baton Rouge General Hospital, Baton Rouge, LA, 3Louisiana State University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, 4Louisiana State University School of Medicine, New Orleans

Meeting: 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting

Keywords: lupus nephritis and proteinuria, Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print
Session Information

Date: Monday, November 11, 2019

Title: SLE – Clinical Poster II: Comorbidities

Session Type: Poster Session (Monday)

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose: Evidence of podocyte effacement on electron microscopy and significant proteinuria in a systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patient with biopsy proven minimal mesangial (MM), mesangial proliferation (MsP) and focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) is the defining quality of lupus podocytopathy (LP). Our objective is to recognize the prevalence of LP and significant proteinuria in SLE patients with biopsy proven class I, class II and/or FSGS.

Methods: In this single center retrospective study, two independent reviewers evaluated records from 96 hospitalized patients admitted with ICD-10 codes corresponding to a diagnosis of glomerular disease and/or tubulo-interstitial nephropathy in SLE from 2015 to 2018.

Results: The prevalence of LP in our cohort was 8.33% (Table 1). Seventy-five percent of our cohort were females and of African descent. Class II lupus nephritis (LN) was the most common pathological diagnosis (50% of patients); followed by class I LN (37.5%), and one case of FSGS (12.5%). Five patients presented with significant proteinuria (62.5%). Majority of the patients had active disease, presenting with low C3 levels (62.5%). Most patients received corticosteroids (CS), either pulse dose steroids or high dose prednisone being the most common mode (62.5%); four patients received a combination of CS and Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF).  All of the patients treated with CS and MMF demonstrated greater than 50% improvement in the urine protein/creatinine ratio with mean duration of 27.5 days and persisted in remission. The patient with the FSGS pattern despite having greater than 50% improvement in protein/creatinine ratio relapsed to LN class III within 2 years.

Conclusion: It is important to recognize a subset of patients presenting with clinical signs of nephrotic syndrome despite biopsy demonstrating class I or class II LN. The literature outlines LP as a spectrum, from MM to FSGS, with worse response to treatment in patients with FSGS. [1] As demonstrated in our cohort of predominantly ethnic minorities with Class I and class II LN with LP patterns, majority had a favorable response to CS in combination with MMF; the only patient with the FSGS pattern underwent relapse. A larger cohort with longer duration of study period is needed to suggest recommendations for LP. It may be beneficial to treat LP in Class I and II LN when associated with proteinuria.


Table for Lupus podocytopathy

Characteristics of SLE patients with Lupus Podocytopathy in addition to Pre- and Post-treatment Values


Disclosure: W. Bembry, None; D. Lopez, None; C. Mesa, None; N. Patel, None; M. Guevara, None.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Bembry W, Lopez D, Mesa C, Patel N, Guevara M. Should Lupus Podocytopathy Be a Subclass in Class I and Class II Lupus Nephritis? [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019; 71 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/should-lupus-podocytopathy-be-a-subclass-in-class-i-and-class-ii-lupus-nephritis/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print

« Back to 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/should-lupus-podocytopathy-be-a-subclass-in-class-i-and-class-ii-lupus-nephritis/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology