Clarification about an article

[Guest guest]

Hi.

I've just finished reading an article I found in the " File " section of

this website. It is called " IGAN opoulos 2004.pdf " .

In it in repeatedly stated statistics that I have not seen anywhere

else. So I thought I'd ask if I'm misreading this or they are just

updated stats.

On page 342, 343, and 352 it mentions that 7-10% of all patients that

have their critical stats under control (low proteinuria, low blood

pressure, no or low creatinine) will still eventually progress to

ESRD. These numbers seem a lot lower than stuff I've seen in other

places.

Is he saying that if you have chronic IgAN and your critical factors

are good and under control there is only a 7%-10% chance that you will

eventually progress to ESRD?

The part that also confused me is that on page 342 (in the Clinical

Course and Prognosis section) he states that " the majority of patients

however, have a slowly progressive decline in renal function of 10 to

20 years " . Does this mean just a decline but not failure?

Does my interpretation sound correct? Am I missing something?

I'm a little new to this so some of the stuff seems unclear.

PN

[Guest guest]

Hi PN,

I actually discussed that article with my Neph a while back. I printed it and

took it with me to my appointment. Overall depending on which set of

statistics you look at somewhere between 30-50% of people with IgAN will

progress to

end stage renal disease.

The 7-10% is refers to those who keep their labs well managed but still will

progress to ESRD. This is in addition to those who are not able to control

their labs well and also progress to EDRD.

Let me know if you have any more questions.

In a message dated 9/21/2004 1:32:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

poeticnoise@... writes:

> Hi.

>

> I've just finished reading an article I found in the " File " section of

> this website. It is called " IGAN opoulos 2004.pdf " .

>

> In it in repeatedly stated statistics that I have not seen anywhere

> else. So I thought I'd ask if I'm misreading this or they are just

> updated stats.

>

> On page 342, 343, and 352 it mentions that 7-10% of all patients that

> have their critical stats under control (low proteinuria, low blood

> pressure, no or low creatinine) will still eventually progress to

> ESRD. These numbers seem a lot lower than stuff I've seen in other

> places.

>

> Is he saying that if you have chronic IgAN and your critical factors

> are good and under control there is only a 7%-10% chance that you will

> eventually progress to ESRD?

>

> The part that also confused me is that on page 342 (in the Clinical

> Course and Prognosis section) he states that " the majority of patients

> however, have a slowly progressive decline in renal function of 10 to

> 20 years " . Does this mean just a decline but not failure?

>

> Does my interpretation sound correct? Am I missing something?

> I'm a little new to this so some of the stuff seems unclear.

>

> PN

[Guest guest]

Hi .

Thank you for the information.

So if I understand your response correctly the 7-10% are those people

that have a mild form of IgAN. These are the people that have their

lab result under control for a consistant amount of time. So for

those people the 7-10% would apply. However, the 30%-50% includes

everybody;those that have it under control, those that have rapid

progression,...those that had it before ACE and ARBs where introduced.

Am I correct? Sorry if I just repeated exactly what you have said.:-)

I just want to get it right.

Ed

> Hi PN,

>

> I actually discussed that article with my Neph a while back. I

printed it and

> took it with me to my appointment. Overall depending on which set of

> statistics you look at somewhere between 30-50% of people with IgAN

will progress to

> end stage renal disease.

>

> The 7-10% is refers to those who keep their labs well managed but

still will

> progress to ESRD. This is in addition to those who are not able to

control

> their labs well and also progress to EDRD.

>

> Let me know if you have any more questions.

>

>

>

> In a message dated 9/21/2004 1:32:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> poeticnoise@y... writes:

>

> > Hi.

> >

> > I've just finished reading an article I found in the " File " section of

> > this website. It is called " IGAN opoulos 2004.pdf " .

> >

> > In it in repeatedly stated statistics that I have not seen anywhere

> > else. So I thought I'd ask if I'm misreading this or they are just

> > updated stats.

> >

> > On page 342, 343, and 352 it mentions that 7-10% of all patients that

> > have their critical stats under control (low proteinuria, low blood

> > pressure, no or low creatinine) will still eventually progress to

> > ESRD. These numbers seem a lot lower than stuff I've seen in other

> > places.

> >

> > Is he saying that if you have chronic IgAN and your critical factors

> > are good and under control there is only a 7%-10% chance that you will

> > eventually progress to ESRD?

> >

> > The part that also confused me is that on page 342 (in the Clinical

> > Course and Prognosis section) he states that " the majority of patients

> > however, have a slowly progressive decline in renal function of 10 to

> > 20 years " . Does this mean just a decline but not failure?

> >

> > Does my interpretation sound correct? Am I missing something?

> > I'm a little new to this so some of the stuff seems unclear.

> >

> > PN

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Yes Ed, as my Nephrologist explained it to me, you did get it right.

In a message dated 9/22/2004 10:45:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

poeticnoise@... writes:

> Hi .

>

> Thank you for the information.

>

> So if I understand your response correctly the 7-10% are those people

> that have a mild form of IgAN. These are the people that have their

> lab result under control for a consistant amount of time. So for

> those people the 7-10% would apply. However, the 30%-50% includes

> everybody;those that have it under control, those that have rapid

> progression,...those that had it before ACE and ARBs where introduced.

> Am I correct? Sorry if I just repeated exactly what you have said.:-)

> I just want to get it right.

>

> Ed