Causes of nephrotic syndrome in Sweden: The relevance of clinical presentation and demographics.

BACKGROUND

Many pathological processes can disrupt the integrity of the glomerular capillary wall and cause a massive leakage of protein, resulting in nephrotic syndrome (NS). Clinical parameters such as age, sex, renal function, presence of diabetes, and how NS is defined influence the spectrum of underlying diseases. In this study, we examine how these parameters interact.

METHODS

Age, sex, hematuria, proteinuria, plasma creatinine plasma albumin levels, and final diagnosis were retrieved for all adult patients with NS as an indication for biopsy and/or massive albuminuria in conjunction with low plasma albumin from the biopsy module of the Swedish Renal Registry (SRR) between 2014 and 2019. A basic calculator was developed to demonstrate the importance of clinical presentation in relation to the likelihood of having a specific diagnosis.

RESULTS

A total of 913 unique patients were included in the study. Diabetic nephropathy (DN) and membranous nephropathy (MN) (both found in 17% of patients) were the most common diagnoses. With a stringent definition of NS, MN and minimal change nephropathy (MCN) increased in proportion. Among the cohort as a whole, MCN was the most frequent diagnosis in women and those < 50 years of age (found in 21% and 17%, respectively). In the case of patients aged between 50 and 70 years, those with chronic kidney disease stage 4, and those with negative dipstick tests for hematuria, the most common underlying disease was DN (in 23%, 30%, and 21% of cases, respectively). Among those with high-grade hematuria (dipstick grade 3 or 4), membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis was the most common diagnosis (14%), closely followed by IgA nephropathy (13%). Focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (9.7%) was less common than in many comparable studies.

CONCLUSION

Clinical parameters have a profound impact on the likelihood of different diagnoses in adult patients with NS. Differences in clinical practice and study inclusion criteria may be more important than genetic background and environmental factors when explaining differences between studies in different parts of the world.