Skip to main content
. 2022 Nov 21;33(1):12–21. doi: 10.4103/ijn.ijn_351_21

Table 6.

Comparison of the findings of Indian studies on IgAN

Author Year Sample size Mean age (years) Hypertension (%) Proteinuria (nephrotic) (%) Gross hematuria (%) Renal failure (%) M1 E1 S1 T1 T2 C1/2
Bhuyan[49] 1992 83 NA 39 24 NA 34 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Muthukumar[50] 2002 98 25.7 9.2 25.6 5.1 13.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Chacko[13] 2005 478 32 58 55 16 60 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Chandrika[14] 2007 227 30 35 36.7 18.9 5.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Mittal[15] 2012 66 29.9 78.8 23.1 81 (Microscopic) NA 79.6% 29.6% 57.4% 74.2% (T1+T2) NA 56.6%
Bagchi[51] 2012 103 28.8 39.4 63.1 91 (Microscopic) 16.5 77.7% 9.7% 43.7% 39.8% (T1+T2) NA 10.7%
Swarnlata[17] 2019 3345 35.8 60.4 41.7 79.9 (Microscopic) 78.9 59.3% 38.8% 60.3% 20.5% 4.2% 29.9%
Alexander[52] 2021 201 36 84.1 34 10 79.3 11.4% 43.8% 80% 37.8% 41.1% 16%
Current study 2020 560 32 69.8 46.8 4.9 68 67% 23.9% 46.9% 28.3% 4.7% 19.5%

C=crescent, CKD=chronic kidney disease, E=endocapillary hypercellularity, IgA=immunoglobulin A, M=mesangial hypercellularity, S=segmental sclerosis, T=tubular atrophy, UPCR, urinary protein creatinine ratio