Skip to main content
. 2020 Feb 21;8:e8650. doi: 10.7717/peerj.8650

Table 4. Comparison of data between the two groups of patients after 1 year of follow-up treatment.

Total 24HUPRO (g/L) ALB (g/L) CREA (µmol/L) BUN (mmol/L) eGFR
PLA2R −(N = 43) 0.78 ± 1.10 38.21 ± 6.14 64.18 ± 14.37 5.37 ± 1.50 107.77 ± 24.43
PLA2R +(N = 119) 2.22 ± 2.10** 35.09 ± 6.97* 71.47 ± 23.91 6.68 ± 2.72* 105.20 ± 28.09
Pred+CTx
PLA2R −(N = 15) 0.79 ± 1.24 37.37 ± 6.80 59.54 ± 12.89 4.83 ± 1.23 118.65 ± 27.28
PLA2R +(N = 55) 2.24 ± 2.02 34.28 ± 6.46 63.01 ± 23.25 5.75 ± 1.68 114.90 ± 26.31
Ped+Csa
PLA2R −(N = 9) 0.21 ± 0.25 40.01 ± 4.49 72.36 ± 14.42 6.25 ± 2.20 92.84 ± 17.14
PLA2R +(N = 31) 2.54 ± 2.45** 35.02 ± 7.41 80.85 ± 23.66 7.41 ± 2.62 93.74 ± 23.15
Ped+F506
PLA2R −(N = 16) 1.18 ± 0.61 38.18 ± 5.94 67.77 ± 15.70 5.59 ± 1.55 115.02 ± 28.47
PLA2R +(N = 30) 1.80 ± 1.77 36.66 ± 7.08 73.19 ± 22.95 7.08 ± 3.75 114.75 ± 33.04

Notes.

eGFR: estimated glomerular filtration rate Compared with the PLa2R− group and the PLA2R+ group, P < 0.05, P∗∗ < 0.01.