Back

Membranous Nephropathy in the UK Biobank

Hamilton, P.; Blaikie, K.; Roberts, S. A.; Gittins, M.; Downie, M. L.; Gupta, S.; Voinescu, C.; Kanigicherla, D.; Stanescu, H.; Kleta, R.; Brenchley, P.

2023-02-04 epidemiology
10.1101/2023.02.02.23285369 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundDespite MN being one of the most common causes of nephrotic syndrome worldwide, its biological and environmental determinants are poorly understood in large-part due to it being a rare disease. Making use of the UK Biobank, a unique resource holding a clinical dataset and stored DNA, serum and urine for [~]500,000 participants, this study aims to address this gap in understanding. MethodsThe primary outcome was putative MN as defined by ICD-10 codes occurring in the UK Biobank. Univariate relative risk regression modelling was used to assess the associations between the incidence of MN and related phenotypes with sociodemographic, environmental exposures, and previously described increased-risk SNPs. Results502,507 patients were included in the study of whom 100 were found to have a putative diagnosis of MN; 36 at baseline and 64 during the follow-up. Prevalence at baseline and last follow-up were 72 and 199 cases/million respectively. At baseline, as expected, the majority of those previously diagnosed with MN had proteinuria, and there was already evidence of proteinuria in patients diagnosed within the first 5 years of follow-up. The highest incidence rate for MN in patients was seen in those homozygous for the high-risk alleles (9.9/100,000 person-years). ConclusionIt is feasible to putatively identify patients with MN in the UK Biobank and cases are still accumulating. This study shows the chronicity of disease with proteinuria present years before diagnosis. Genetics plays an important role in disease pathogenesis, with the at-risk group providing a potential population for recall.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.