Clinicopathological Characteristics and Outcomes of Chinese Patients with Scanty Immune Deposits Lupus Nephritis: A Large Cohort Study from a Single Center

Table 4

Comparison of renal pathological data between patients with scanty immune deposits and immune complex deposits lupus nephritis.

	Scanty immune deposits	Immune complex deposits	𝑃 value
Number of biopsies	40	276
Class II (%)	6 (15)	13 (4.71)	0.195
Class III (%)	9 (22.5)	46 (16.67)
Class IV (%)	25 (62.5)	151 (54.7)
Class V (%)	0 (0)	64 (23.2)
Class VI (%)	0 (0)	2 (0.72)
AI score; (mean ± SD)	8.70±4.58	7.50±4.65	0.128
Endocapillary hypercellularity; (median; interquartile range)	3, 1–3	3, 1–3	0.482
Cellular crescents; (median; interquartile range)	2, 0–4	0, 0–2	0.015
Karyorrhexis/fibrinoid necrosis; (median; interquartile range)	0, 0–2	0, 0–2	0.687
Subendothelial hyaline deposits; (median; interquartile range)	1, 0–2	1, 0–2	0.913
Interstitial inflammation; (median; interquartile range)	1, 1-2	1.1–1	0.067
Glomerular leukocyte infiltration; (median; interquartile range)	1, 0-1	1, 0-1	0.694
CI score; (mean ± SD)	3.10±2.29	2.75±1.99	0.31
Glomerular sclerosis; (median; interquartile range)	0, 0-1	0, 0-1	0.717
Fibrous crescents; (median; interquartile range)	0.0-0	0, 0-0	0.795
Tubular atrophy; (median; interquartile range)	1, 1-2	1, 1-1	0.09
Interstitial fibrosis; (median: interquartile range)	1, 1–1.75	1, 1-1	0.182

𝑃<0.05, italic values refer to the significant value between the two groups.