Affiliation:
1. Maharajgunj Medical Campus, Institute of Medicine Tribhuvan University Kathmandu Nepal
2. Department of Internal Medicine, Institute of Medicine Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital Kathmandu Nepal
3. Department of Internal Medicine Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital Kathmandu Nepal
4. Department of Nephrology Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital Kathmandu Nepal
Abstract
Key Clinical MessageAntinuclear antibody‐negative full‐house lupus nephritis though previously reported, is fairly uncommon. Some patients go on to develop antibodies later in the disease course. The presence of RO‐52 antibody in this case suggests an underlying immunological cause. Swift management based on strong clinical suspicion can be life‐saving to the patient.AbstractLupus nephritis (LN) is a serious complication of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and is more likely to progress to end‐stage renal disease (ESRD). With the recent EULAR/ACR criteria mandating antinuclear antibody (ANA) positivity as an entry criterion, clinicians are faced with a diagnostic dilemma in diagnosing cases of seronegative SLE. We present the case of a 25‐year‐old female who presented with photosensitive malar rash, hair loss, oral ulcers, menorrhagia, and kidney dysfunction, suggestive of SLE. Her ANA tests were negative, raising doubts about the diagnosis. Biopsy was delayed owing to anemia and thrombocytopenia, and clinical judgment led to the patient being diagnosed with LN, with prompt treatment resulting in significant improvement. Renal biopsy subsequently confirmed the case as diffuse class IV LN with full‐house nephropathy. This case highlights the limitations of relying solely on ANA positivity in diagnosing LN and underscores the need for a comprehensive diagnostic approach for SLE that incorporates clinical features, immunological markers, and patient demographics. ANA‐negative SLE patients demand heightened clinical suspicion, especially when other diagnostic parameters align with the disease. Swift intervention with immunosuppressive therapy, as seen in this case, can be life‐saving.