中国麻风皮肤病杂志 ›› 2026, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (1): 19-24.doi: 10.12144/zgmfskin202601019

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

PNI与NPAR对系统性红斑狼疮的诊断及活动性评估价值

李敏英1,方岩1,陈礼昌1,郭丽2,李团团1   

  1. 1阜阳市第二人民医院医学检验科,安徽阜阳,236000; 2阜阳市第二人民医院肾病科,安徽阜阳,236000
  • 出版日期:2026-01-15 发布日期:2026-01-15

Diagnostic value analysis and activity evaluation of PNI and NPAR in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus

LI Minying1, FANG Yan1, CHEN Lichang1, GUO Li2, LI Tuantuan1   

  1. 1 Department of Clinical Laboratory, the Second People's Hospital of Fuyang City, Fuyang 236000, China; 2 Department of Nephrology, the Second People's Hospital of Fuyang City, Fuyang 236000, China
  • Online:2026-01-15 Published:2026-01-15

摘要: 目的:明确预后营养指数(prognostic nutritional index,PNI)、中性粒细胞百分比与白蛋白比值(neutrophil percentage-to-albumin ratio,NPAR)与系统性红斑狼疮(SLE)疾病活动度的相关性,评估其临床应用价值。方法:选取医院2020年3月至2024年12月收治的SLE患者74例为观察组,根据SLE疾病活动度(SLEDAI)将患者分成活动组(SLEDAI>5分,36例)和稳定组(SLEDAI<5分,38例),另选取同期75例体检健康者作为健康对照组。采用血细胞分析仪进行血常规五分类计数,生化分析仪检测患者血清ALB的水平,计算并比较PNI和NPAR。绘制ROC曲线分析两组指标对SLE诊断的灵敏度及特异度,并用诊断校准曲线进行验证,同时建立列线图模型,分析两组指标对SLE活动性的预测能力。结果:与健康对照组比较,观察组PNI水平降低,而NPAR水平升高。与稳定组比较,SLE活动组患者PNI水平低,NPAR水平高,差异具有统计学意义(均P<0.001)。Pearson相关性显示,SLE患者PNI和NPAR水平呈负相关(r=-0.789,P<0.001)。PNI和NPAR用于诊断SLE的ROC曲线下面积分别为0.954和0.957,敏感度均为0.960,特异度分别为0.919和0.905;PNI和NPAR用于SLE活动性评估的ROC曲线下面积分别为0.723和0.703,敏感度均为0.789。列线图模型评分较高,预测风险较大。列线图模型提示PNI和NPAR用于SLE及其活动性分析的C-index指数分别为0.976(95% CI: 0.937~0.998)和0.723(95% CI: 0.606~0.840)。结论:PNI和NPAR对于系统性红斑狼疮的诊断和活动性评估有一定的价值,建立的模型具有良好的精确度和区分度。

关键词: 系统性红斑狼疮, PNI, NPAR

Abstract: Objective: To clarify the correlation between the prognostic nutritional index (PNI), neutrophil percentage-to-albumin ratio(NPAR), and disease activity in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and to evaluate their clinical application value. Methods: A total of 74 SLE patients admitted to the hospital from March 2020 to December 2024 were selected as the observation group. According to the SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI), the patients were divided into the active group (SLEDAI >5 points, 36 cases) and the stable group (SLEDAI < 5 points, 38 cases). Additionally, 75 healthy individuals who underwent physical examinations during the same period were selected as the healthy control group. A hematology analyzer was used for five-category complete blood count, and a biochemical analyzer was employed to detect the serum albumin (ALB) level. PNI and NPAR were calculated and compared among the groups. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted to analyze the sensitivity and specificity of the two indicators in the diagnosis of SLE, which were verified by diagnostic calibration curve. Meanwhile, a nomogram model was established to evaluate the predictive ability of the two indicators for SLE activity. Results: Compared with the healthy control group, the observation group had a lower PNI level and a higher NPAR level. Compared with the stable group, the SLE active group showed a significantly lower PNI level and a significantly higher NPAR level, with statistically significant differences (Ps<0.001). Pearson correlation analysis revealed a negative correlation between PNI and NPAR levels in SLE patients (r=-0.789, P<0.001). The areas under the ROC curve (AUC) of PNI and NPAR for diagnosing SLE were 0.954 and 0.957, respectively, with a sensitivity of 0.960 for both, and specificities of 0.919 and 0.905, respectively. For evaluating SLE activity, the AUC values of PNI and NPAR were 0.723 and 0.703, respectively, with a sensitivity of 0.789 for both. The nomogram model had a higher score, indicating a higher predicted risk, the nomogram model suggested that the C-index of PNI and NPAR used in SLE and its activity analysis were 0.967 (95% CI: 0.937-0.998) and 0.723 (95% CI: 0.606-0.840). Conclusion: The prognostic nutritional indicator PNI and the inflammatory-nutritional indicator NPAR have certain value in the diagnosis and activity assessment of systemic lupus erythematosus, and the established nomogram model exhibits good accuracy and discriminative ability.

Key words: systemic lupus erythematosus, PNI, NPAR