In this study we did not find any significant difference in concentration of serum resistin in values of SLE patients compared with healthy individuals. This result are in line with previous studies managed by Almehed et al. (
17), Vadacca et al. (
23) and De Sanctis et al. (
24). However, in Liu Lunfei study, resistin in patients with active lupus was significantly higher than patients with low disease activity and it had a positive correlation with SLEDAI (
25).
An expected finding of this study was a distinct association between resistin and inflammatory markers such as ESR and hs- CRPin lupus patients. This is concordant with some earlier studies, including Kunnari (
26) and Almehed (
17) study that found a positive relationship between resistin and inflammatory markers. Among patients with SLE, we found a positive significant association between 24 hours proteinuria and the concentration of serum resistin in lupus patients. These finding are mostly compatible with Almehed study that found a correlation between resistin and nephritis in this population (
17).
Patients with SLE have been reported to possess significantly higher levels of serum proinflammatory cytokines; including tumor necrosis factor and interleukin-6 (
27). It has been reported that resistin can induce a pro inflammatory state “in vitro” as well as “in vivo” (
16). In spite of the numerous recent researches in the field of resistin pathophysiology, little is known about how resistin works in the process of inflammation. It has been demonstrated that proinflammatory mediators such as TNF-a, IL-1b, IL-6, or lipopolysaccharide (LPS) can highly increase the expression of resistin in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), recommending a role for resistin in the process of inflammation (
14,
16,
28).
In this cross sectional study, we hypothesized that serum levels of resistin presumably can reflect the level of disease activity according to the SLEDAI in SLE patients. But the present results did not confirm it. However an association between serum values of resistin and inflammatory markers was seen. Elshishtawy found that concerning correlation of serum resistin with other variables, a highly significant positive correlation with SLEDAI exists (
29). In another study by Baker et al., they noted that the SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) was not significantly related to resistin levels in patients with SLE (
30).
In a recent study by J. Hutcheson et al., they noted that “the expression of adiponectin and resistin increased in both sera and urine from LN patients, while leptin was increased in LN patient sera, compared to matched controls. Serum resistin, but not urine resistin, was correlated with measures of renal dysfunction in LN. Serum resistin expression may be useful as a marker of renal dysfunction in patients with LN” (
31).
In another study performed by Sharifipour et al. in which they examined the urinary biomarker in lupus nephrities, they evaluated the association of urinary lipocalin-2 with lupus nephritis. They found out that in LN patients, urinary lipocalin-2/creatinine significantly correlated with proteinuria (r = 0.68; P = 0.0001) (
32). However, it should be noted that, unlike in our study, the level of resistin and its correlation with proteinuria was not evaluated in their research.
Limitation of this study was selection of the SLE patients who were under treatment with a low disease activity, so the results of this study may not be generalized to patients with severe active lupus disease.
4.1. Conclusion
According to the results, presented in this paper and by comparison with the other studies, we can conclude that resistinis associated with inflammatory markers but not it doesn’t have a remarkable association with markers of disease activity such as the SLEDAI.
These studies will provide further beneficial information to design the most appropriate clinical trial to answer the notable questions about potential biologic effects of resistin and the other adipokins in subjects with SLE.