Search

Cadmium (Cd) is a toxic metal that accumulates in kidneys, especially in the proximal tubular epithelial cells, where virtually all proteins in the glomerular ultrafiltrate are reabsorbed. Here, we analyzed archived data on the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and excretion rates of Cd (E Cd ), total protein (E Prot ), albumin (E alb ), β 2 -microglobulin (E β2M ), and α1-microglobulin (E α1M ), which were recorded for residents of a Cd contamination area and a low-exposure control area of Thailand. Excretion of Cd and all proteins were normalized to creatinine clearance (C cr ) as E Cd /C cr and E Prot /C cr to correct for differences among subjects in the number of surviving nephrons. Low eGFR was defined as eGFR ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , while proteinuria was indicted by E Pro /C cr ≥ 20 mg/L of filtrate. E Prot /C cr varied directly with E Cd /C cr (β = 0.263, p < 0.001) and age (β = 0.252, p < 0.001). In contrast, eGFR values were inversely associated with E Cd /C cr (β = -0.266, p < 0.001) and age (β = -0.558, p < 0.001). At E Cd /C cr > 8.28 ng/L of filtrate, the prevalence odds ratios for proteinuria and low eGFR were increased 4.6- and 5.1-fold, respectively ( p < 0.001 for both parameters). Thus, the eGFR and tubular protein retrieval were both simultaneously diminished by Cd exposure. Of interest, E Cd /C cr was more closely correlated with E Prot /C cr ( r = 0.507), E β2M ( r = 0.430), and E α1M /C cr ( r = 0.364) than with E Alb /C cr ( r = 0.152). These data suggest that Cd may differentially reduce the ability of tubular epithelial cells to reclaim proteins, resulting in preferential reabsorption of albumin.

Background: Proteinuria is well recognised as a marker of chronic kidney disease (CKD), as a risk factor for progression of CKD among those with known CKD, and as a risk factor for cardiovascular events and death among both the general and CKD populations. Which measure of proteinuria is most predictive of renal events remains uncertain., Methods: We conducted a prospective study with 144 proteinuric CKD and kidney transplant recipients attending an outpatient clinic of a tertiary care hospital in Australia. We concurrently collected morning spot urine protein-to-creatinine ratio (UPCR), albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) and 24-h urinary protein excretion (24-UPE) from each participant at baseline. The primary outcome was a composite of death, ESKD or > 30% decline in eGFR over 5-years. Secondary outcomes were each component of the composite outcome. For each proteinuria measure, we performed a Cox Proportional Hazards model and calculated the Harrell's C-statistic and Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC)., Results: After a mean follow-up of 5 years (range 4.4-6), 85 (59%) patients met the primary composite outcome including 23 deaths (16%). The multivariable analysis showed strong evidence of an association between each log-transformed proteinuria measurement and the primary composite outcome. [Log-UPCR 1.31 (95% CI 1.18-1.63), log-UACR 1.27 (1.11-1.45) and log-24-UPE 1.43 (1.20-1.71)]. The C-Statistic were similar for all three measures of proteinuria [UPCR: 0.74 (95% CI: 0.69-0.80), UACR: 0.75 (0.69-0.81), 24-UPE: 0.75 (0.69-0.81)] as were the models' AIC (671, 668 and 665 respectively). For secondary outcomes, no proteinuria measure was significantly associated with death alone ([log-UPCR = 1.18 (0.96-1.84), log-UACR = 1.19 (1.00-1.55), log-24-UPE = 1.19 (0.83-1.71)], whilst UACR and 24-UPE demonstrated marginally better association with ESKD and > 30% decline in eGFR respectively. [For ESKD, adj log-UACR HR = 1.33 (1.07-1.66). For > 30% decline in eGFR, log-24-UPE adj HR = 1.54 (1.13-2.09)]., Conclusion: In patients with stable, non-nephrotic CKD, all three measures of proteinuria were similarly predictive of hard clinical endpoints, defined as a composite of death, ESKD and > 30% decline in eGFR. However, which measure best predicted the outcomes individually is less certain.

Background: Isolated non-albumin proteinuria (NAP) is a condition when urine total protein concentrations are elevated without elevation of urine albumin. The prevalence of NAP in the US population tested for both, urine total protein and albumin was assessed in this study., Methods: The database of a US nationwide laboratory network was queried for test results when random urine albumin was ordered together with urine total protein and also when timed 24-hour urine albumin was ordered together with urine total protein. The total prevalence of NAP in the US population tested for both, urine total protein and albumin was calculated for patient groups having normal and low-normal urine albumin (random and timed) with elevated and severely increased urine total protein (random and timed). Also, the prevalence of NAP was calculated for patients with normal urine albumin to assess the probability of missing proteinuria if only urine albumin is measured., Results: The prevalence of NAP in the random samples group was 10.1% (15.2% for females and 4.7% for males). Among patients with normal random albumin, there were 20.0% (27.3% of females and 10.7% of males) patients with NAP. The prevalence of NAP in the timed samples group was 24.6% (29.8% for females and 18.5% for males). Among patients with normal timed urine albumin, there were 36.2% (40.0% of females and 30.8% of males) patients with NAP. There was a strong positive association with female gender and NAP in most patients groups., Conclusions: Testing for only urine (micro)albumin can miss up to 40% of females and 30.8% of males with gross proteinuria., (Copyright © 2016 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Quantification of proteinuria (albuminuria) in renal transplant recipients is important for diagnostic and prognostic purposes. Recent guidelines have recommended quantification of proteinuria by spot protein-to-creatinine ratio (PCR) or spot albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR). Validity of spot measurements remains unclear in renal transplant recipients., Methods: Systematic review of adult kidney transplant recipients. Studies that reported the diagnostic accuracy of PCR or ACR as compared with 24-h urine protein or albumin excretion in renal transplant recipients were included., Results: The search identified 8 studies involving 1871 renal transplant recipients. The correlation of the PCR to 24-h protein ranged from 0.772 to 0.998 with a median value of 0.92. PCR sensitivity ranged from 63 to 99 (50% of sensitivities were >90%); PCR specificity varied from 73 to 99 (50% of specificities were >90%). Only one study reported the bias; percent bias ranged from 12 to 21% and accuracy (within 30% of 24 h urine protein) ranged from 47 to 56% depending on the degree of proteinuria. For the ACR, percent bias ranged from 9 to 21%, and the accuracy (within 30%) ranged from 38 to 80%., Conclusions: The data regarding diagnostic accuracy of PCR and ACR is limited. Only one report studied the absolute measures of agreement (bias and accuracy). We recommend verifying PCR and ACR measurements with a 24-h protein before making any major diagnostic (e.g. biopsy) or therapeutic (e.g. change in immunosuppressive agents) decisions in this population.

Background: Idiopathic membranous nephropathy (IMN) is a leading cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) diurnal variation rate calculated by spot urinary protein test predicts 1-year nephrotic outcomes as a biomarker of proteinuria severity in patients with IMN. Methods: Patients' baseline demographics, blood and urinary biomarkers, and clinical and pathological characteristics were collected retrospectively. Urine samples were collected at 7:00 (before breakfast) and 19:00 (after dinner) to calculate the UACR diurnal variation rate. A prediction model for no remission (NR) was developed statistically based on differences between prognosis groups. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was performed to evaluate prediction abilities and determine optimal cut-off points of the model and UACR diurnal variation rate alone. Results: The formula for calculating the probability of NR was exp(L)/(1 + exp(L)), where the linear predictor L = – 22.038 + 0.134 × Age (years) + 0.457 × 24-h urinary protein + 0.511 × blood urea nitrogen (BUN) + 0.014 × serum uric acid (SUA) + 2.411 if glomerular sclerosis + 0.816 × fasting blood glucose (FBG)-0.039 × UACR diurnal variation rate (%). Optimal cut-off points for NR prediction by the final model and UACR diurnal variation rate alone were 0.331 and 58.5%, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity were 0.889 and 0.859 for the final model, and 0.926 and 0.676 for UACR diurnal variation rate alone. Conclusion: UACR diurnal variation using spot urinary protein is a simpler way to predict nephrotic outcomes and is a highly sensitive screening tool for identifying patients who should undergo further comprehensive risk assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The leading cause of advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) in children is congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract (CAKUT). However, the most appropriate parameters of biochemical urine analysis for detecting CAKUT with kidney dysfunction are not known. Methods: The present observational study analyzed data on children with CAKUT (stage 2–4 CKD) and the general pediatric population obtained from school urine screenings. The sensitivity and specificity of urine alpha 1-microglobulin-, beta 2-microglobulin-, protein-, and the albumin-to-creatinine ratios (AMCR, BMCR, PCR, ACR, respectively) in detecting CAKUT with kidney dysfunction were compared with those of the conventional urine dipstick, and the most appropriate of these four parameters were evaluated. Results: In total, 77 children with CAKUT and 1712 subjects in the general pediatric population fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Conventional dipstick urinalysis was insufficient due to its low sensitivity; even when the threshold of proteinuria was +/−, its sensitivity was only 29.7% for stage 2 and 44.1% for stage 3 CKD. Among the four parameters assessed, the AMCR and BMCR were adequate for detecting CAKUT in children with stage 3–4 CKD (the respective sensitivity and specificity of the AMCR for detecting CAKUT in stage 3 CKD was 79.4% and 97.5% while that of BMCR was 82.4% and 97.5%). These data were validated using national cohort data. Conclusion: AMCR and BMCR are superior to dipstick urinalysis, PCR, and ACR in detecting CAKUT with kidney dysfunction, particularly stage 3 CKD. However, for AMCR, external validation is required. A higher resolution version of the Graphical abstract is available as Supplementary information [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most studies of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) have been conducted in urban settings. They relied on GFR estimated from serum creatinine alone and on the inexpensive, convenient urinary dipstick to assess proteinuria. The dipstick for proteinuria has not been directly compared with the gold standard albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) in a large-sized study in SSA. We hereby assessed the influence of rural versus urban location on the level, interpretation, and diagnostic performance of proteinuria dipstick versus ACR.Methods: In a cross-sectional population-based study of CKD in both urban (n = 587) and rural (n = 730) settings in South-Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), we assessed the prevalence, performance (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value) and determinants of a positive dipstick proteinuria as compared with albuminuria (ACR). Albuminuria was subdivided into: A1 (< 30 mg/g creatinine), A2 (30 to 299 mg/g creatinine) and A3 (≥ 300 mg/g creatinine).Results: The overall prevalence of positive dipstick proteinuria (≥ 1+) was 9.6 % (95 % CI, 7.9-11.3) and was higher in rural than in urban residents (13.1 % vs. 4.8 %, p < 0.001), whereas the prevalence of albuminuria (A2 or A3) was similar in both sites (6 % rural vs. 7.6 % urban, p = 0.31). In both sites, dipstick proteinuria ≥ 1 + had a poor sensitivity (< 50 %) and positive predictive value (< 11 %) for the detection of A2 or A3. The negative predictive value was 95 %. Diabetes [aOR 6.12 (1.52-24.53)] was a significant predictor of A3 whereas alkaline [aOR 7.45 (3.28-16.93)] and diluted urine [aOR 2.19 (1.35-3.57)] were the main predictors of positive dipstick proteinuria.Conclusions: ACR and dipstick proteinuria have similar positivity rates in the urban site whereas, in the rural site, dipstick was 2-fold more often positive than ACR. The poor sensitivity and positive predictive value of the dipstick as compared with ACR makes it unattractive as a screening tool in community studies of CKD in SSA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Proteinuria is well recognised as a marker of chronic kidney disease (CKD), as a risk factor for progression of CKD among those with known CKD, and as a risk factor for cardiovascular events and death among both the general and CKD populations. Which measure of proteinuria is most predictive of renal events remains uncertain. Methods We conducted a prospective study with 144 proteinuric CKD and kidney transplant recipients attending an outpatient clinic of a tertiary care hospital in Australia. We concurrently collected morning spot urine protein-to-creatinine ratio (UPCR), albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) and 24-h urinary protein excretion (24-UPE) from each participant at baseline. The primary outcome was a composite of death, ESKD or > 30% decline in eGFR over 5-years. Secondary outcomes were each component of the composite outcome. For each proteinuria measure, we performed a Cox Proportional Hazards model and calculated the Harrell’s C-statistic and Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC). Results After a mean follow-up of 5 years (range 4.4–6), 85 (59%) patients met the primary composite outcome including 23 deaths (16%). The multivariable analysis showed strong evidence of an association between each log-transformed proteinuria measurement and the primary composite outcome. [Log-UPCR 1.31 (95% CI 1.18–1.63), log-UACR 1.27 (1.11–1.45) and log-24-UPE 1.43 (1.20–1.71)]. The C-Statistic were similar for all three measures of proteinuria [UPCR: 0.74 (95% CI: 0.69–0.80), UACR: 0.75 (0.69–0.81), 24-UPE: 0.75 (0.69–0.81)] as were the models’ AIC (671, 668 and 665 respectively). For secondary outcomes, no proteinuria measure was significantly associated with death alone ([log-UPCR = 1.18 (0.96–1.84), log-UACR = 1.19 (1.00–1.55), log-24-UPE = 1.19 (0.83–1.71)], whilst UACR and 24-UPE demonstrated marginally better association with ESKD and > 30% decline in eGFR respectively. [For ESKD, adj log-UACR HR = 1.33 (1.07–1.66). For > 30% decline in eGFR, log-24-UPE adj HR = 1.54 (1.13–2.09)]. Conclusion In patients with stable, non-nephrotic CKD, all three measures of proteinuria were similarly predictive of hard clinical endpoints, defined as a composite of death, ESKD and > 30% decline in eGFR. However, which measure best predicted the outcomes individually is less certain.

Background/Aims: Either protein-to-creatinine ratio (PCR) or albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) can be adopted for estimation of proteinuria in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Estimated protein excretion rate (ePER) and estimated albumin excretion rate (eAER) may be superior to ACR and PCR. Reports show that urine albumin-to-protein ratio (APR) may be useful in detecting tubular proteinuria, but should be compared with urine protein electrophoresis (PEP). Methods: Both 24-h urine and spot urine were collected from 77 stable CKD patients for measurement of albumin, protein, and creatinine, and PEP. Based on MDRD and CKD-EPI equations, ePERMDRD, ePERCKD-EPI, eAERMDRD and eAERCKD-EPI were calculated to estimate daily proteinuria and albuminuria. Glomerular CKD was defined by clinical and/or pathological evidence. Results: ACR correlated significantly with PCR. However, microalbuminuria was present in patients without pathologic proteinuria. Twenty-four-hour urine albumin correlated better with eAERMDRD and eAERCKD-EPI than ACR, and 24-h urine protein correlated better with ePERMDRD and ePERCKD-EPI than PCR. APR significantly but not well correlated with the albumin fraction in urine PEP. The albumin fraction obtained from urine PEP was significantly higher in patients with glomerulopathy than those with non-glomerular CKD, whereas there were no differences in APR between groups. In contrast with APR, the albumin fraction in urine PEP was independently associated with glomerular CKD. Conclusions: Both PCR and ACR are useful in evaluation of proteinuria. In quantifying daily proteinuria and albuminuria, ePER and eAER are superior to PCR and ACR, respectively. Compared with APR, urine PEP is more useful in diagnosing glomerular proteinuria.

Background/Aims: Either protein-to-creatinine ratio (PCR) or albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) can be adopted for estimation of proteinuria in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Estimated protein excretion rate (ePER) and estimated albumin excretion rate (eAER) may be superior to ACR and PCR. Reports show that urine albumin-to-protein ratio (APR) may be useful in detecting tubular proteinuria, but should be compared with urine protein electrophoresis (PEP). Methods: Both 24-h urine and spot urine were collected from 77 stable CKD patients for measurement of albumin, protein, and creatinine, and PEP. Based on MDRD and CKD-EPI equations, ePERMDRD, ePERCKD-EPI, eAERMDRD and eAERCKD-EPI were calculated to estimate daily proteinuria and albuminuria. Glomerular CKD was defined by clinical and/or pathological evidence. Results: ACR correlated significantly with PCR. However, microalbuminuria was present in patients without pathologic proteinuria. Twenty-four-hour urine albumin correlated better with eAERMDRD and eAERCKD-EPI than ACR, and 24-h urine protein correlated better with ePERMDRD and ePERCKD-EPI than PCR. APR significantly but not well correlated with the albumin fraction in urine PEP. The albumin fraction obtained from urine PEP was significantly higher in patients with glomerulopathy than those with non-glomerular CKD, whereas there were no differences in APR between groups. In contrast with APR, the albumin fraction in urine PEP was independently associated with glomerular CKD. Conclusions: Both PCR and ACR are useful in evaluation of proteinuria. In quantifying daily proteinuria and albuminuria, ePER and eAER are superior to PCR and ACR, respectively. Compared with APR, urine PEP is more useful in diagnosing glomerular proteinuria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is debate as to whether using the urinary albumin- or protein-to-creatinine ratio (ACR or PCR) should be the primary test for proteinuria. Whilst albuminuria (increased ACR) in the absence of proteinuria (increased PCR) may be expected in some patients, the converse (i.e., proteinuria in the absence of albuminuria) is more unusual and its cause and significance are unclear. We investigated the nature of such apparent non-albuminuric proteinuria in a primary care population of patients. Methods: ACR and PCR were measured in 569 urine samples from patients who either had chronic kidney disease or were at increased risk of the condition. Samples with apparent proteinuria (PCR ≥23 mg/mmol/≥200 mg/g) but no albuminuria (ACR <3.4 mg/mmol/<30 mg/g) were classified as 'discrepant' (37% of proteinuric samples, 6% of all samples); 27 of these samples were available for further analyses. The further analyses included electrophoresis, repeat measurement, immunoassays for markers of tubular proteinuria and use of alternative albumin and total protein methods. Results: Electrophoresis did not identify significant proteinuria in the discrepant samples. The only evidence of tubular proteinuria following measurement of three urinary markers of the condition was a mildly increased α1-microglobulin-to-creatinine ratio in 10 of the 27 discrepant samples analysed, four of which also had a raised β-trace protein-to-creatinine ratio. Use of an alternative urinary total protein method resulted in significantly lower PCRs and 17 of the 27 samples were no longer classified as proteinuric. Conclusions: We were unable to confirm the cause of a raised PCR without albuminuria in these patients and suspect that in most cases it is artefactual. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]