The protein–creatinine ratio in spot morning urine samples and 24-h urinary protein excretion in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus

Repeated pulses of methyl-prednisolone with reduced doses of prednisone improve the outcome of class III, IV and V lupus nephritis: An observational comparative study of the Lupus-Cruces and lupus-Bordeaux cohorts

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical course of patients with class III, IV and V lupus nephritis (LN) treated at Hospital Universitario Cruces (CC) and at Bordeaux University Hospital (BC).

METHODS

The Lupus-Cruces nephritis protocol combines pulses of 125mg of methyl-prednisolone with each fortnightly pulse of cyclophosphamide and prednisone ≤30mg/day with tapering over 12-14weeks until 2.5-5mg/day. The BC followed international lupus nephritis guidelines, combining high-dose prednisone and either mycophenolate mofetil or cyclophosphamide, followed by maintenance therapy with low dose prednisone and immunosuppressive drugs. The main outcomes were complete renal remission (CR) and glucocorticoid toxicity.

RESULTS

44 patients from BC and 29 from CC were included. The mean maximum prednisone dose was 42.5 (BC) vs. 21mg/day (CC), p<0.001. The average 6-month prednisone dose was 21 (BC) vs. 8.3mg/d (CC), p<0.001.The mean number of methyl-prednisolone pulses was 3 (BC) vs. 9.3 (CC), p<0.001. HCQ was used by 64% (BC) vs. 100% (CC), p<0.001. CR rates were 30% (BC) vs. 69% (CC), p=0.001, and 42% (BC) vs. 86% (CC), p<0.001, at 6 and 12months, respectively. Patients from the CC more frequently achieved CR (adjusted HR 3.8, 95%CI 2.05-7-09). The number of pulses of methyl-prednisolone were associated with CR (adjusted HR 1.09, 95%CI 1.03-1.15). Patients in the CC had a lower risk of GC-related side effects (adjusted HR 0.19, 95%CI 0.04-0.89).

CONCLUSION

The Lupus-Cruces nephritis protocol improves the outcome of LN. Repeated methyl-prednisolone pulses help reduce the dose of oral glucocorticoids and enhance clinical response.

Estimation of the 24-h urinary protein excretion based on the estimated urinary creatinine output

BACKGROUND

The urinary protein/creatinine ratio [Up/Ucr (g/gCr)] has been used in the clinical management of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, a discrepancy is often noted between the Up/Ucr and 24-h urinary protein excretion [24hUp (g/day)] in patients with extremes of muscle mass. We examined devised a method for precise estimation of the 24-h urinary protein excretion (E-24hUp) based on estimation of 24-h urinary creatinine output (E-24hCr).

METHODS

Three parameters, spot Up/Ucr, 24hUP and E-24hUp (=Up/Ucr × E-24hCr), were determined in 116 adult patients with CKD. The correlations among the groups were analyzed.

RESULTS

There was a significant correlation between the Up/Ucr and 24hUp (p < 0.001). We divided the patients into three groups according to the 24hUp; the low urinary protein group (<1.0 g/day), the intermediate urinary protein group (1.0-3.5 g/day), and the high urinary protein group (>3.5 g/day). There was a significant correlation between the Up/Ucr and 24hUp in the low (p = 0.04) and high urinary protein (p = 0.01) groups, whereas the correlation coefficient was lower in the intermediate urinary protein (p = 0.07) group. Thus, we found a significant correlation between 24hUp and E-24hUp in the study population overall (p < 0.001), in the low (p = 0.01), in the intermediate (p < 0.001), and in the high urinary protein group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

We conclude that a poor correlation exists between the Up/Ucr and 24hUp in patients with intermediate urinary protein excretion levels. The recommended parameter for monitoring proteinuria in such patients may be the E-24hUp, which is calculated using the E-24hCr.

Utility of untimed single urine protein/creatinine ratio as a substitute for 24-h proteinuria for assessment of proteinuria in systemic lupus erythematosus

Introduction

In this study, we determined: (1) the utility of an untimed sample of urine protein/creatinine ratio (PCR) as a screening test for proteinuria, (2) its ability to accurately measure proteinuria, and (3) cutoff values for PCR predicting protein content in a 24-h urine collection sample (24hP) of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 g/day.

Methods

Analysis was performed on data from a single lupus cohort (2008–2014). Proteinuria was measured in a 24hP and with PCR. On the basis of 24hP, samples were divided into 4 groups: group 1, <0.5 g/day; group 2, 0.5–0.99 g/day; group 3, 1–1.99 g/day; and group 4, ≥2 g/day. To determine the validity of PCR in screening for proteinuria, the Pearson correlation coefficient was determined for the urine samples with normal PCR (<0.05 g/mmol) and normal 24hP (<0.5 g/day). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of PCR were calculated. To determine the ability of PCR to accurately measure the level of proteinuria, in addition to the correlation between 24hP and PCR, agreement was determined by intraclass correlation coefficient, concordance correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman plot between 24hP/24hC and PCR. The best cutoffs for PCR predicting a 24hP of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 g/day were determined with the receiver operating characteristic curve.

Results

The correlation of the samples with normal PCR as well as 24hP (n = 552) was 0.29 (p < 0.0001). PCR sensitivity and specificity against 24hP were 91 % and 83 %, respectively. The PPV was 82.5 %, and the NPV was 91.4 %. The correlation for all samples (n = 1233) was high, but low to moderate for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4. The agreement for all samples was appropriate but poor for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4. PCR cutoffs for 24hP of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 g/day were 0.08, 0.16, and 0.35 g/mmol, respectively.

Conclusions

PCR can be used as a screening test for proteinuria, and the best cutoff value to predict a 24hP of 0.5 g/day is 0.08 g/mmol (800 mg/g). The accurate level of proteinuria should be measured by the gold standard test, 24hP.

Urinary protein/creatinine ratio weighted by estimated urinary creatinine improves the accuracy of predicting daily proteinuria

BACKGROUND

The spot urine protein/creatinine ratio (UPCR) is proposed to be a substitute for 24-hour urinary protein (24h-UP). This study is aimed to determine whether the predictive accuracy of 24h-UP using UPCR can be improved by simply multiplying estimated daily urine creatinine excretion (eUCr) and UPCR together.

METHODS

This study enrolled 120 participants to investigate the correlation between spot UPCR and 24h-UP. Three sets of spot urine samples were randomly collected throughout the day and night, along with the first morning void. UPCR was weighted by eUCr to investigate the improvement of accuracy in using spot urine samples to predict 24h-UP.

RESULTS

There were strong correlation and concordance between UPCR and 24h-UP irrespective of the time of spot urine sampling, and the correlation, concordance and agreement were improved after multiplying the UPCR value by the eUCr. Greater improvement was found in the subgroups with measured daily urine creatinine excretion ≤ 0.8 g/d and ≥ 1.2 g/d.

CONCLUSIONS

This investigation demonstrated that multiplying UPCR by eUCr can improve the accuracy of only using UPCR to predict 24h-UP.

Spot urine protein/creatinine ratio is unreliable estimate of 24 h proteinuria in lupus nephritis when the histological scores of activity index are higher

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation and agreement of spot urine protein/creatinine (P/C) ratio with 24 h proteinuria in patients with lupus nephritis (LN) under different scores of activity index (AI).

METHODS

In total, 90 pairs of 24 h urine and spot urine samples from 90 patients with biopsy-proven LN were analyzed. The correlation and agreement between the two sample types were assessed by Pearson correlation and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) using mixed model for repeated measurements, respectively.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Overall, 24 h proteinuria correlated strongly with the spot urine P/C ratio (r = 0.671, p < 0.001) with a good agreement (ICC = 0.656, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52-0.76). Subgroup analyses revealed that the correlation remained high in all groups (r = 0.825, p < 0.001; r = 0.567, p = 0.001; r = 0.686, p = 0.020), the agreement in group A (low AI) was good (ICC = 0.824, 95% CI: 0.70-0.89), but in group B (middle AI) and group C (high AI), the agreements were weak (ICC = 0.503, 95% CI: 0.19-0.72; ICC = 0.532, 95% CI: 0.06-0.84). Our work suggests that over the range of a higher AI, however, correlation was present but agreement was poor.

Renal co-morbidity in patients with rheumatic diseases

Renal co-morbidity is common in patients with rheumatic disease based on regular assessment of serum and urine parameters of renal function. When patients present with both arthritis and renal abnormalities the following questions have to be addressed. Is kidney disease a complication of rheumatic disease or its management, or are they both manifestations of a single systemic autoimmune disease? Is rheumatic disease a complication of kidney disease and its management? How do rheumatic disease and kidney disease affect each other even when they are unrelated? The present review provides an overview of how to address these questions in daily practice.

Correlation of random urine protein creatinine (P-C) ratio with 24-hour urine protein and P-C ratio, based on physical activity: a pilot study

Quantification of proteinuria is usually predicated upon 24-hour urine collection. Multiple factors influence urine collection and the rate of protein and creatinine excretion. Urine collection is often incomplete, and therefore creatinine and protein excretion rates are underestimated. A random urine protein-creatinine (P-C) ratio has been shown over the years to be a reliable alternative to the 24-hour collection for detection and follow up of proteinuria. However, urine protein excretion may be influenced by physical activity. We studied 48 patients with proteinuria and varying levels of physical activity to determine the correlation between the measures of urine protein excretion. The correlation coefficient (r) between 24-hour urine total protein and random urine P-C ratio was 0.75 (P < 0.01) in the overall study population, but varied according to the level of proteinuria and physical activity in a stratified analysis: r = 0.99 (P < 0.001) and r = 0.95 (P < 0.01) in bedridden patients; r = 0.44 (P = not significant [NS]) and r = 0.54 (P = NS) in semiactive patients; and r = 0.44 (P = NS) and r = 0.58 (P < 0.05) in active patients with nephrotic- (>3500 mg/day) and non-nephrotic (<3500 mg/day) range proteinuria, respectively. The correlation appeared to be stronger between random urine and 24-hour urine P-C ratio for the overall study population (r = 0.84; P < 0.001), and when stratified according to the level of proteinuria and physical activity: r = 0.99 (P < 0.001) and r = 0.92 (P < 0.01) in bedridden patients; r = 0.61 (P = NS) and r = 0.54 (P = NS) in semiactive patients; and r = 0.64 (P < 0.02) and r = 0.52 (P < 0.05) in active patients with nephrotic and non-nephrotic range proteinuria, respectively. We conclude that the random urine P-C ratio is a reliable and practical way of estimating and following proteinuria, but its precision and accuracy may be affected by the level of patient physical activity.