A meta-analysis on diagnostic accuracy of spot urinary protein to creatinine ratio versus 12-h proteinuria in preeclampsia

To systematically review the diagnostic accuracy of spot urinary protein to creatinine ratio (PCR) and 12-h proteinuria in preeclampsia and to estimate which is a preferred alternative method for 24-h proteinuria, we carried out this meta-analysis. 25 primary studies were included based on searching strategy. For spot urinary PCR, our results showed pooled sensitivity of 87% (95% confidence interval [CI] 83%-91%) and specificity of 86% (95% CI 79%-91%), with an area under curve (AUC) of 0.93 (0.90-0.95). For 12-h proteinuria, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 92% (95% CI 87%-96%) and 99% (95% CI 75%-100%), respectively, with an AUC of 0.97 (0.95-0.98). Fagan plot and likelihood ratio scattergram showed that 12-h proteinuria yielded a better discriminatory performance on diagnosis of proteinuria (≥0.3 g/24 h). These results indicated that 12-h proteinuria estimation shows better clinical value than spot urine PCR for diagnosis of preeclampsia. However, due to the severity of condition and the fact that preeclampsia patients cannot wait for 12 h, spot urine PCR can be used as one of the diagnostic indicators.

[Preeclampsia: Guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists]

OBJECTIVE

To identify strategies to reduce maternal and neonatal morbidity related to preeclampsia.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The quality of evidence of the literature was assessed following the GRADE® method with questions formulated in the PICO format (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) and outcomes defined a priori and classified according to their importance. An extensive bibliographic search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE and Google Scholar databases. The quality of the evidence was assessed (high, moderate, low, very low) and recommendations were formulated as a (i) strong, (ii) weak or (iii) no recommendation. The recommendations were reviewed in two rounds with external reviewers (Delphi survey) to select the consensus recommendations.

RESULTS

Preeclampsia is defined by the association of gestational hypertension (systolic blood pressure≥140mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure≥90mmHg) and proteinuria≥0.3g/24h or a Proteinuria/Creatininuria ratio≥30mg/mmol occurring after 20 weeks of gestation. Data from the literature do not show any benefit in terms of maternal or perinatal health from implementing a broader definition of preeclampsia. Of the 31 questions, there was agreement between the working group and the external reviewers on 31 (100%). In general population, physical activity during pregnancy should be encouraged to reduce the risk of preeclampsia (Strong recommendation, Quality of the evidence low) but an early screening based on algorithms (Weak recommendation, Quality of the evidence low) or aspirin administration (Weak recommendation, Quality of the evidence very low) is not recommended to reduce maternal and neonatal morbidity related to preeclampsia. In women with preexisting diabetes or hypertension or renal disease, or multiple pregnancy, the level of evidence is insufficient to determine whether aspirin administration during pregnancy is useful to reduce maternal and perinatal morbidity (No recommendation, Quality of the evidence low). In women with a history of vasculo-placental disease, low dose of aspirin (Strong recommendation, Quality of the evidence moderate) at a dosage of 100-160mg per day (Weak recommendation, Quality of the evidence low), ideally before 16 weeks of gestation and not after 20 weeks of gestation (Strong recommendation, Quality of the evidence low) until 36 weeks of gestation (Weak recommendation, Quality of the evidence very low) is recommended. In a high-risk population, additional administration of low molecular weight heparin is not recommended (Weak recommendation, Quality of the evidence moderate). In case of preeclampsia (Weak recommendation, Quality of the evidence low) or suspicion of preeclampsia (Weak recommendation, Quality of the evidence moderate, the assessment of PlGF concentration or sFLT-1/PlGF ratio is not routinely recommended) in the only goal to reduce maternal or perinatal morbidity. In women with non-severe preeclampsia antihypertensive agent should be administered orally when the systolic blood pressure is measured between 140 and 159mmHg or diastolic blood pressure is measured between 90 and 109mmHg (Weak recommendation, Quality of the evidence low). In women with non-severe preeclampsia, delivery between 34 and 36+6 weeks of gestation reduces severe maternal hypertension but increases the incidence of moderate prematurity. Taking into account the benefit/risk balance for the mother and the child, it is recommended not to systematically induce birth in women with non-severe preeclampsia between 34 and 36+6 weeks of gestation (Strong recommendation, Quality of evidence high). In women with non-severe preeclampsia diagnosed between 37+0 and 41 weeks of gestation, it is recommended to induce birth to reduce maternal morbidity (Strong recommendation, Low quality of evidence), and to perform a trial of labor in the absence of contraindication (Strong recommendation, Very low quality of evidence). In women with a history of preeclampsia, screening maternal thrombophilia is not recommended (Strong recommendation, Quality of the evidence moderate). Because women with a history of a preeclampsia have an increased lifelong risk of chronic hypertension and cardiovascular complications, they should be informed of the need for medical follow-up to monitor blood pressure and to manage other possible cardiovascular risk factors (Strong recommendation, Quality of the evidence moderate).

CONCLUSION

The purpose of these recommendations was to reassess the definition of preeclampsia, and to determine the strategies to reduce maternal and perinatal morbidity related to preeclampsia, during pregnancy but also after childbirth. They aim to help health professionals in their daily clinical practice to inform or care for patients who have had or have preeclampsia. Synthetic information documents are also offered for professionals and patients.

Comparison of 24-h Urine Protein, Urine Albumin-to-Creatinine Ratio, and Protein-to-Creatinine Ratio in IgA Nephropathy

Background

Proteinuria is a strong risk factor for renal outcomes in IgA nephropathy. Random urine protein-to-creatinine ratio (PCR), random albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR), and 24-h urine protein excretion (24-h UP) have been widely used in clinical practice. However, the measurement which is the best predictor of long-term renal outcomes remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the three measurements in IgA nephropathy.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of 766 patients with IgA nephropathy. The associations among baseline ACR, PCR, and 24-h UP with chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression event, defined as 50% estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline or end stage kidney disease (ESKD), were tested and compared.

Results

In this study, ACR, PCR, and 24-h UP showed high correlation (r = 0.671-0.847, P < 0.001). After a median follow-up of 29.88 (14.65-51.65) months, 51 (6.66%) patients reached the CKD progression event. In univariate analysis, ACR performed better in predicting the prognosis of IgA nephropathy, with a higher area under the receiver operating curve (ROC) curve than PCR and 24-h UP. After adjustment for traditional risk factors, ACR was most associated with composite CKD progression event [per log-transformed ACR, hazard ratio (HR): 2.82; 95% (95% CI): 1.31-6.08; P = 0.008].

Conclusions

In IgA nephropathy, ACR, PCR, and 24-h UP had a high correlation. ACR performed better in predicting the prognosis of IgA nephropathy.

Proteinuria during pregnancy: definition, pathophysiology, methodology, and clinical significance

Qualitative and quantitative measurement of urine protein excretion is one of the most common tests performed during pregnancy. For more than 100 years, proteinuria was necessary for the diagnosis of preeclampsia, but recent guidelines recommend that proteinuria is sufficient but not necessary for the diagnosis. Still, in clinical practice, most patients with gestational hypertension will be diagnosed as having preeclampsia based on the presence of proteinuria. Although the reference standard for measuring urinary protein excretion is a 24-hour urine collection, spot urine protein-to-creatinine ratio is a reasonable "rule-out" test for proteinuria. Urine dipstick screening for proteinuria does not provide any clinical benefit and should not be used to diagnose proteinuria. The classic cutoff cited to define proteinuria during pregnancy is a value of >300 mg/24 hours or a urine protein-to-creatinine ratio of at least 0.3. Using this cutoff, the rate of isolated proteinuria in pregnancy may reach 8%, whereas preeclampsia occurs among 3% to 8% of pregnancies. Although this threshold is widely accepted, its origin is not based on evidence on adverse pregnancy outcomes but rather on expert opinion and results of small studies. After reviewing the available data, the most important factor that influences maternal and neonatal outcome is the severity of blood pressures and presence of end organ damage, rather than the excess protein excretion. Because the management of gestational hypertension and preeclampsia without severe features is almost identical in frequency of surveillance and timing of delivery, the separation into 2 disorders is unnecessary. If the management of women with gestational hypertension with a positive assessment of proteinuria will not change, we believe that urine assessment for proteinuria is unnecessary in women who develop new-onset blood pressure at or after 20 weeks' gestation. Furthermore, we do not recommend repeated measurement of proteinuria for women with preeclampsia, the amount of proteinuria does not seem to be related to poor maternal and neonatal outcomes, and monitoring proteinuria may lead to unindicated preterm deliveries and related neonatal complications. Our current diagnosis of preeclampsia in women with chronic kidney disease may be based on a change in protein excretion, a baseline protein excretion evaluation is critical in certain conditions such as chronic hypertension, diabetes, and autoimmune or other renal disorders. The current definition of superimposed preeclampsia possesses a diagnostic dilemma, and it is unclear whether a change in the baseline proteinuria reflects another systemic disease such as preeclampsia or whether women with chronic disease such as chronic hypertension or diabetes will experience a different "normal" pattern of protein excretion during pregnancy. Finally, limited data are available regarding angiogenic and other biomarkers in women with chronic kidney disease as a potential aid in distinguishing the worsening of baseline chronic kidney disease and chronic hypertension from superimposed preeclampsia.

Pre-eclampsia

Pre-eclampsia is a multisystem pregnancy disorder characterised by variable degrees of placental malperfusion, with release of soluble factors into the circulation. These factors cause maternal vascular endothelial injury, which leads to hypertension and multi-organ injury. The placental disease can cause fetal growth restriction and stillbirth. Pre-eclampsia is a major cause of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity, especially in low-income and middle-income countries. Prophylactic low-dose aspirin can reduce the risk of preterm pre-eclampsia, but once pre-eclampsia has been diagnosed there are no curative treatments except for delivery, and no drugs have been shown to influence disease progression. Timing of delivery is planned to optimise fetal and maternal outcomes. Clinical trials have reported diagnostic and prognostic strategies that could improve fetal and maternal outcomes and have evaluated the optimal timing of birth in women with late preterm pre-eclampsia. Ongoing studies are evaluating the efficacy, dose, and timing of aspirin and calcium to prevent pre-eclampsia and are evaluating other drugs to control hypertension or ameliorate disease progression.

Diagnostic utility of protein to creatinine ratio (P/C ratio) in spot urine sample within routine clinical practice

The spot (random) urine protein to creatinine ratio (P/C ratio) is an alternative, fast and simple method of detecting and estimating the quantitative assessment of proteinuria. The aim of the work was to review the literature concerning the usefulness of spot urine P/C ratio evaluation in the diagnosis of proteinuria in the course of kidney disease, hypertension, gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, immunological diseases, diabetes mellitus, and multiple myeloma, and in the diagnosis of proteinuria in children. We searched the PubMed and Google Scholar databases using the following keywords: proteinuria, spot urine protein to creatinine ratio, spot urine P/C ratio, protein creatinine index, PCR (protein to creatinine ratio), P/C ratio and methods, Jaffe versus enzymatic creatinine methods, urine protein methods, spot urine protein to creatinine ratio versus ACR (albumin to creatinine ratio), proteinuria versus albuminuria, limitations of the P/C ratio. More weight was given to the articles published in the last 10-20 years. A spot urine P/C ratio >20 mg/mmol (0.2 mg/mg) is the most commonly reported cutoff value for detecting proteinuria, while a P/C ratio value >350 mg/mmol (3.5 mg/mg) confirms nephrotic proteinuria. The International Society for the Study of Hypertension in Pregnancy recommends a P/C ratio of 30 mg/mmol (0.3 mg/mg) for the classification of proteinuria in pregnant women at risk of preeclampsia. A high degree of correlation was observed between P/C ratio values and the protein concentration in 24-h urine collections. The spot urine P/C ratio is a quick and reliable test that can eliminate the need for a daily 24-h urine collection. However, in doubtful situations, it is still recommended to assess proteinuria in a 24-h urine collection. The literature review indicates the usefulness of the spot P/C ratio in various disease states; therefore, this test should be available in every laboratory. However, the challenge for the primary care physician is to know the limitations of the methods used to determine the protein and creatinine concentrations that are used to calculate the P/C ratio. Moreover, the P/C ratio cutoff used should be determined in individual laboratories because it depends on the patient population and the laboratory methodologies.

Identification of Patients with Preeclampsia by Measuring Fluorescence of an Amyloid-Binding Aryl Cyano Amide in Human Urine Samples

Preeclampsia (PE) is a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy and one of the leading contributors to both maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. Reliable diagnostic parameters unique to the disorder that accurately define and diagnose PE are currently unavailable. Recent studies have revealed that PE is accompanied by the accumulation of amyloidogenic deposits in the placenta and the presence of congophilic amyloid-like protein aggregates in the urine. Here, we evaluate the capability of an amyloid-targeting aryl cyano amide (ARCAM-1) fluorophore to identify PE patients from analysis of urine samples. Our results reveal that this probe can distinguish patients with PE from gestationally healthy patients and patients suffering from non-PE hypertension, highlighting the potential for amyloid-targeting fluorophores to help identify PE patients during pregnancy.

Should the spot albumin-to-creatinine ratio replace the spot protein-to-creatinine ratio as the primary screening tool for proteinuria in pregnancy?

OBJECTIVES

To determine the correlation between the spot albumin-to-creatinine (ACR) ratio and protein-to-creatinine ratio (PCR) in pregnancy and if either test is predictive of adverse pregnancy outcome.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective consecutive cohort study in a single tertiary centre examining 181 patients undergoing proteinuria screening after 20weeks of pregnancy. A spot PCR and ACR was performed on the first void of the day. Comparison was with linear and logistic regression and ROC curve. Optimal values for the ACR were obtained and compared to a PCR value of 30mg/mmol with respect to adverse pregnancy outcomes.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Birth weight <10th centile, preterm birth <32 and <37weeks, placental abruption, caesarean section, induction of labour, fetal death in utero or neonatal death, Apgar score <5 at 1min and/or 5min, pulmonary oedema, sustained blood pressure >170/110mmHg, magnesium infusion or labetalol infusion during labour.

RESULTS

254 tests were performed. The ACR and PCR were highly correlated (r=0.95, p<0.001) and the area under ROC curve was 0.98. An ACR of 13.4mg/mmol corresponded to a PCR of 30mg/mmol. Neither was more predictive of adverse pregnancy outcome nor was the level of proteinuria.

CONCLUSIONS

The ACR is not inferior to nor does it perform better than the PCR in screening for proteinuria in pregnancy. Clinicians should use the test with which they are more familiar and may wish to assess local laboratory costs and methods in their selection.