Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Oct 24:17:296.
doi: 10.1186/s13075-015-0808-x.

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

Affiliations

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

Jorge Medina-Rosas et al. Arthritis Res Ther. .

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Scatterplot of correlation between protein content in a 24-h urine collection sample; (24hP) and untimed sample of urine protein/creatinine ratio for all urine samples. PCR spot urine protein/creatinine ratio
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Bland-Altman plot for ratios of protein content and creatinine content in 24-h urine collection samples (24H-P/24-H Creatinine) and untimed samples of urine protein/creatinine ratio (PCR)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for best cutoff of untimed samples of urine protein/creatinine ratio using binary protein content in a 24-h urine collection sample (24hP) as the gold standard (24hP cutoff 0.5 g/day)

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bastian HM, Roseman JM, McGwin G, Jr, Alarcón GS, Friedman AW, Fessler BJ, et al. Systemic lupus erythematosus in three ethnic groups. XII. Risk factors for lupus nephritis after diagnosis. Lupus. 2002;11(3):152–60. doi: 10.1191/0961203302lu158oa. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dye-Torrington D, Urowitz MB, Ibanez D, Gladman DD. Late versus early development of lupus nephritis [abstract] Arthritis Rheum. 2011;63(Suppl 10):2284. - PubMed
    1. Sprangers B, Monahan M, Appel GB. Diagnosis and treatment of lupus nephritis flares—an update. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2012;8(12):709–17. doi: 10.1038/nrneph.2012.220. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Touma Z, Gladman DD, Urowitz MB, Beyene J, Uleryk EM, Shah PS. Mycophenolate mofetil for induction treatment of lupus nephritis: a systematic review and metaanalysis. J Rheumatol. 2011;38(1):69–78. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.100130. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cameron JS. Lupus nephritis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1999;10(2):413–24. - PubMed