4.7 Article

A prospective study of protein excretion using short-interval timed urine collections in patients with lupus nephritis

期刊

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL
卷 76, 期 12, 页码 1284-1288

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ki.2009.344

关键词

glomerulonephritis; lupus nephritis; nephritis; proteinuria systemic lupus erythematosus

资金

  1. National Center for Research Resources/NIH [M01-RR00052]
  2. NIH CTSA [UL1RR025755-01]
  3. National Institutes of Health [AR43727, DK55546]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The 24-h urine protein-to-creatinine ratio is the gold standard in evaluating proteinuria in lupus nephritis; however, the urine collection is inconvenient to the patient. Random spot urine protein-to-creatinine ratios, although convenient, have poor agreement with the 24-h ratios in these patients. Here, we sought to define a timed collection interval providing accurate and precise data and patient convenience. Urine from 41 patients, in 2 medical centers, with biopsy-proven lupus nephritis was collected at 6-h intervals for 24 h. The protein-to-creatinine ratio of each short collection was then compared with that of a 24-h collection made by combining the 6-h samples. A first morning void and spot urine samples were collected before and after the 24-h collection, respectively. There was significant diurnal variation with peak proteinuria at 6-12 h and nadir at 18-24h. Each 6-h collection showed excellent correlation and concordance with the 24-h protein-to-creatinine ratio, but the 12-24-h interval had the best agreement. In contrast to the random spot urines, the first morning void also had excellent correlation and concordance, but underestimated the 24-h protein-to-creatinine ratio. Our study shows that a 12-h overnight urine collection is the best surrogate, with excellent agreement with the 24-h protein-to-creatinine ratio, and it is convenient for patients. There was little variability between centers, an important feature for clinical trials. Kidney International (2009) 76, 1284-1288; doi:10.1038/ki.2009.344; published online 16 September 2009

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据