| Summary: | Background: Current UK guidelines for the identification, management and referral of chronic kidney disease advise an early-morning urine sample for the albumin:creatinine ratio or the protein:creatinine ratio (PCR) in order to quantify proteinuria. Estimated protein output (EPO) is an alternative and possibly better method of quantifying proteinuria which takes lean weight into consideration. Methods: We carried out a single-centre study of 36 adult patients with proteinuric nephropathy over a period of 18 months. Urinary PCR and EPO estimates of 24-hour urine protein were compared with 24-hour urine collections by Bland-Altman analysis. Results: Average 24-hour urine protein was 1.6 g (range 0.2–5.1 g). Best agreement with 24-hour protein was for first-void EPO (limits of agreement 0.33–1.59) followed by a second-void EPO (0.40–1.76), then second-void PCR (0.40–2.08) and lastly first-void PCR (0.28–2.03). None of the differences between estimates of urine protein excretion and 24-hour urine protein were statistically significant. All estimates of protein output had wide confidence intervals confirming that spot urine samples, while simple and convenient to do, are imprecise measures of 24-hour urine protein excretion. Conclusion: When estimating 24-hour urine protein from a spot urine sample, EPO may be marginally more accurate than PCR, and first-void urine samples slightly better than second-void urine samples, but a first- or second-void PCR will suffice in most instances.
|
|---|
