CKD: Progression and Diabetes (2001)
Three separate panels of experts and invited participants addressed issues related to proteinuria as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, as a mediator and marker of progressive kidney failure, and (persistent massive proteinuria) as the inciting factor that leads to nephrotic syndrome.
Recruitment: Three separate panels of experts and invited participants addressed issues related to proteinuria as a risk factor. These expert recommendations were presented at four Town Hall Meetings for additional input, comment, or modification. These revised recommendations were submitted for review by the Scientific Advisory Board of the NKF and adopted by the Board of Directors on 10/23/1998.
Design: Consensus Report.
Blinding Used (if appliable): not applicable
Intervention (if applicable): not applicable
Statistical Analysis: not applicable
Timing of Measurements: not specified
Dependent Variables:
- Proteinuria
- Albuminuria
Independent Variables: not specified
Control Variables: not specified
Initial N: not applicable
Attrition (final N): not applicable
Age: not applicable
Ethnicity: not applicable
Other Relevant Demographics: not applicable
Anthropometrics: not applicable
Location: not applicable
Microalbuminuria
Microalbuminuria is an independent risk factor for the outcome of both kidney and CVD.
Testing for proteinuria/albuminuria
1. Proteinuria
a. routine urinalysis: if proteinuria is detected on any evaluation of the urine, dipstick analysis should be repeated on at least 1 additional sample within the next 3 months.
b. “spot” urine protein/creatinine ratio: quantification of proteinuria; normal range is <200 mg urine protein/g urine creatinine
2. Albuminuria
a. “spot” urine albumin/creatinine ratio: assesses risk of glomerulopathy in diabetes and CVD in hypertensives.
b. normal range: <30 mg urinary albumin/g urine creatinine on first morning urine.
3. Quantification of urinary protein and creatinine:
a. 24-hr urine collection is more accurate than spot urine but is inconvenient for the patient. (Normal range: <150 mg protein/24-hr)
b. when proteinuria coexists with increased serum creatinine (>1.4 mg/dL, men; >1.2 mg/dL, women) or hypertension (>140/90 mm Hg) patients are at increased risk for loss of kidney function.
c. Also useful in quantifying dietary sodium, potassium, protein and creatinine clearance.
Proteinuria and CVD
Microalbuminuria in high-risk individuals is an independent risk factor of CVD (MI or stroke) and when present, the patient needs more intensive therapy and closer follow-up.
Clinical situations indicating a higher risk:
Diabetes mellitus
Hypertension
Central obesity
Advanced age
African American
Hispanic
Native American
Pacific Islander
Family history of CVD or renal disease
Therapeutic interventions to reduce proteinuria and slow the progression of renal disease
1. Blood pressure control: <130/85 mm Hg, 125/75 mm Hg preferable
2. Angiotension-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy: Therapy with an angiotension II receptor antagonist is recommended in those patients who are intolerant of angiotension converting enzyme inhibitors.
3. Dietary salt restriction:
A high salt intake can override the antiprotective effects of angiotensionconverting enzyme inhibitors. Salt restriction is especially important in hypertensives with proteinuria.
4. Dietary protein restriction:
Moderate restriction (0.8 g/kg) is recommended in proteinuric patients to assist in decreasing the degree of proteinuria and the progression of renal disease.
Proteinuria in the nephrotic syndrome
1. Nephrotic syndrome is defined as persistent nephrotic range proteinuria (>3 g protein/24-hr urine) and decreased serum albumin.
2. Other metabolic components of nephritic syndrome include: edema, hyperlipidemia, hypercoaguability, muscle wasting, hypocalcemia and vitamin D deficiency.
Nephrology referral and follow-up
1. Since patients with proteinuria are at increased risk for progression to end-stage renal failure, follow-up should be every 3-4 months and include the following:
a. urine protein/creatinine ratio
b. dietary compliance (urine sodium, urea)
c. blood pressure
d. serum albumin and cholesterol
e. serum creatinine
2. Treatment goals:
a. reduction of urinary protein (of 40% to 50%)
b. control blood pressure (<130/75 mm Hg)
c. restriction of dietary sodium and protein (0.8 g/kg body weight)
d. risk management (smoking cessation, serum lipids)
The presence of even relatively small amounts of protein or albumin in the urine is an important early sign of kidney disease and a strong predictor for an increased risk for cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in high-risk groups.
Early detection of proteinuria/albuminuria and institution of appropriate therapy has been show to slow the progression of kidney disease.
Intensive management of high blood pressure and abnormal lipids may decrease the risk for MI and stroke in individuals with proteinuria.
Not-for-profit |
|
Good review of importance of monitoring blood pressure and proteinuria for identifying early kidney disease and through preventive measures, slowing the progression of kidney disease.
Strong recommendations for limiting sodium for controlling blood pressure in this population. Less strong recommendation for limiting protein intake.
Quality Criteria Checklist: Review Articles
|
|||
Relevance Questions | |||
1. | Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients? | Yes | |
2. | Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about? | Yes | |
3. | Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to dietetics practice? | Yes | |
4. | Will the information, if true, require a change in practice? | No | |
Validity Questions | |||
1. | Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate? | Yes | |
2. | Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described? | No | |
3. | Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified andappropriate? Wereselectionmethods unbiased? | No | |
4. | Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methodsspecified,appropriate, andreproducible? | No | |
5. | Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined? | Yes | |
6. | Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered? | Yes | |
7. | Were processes for data abstraction, synthesis, and analysis described? Were they applied consistently acrossstudies and groups? Was thereappropriate use of qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis? Was variation in findings among studies analyzed? Were heterogeneity issued considered? If data from studies were aggregated for meta-analysis, was the procedure described? | No | |
8. | Are the results clearly presented in narrative and/or quantitative terms? If summary statistics are used, are levels ofsignificance and/or confidence intervals included? | Yes | |
9. | Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations ofthe review identified anddiscussed? | Yes | |
10. | Was bias due to the review's funding or sponsorship unlikely? | Yes | |