Conversion of urine protein-creatinine ratio or urine dipstick to urine albumin-creatinine ratio for use in CKD screening and prognosis

Background: Although measuring albuminuria is the preferred method for defining and staging chronic kidney disease (CKD), total urine protein or dipstick protein is often measured instead. Objective: To develop equations for converting urine protein–creatinine ratio (PCR) and dipstick protein to urine albumin–creatinine ratio (ACR) and to test their diagnostic accuracy in CKD screening and staging. Design: Individual participant–based meta-analysis. Setting: 12 research and 21 clinical cohorts. Participants: 919 383 adults with same-day measures of ACR and PCR or dipstick protein. Measurements: Equations to convert urine PCR and dipstick protein to ACR were developed and tested for purposes of CKD screening (ACR ≥30 mg/g) and staging (stage A2: ACR of 30 to 299 mg/g; stage A3: ACR ≥300 mg/g). Results: Median ACR was 14 mg/g (25th to 75th percentile of cohorts, 5 to 25 mg/g). The association between PCR and ACR was inconsistent for PCR values less than 50 mg/g. For higher PCR values, the PCR conversion equations demonstrated moderate sensitivity (91%, 75%, and 87%) and specificity (87%, 89%, and 98%) for screening (ACR >30 mg/g) and classification into stages A2 and A3, respectively. Urine dipstick categories of trace or greater, trace to +, and ++ for screening for ACR values greater than 30 mg/g and classification into stages A2 and A3, respectively, had moderate sensitivity (62%, 36%, and 78%) and high specificity (88%, 88%, and 98%). For individual risk prediction, the estimated 2-year 4-variable kidney failure risk equation using predicted ACR from PCR had discrimination similar to that of using observed ACR. Limitation: Diverse methods of ACR and PCR quantification were used; measurements were not always performed in the same urine sample. Conclusion: Urine ACR is the preferred measure of albuminuria; however, if ACR is not available, predicted ACR from PCR or urine dipstick protein may help in CKD screening, staging, and prognosis. Primary Funding Source: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and National Kidney Foundation

The current and future landscape of dialysis

The development of dialysis by early pioneers such as Willem Kolff and Belding Scribner set in motion several dramatic changes in the epidemiology, economics and ethical frameworks for the treatment of kidney failure. However, despite a rapid expansion in the provision of dialysis - particularly haemodialysis and most notably in high-income countries (HICs) - the rate of true patient-centred innovation has slowed. Current trends are particularly concerning from a global perspective: current costs are not sustainable, even for HICs, and globally, most people who develop kidney failure forego treatment, resulting in millions of deaths every year. Thus, there is an urgent need to develop new approaches and dialysis modalities that are cost-effective, accessible and offer improved patient outcomes. Nephrology researchers are increasingly engaging with patients to determine their priorities for meaningful outcomes that should be used to measure progress. The overarching message from this engagement is that while patients value longevity, reducing symptom burden and achieving maximal functional and social rehabilitation are prioritized more highly. In response, patients, payors, regulators and health-care systems are increasingly demanding improved value, which can only come about through true patient-centred innovation that supports high-quality, high-value care. Substantial efforts are now underway to support requisite transformative changes. These efforts need to be catalysed, promoted and fostered through international collaboration and harmonization. Dialysis is a life-saving therapy; however, costs of dialysis are high, access is inequitable and outcomes are inadequate. This Review describes the current landscape of dialysis therapy from an epidemiological, economic, ethical and patient-centred framework, and describes initiatives that are aimed at stimulating innovations in the field to one that supports high-quality, high-value care