These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Urinary protein/creatinine ratio versus 24-hour proteinuria in the evaluation of lupus nephritis.
    Author: Solorzano GT, Silva MV, Moreira SR, Nishida SK, Kirsztajn GM.
    Journal: J Bras Nefrol; 2012 Mar; 34(1):64-7. PubMed ID: 22441184.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: The urinary protein/creatinine ratio has been used instead of 24-hour proteinuria in Nephrology practice for the follow-up of glomerular diseases, considering the advantages of collection and the low cost. However, there are still doubts as to its applicability both for an isolated evaluation and for the follow-up of patients with lupus nephritis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate 24-hour proteinuria determinations and random urine samples, performing urinary creatinine correction and urinary protein/creatinine ratio in subjects with lupus nephritis. METHODS: 24-hour proteinuria and urinary protein/creatinine ratio were determined by conventional methods (automated Pyrogallol for proteinuria and alkaline picrate for creatinine). RESULTS: Seventy-eight urine samples of 41 patients diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus, according to the American Rheumatology Association, with lupus nephritis, were analyzed, and a good correlation between 24-hour proteinuria and urinary protein/creatinine ratio (r = 0.9010 and r² = 0.813) was observed. However, a poor correlation between random proteinuria (without creatinine correction) versus 24-hour proteinuria (r = 0.635 and r² = 0.403) or versus urinary protein/creatinine ratio (r = 0.754 and r² = 0.569) was seen. CONCLUSION: 24-hour proteinuria and urinary protein/creatinine ratio were useful in the follow-up of each case. However, we observed that the absolute values were different, which did not allow the replacement of one for the other during follow-up, especially when this result is used to define the activity of the disease. Based on these results, we suggest a period of intersection from one to the other (two to three determinations by both methods), and the choice of one marker for proteinuria follow-up, if necessary.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]