Why the study?
Does pre-screening based on urinary albumin concentration improve the detection of high-risk CKD patients compared to screening based on clinical risk factors in the general population?
Does pre-screening based on urinary albumin concentration improve the detection of high-risk CKD patients compared to screening based on clinical risk factors in the general population?
Pre-screening based on urinary albumin concentration is superior to screening based on clinical risk factors for identifying CKD patients at high risk for renal decline and cardiovascular events.
UAC pre-screening should not yet change practice; hypothesis-generating for efficient high-risk CKD detection in prospective studies.
BACKGROUND: Screening for chronic kidney disease (CKD) has been advised in high-risk populations. The present study aims to compare the yields of four approaches to select high-risk subjects for CKD screening, which are defined as follows: Approach 1, history of cardiovascular (CV) disease, diabetes mellitus or hypertension (=high CV risk); Approach 2, high CV risk or age >55 years; Approach 3, urinary albumin concentration (UAC) ≥20 mg/L; or Approach 4, UAC ≥10 mg/L at pre-screening. METHODS: The study population is a sample of the general population of Groningen, the Netherlands (n = 3398). UAC was measured (nephelometry) in a first morning void urine sample collected at home and sent to a laboratory by post. Information on demographics and the presence of CV risk factors was obtained by a questionnaire. The presence of CKD was determined during examination at an outpatient clinic. RESULTS: At baseline, 12% of the subjects met the criteria of Approach 1, 33% of Approach 2, 8% of Approach 3 and 25% of Approach 4. CKD was diagnosed in 370 subjects (11%). Approach 2 detected the most CKD patients (sensitivity 65%), while Approach 3 resulted in the lowest number needed to screen (1.9). During a follow-up of 7 years, only the UAC pre-screening approaches detected CKD patients who had both significantly accelerated renal function loss and increased CV risk compared to subjects without CKD. Only 28% of CKD patients detected by the UAC approaches used antihypertensive/angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor treatment prior to screening. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that pre-screening based on UAC should be favoured in comparison to screening based on CKD risk factors to detect CKD patients at high renal and CV risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Velde et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: