|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Urinary
tests: urine protein & routinely calculated GFR |
| |
|
Protein: There are many different ways to measure urine
protein. One might check a "spot" urine (test done on
a random specimen) or a timed urine (up to a 24-hour collection).
One might test generally for "protein" or more specifically
for types of protein. And one might use one of many different test
methods, including urinary protein electrophoresis (UPE) on concentrated
urine. One cost-effectiveness study1 suggests
that one either screen test adults infrequently (such as every
5-10 years) or selectively (those age 60 or older; or those with
hypertension).
Microalbuminuria is found in 6% of the general population & tend
to reflect hypertension, kidney disease, or diabetes.
Our main hospital lab uses the "Chemstrip IRIS" system
for automated reading of test reactions. This method detects urine
protein by the "protein error of pH indicator", a phenomenon
discovered in 1909 by Sorensen. In the presence of protein, the
test's dye indicator changes from a yellow color to light green
(the system is more sensitive to albumin than to Bence-Jones and
other proteins). It should be thought of as an albumin test. Most
such methods detect albumin in urine at levels of 15 mg/dl or higher;
it is said that a typical "normal" series of urine specimens
in a normal person should average less than 15-20 mg/dl of albumin.
The definition of microalbuminuria is 30-300 mg alb/ 24 hours of
urine collected. Testing for diabetic microalbuminuria may
be important. Expressed another way, normoalbuminuria is less than
30 micrograms of albumin per milligram of creatinine. While microalbuminuria
is 30-299 & macroalbuminuria is 300 or higher micrograms of
albumin per milligram of creatinine |
| Our Community Medical Centers use the Bayer Multistix 10 SG with
the Bayer Clinitek 100 or 500 machine reader; it uses the same test
principle as the above IRIS, being sensitive to albumin beginning
at the 15-30 mg/dl range. |
|
Routinely calculated GFR: In Sept. 2005, our lab responded to nephrologists' requests to have the "GFR estimation" automatically calculate on the
chemistry profiles. We used the MDRD equation. We immediately began to get calls from doctors that the estimation was "tagging" too many people with abnormal GFRs who do not
have renal disease. Dr. Rule noted that the MDRD was based on people with renal disease and that it found a 12% prevelance of reduced GFR in the general population. However
, the Health equation based on normal people only finds a 0.2% prevelance of reduced GFRs. In May 2008 we adjusted our serum creatinine to an international
standard for reporting creatinine (somewhat similar to what was done with "prothrombin times" by coming up with the INR). So, as of July 2007, we are hesitant to change our formula. Interestingly the eGFR calculation formula was also changed and eGFR’s calculated from the “new” creatinine levels calculate virtually identical to eGFR’s from the old formula w/ the “old” creatinines, thus eGFR results haven’t changed.
We're not sure of the real utility of all this and think that the eGFR problems noted in our 2007 lab newsletter still remain. Some of the nephrologists are happy with the new lower creatinine cut-off, and we think that separating out a female range has merit, though there’s still no allowance for body habitus, muscle mass, etc., thus still a role for measured creatinine clearances.
|
References:
-
Boulware LE, et. al. "Screening for Proteinuria
in US Adults", JAMA 290(23):3101, 17 Dec. 2003.
- Rule A, Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Nov. 2006.
|
| (posted 2002; latest update 14 May 2008) |
|
|
© Copyright
1999 - 2006, all rights reserved, Pathology Associates Of Lexington,
P.A. |
| |