Evidence Hub

Change in albuminuria and subsequent risk of end-stage kidney disease: An individual participant-level consortium meta-analysis of observational studies

J. Coresh, H. Heerspink, Y. Sang, K. Matsushita, J. Arnlov, B. Astor, C. Black, N. Brunskill et al.

The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, 2019

693,816 participants · 272 citations

Abstract

Background: There is strong biologic plausibility to support change in albuminuria as a surrogate endpoint for progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD), but empirical evidence to supports its validity in epidemiologic studies is lacking. Methods: We analyzed 28 cohorts including 693,816 individuals (80% with diabetes) and 7,461 end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) events, defined as initiation of kidney replacement therapy. Percent change in albuminuria was quantified during a baseline period of 1, 2 and 3 years using linear regression. Associations with subsequent ESKD were quantified using Cox regression in each cohort, followed by random-effects meta-analysis. Further adjustment for regression dilution was used to take into account the high variability of albuminuria. Findings: Change in urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) was consistently related to subsequent risk of ESKD. The adjusted hazard ratio of ESKD following a 30% decrease in ACR during a 2-year baseline period was 0.83 (95% CI 0.74–0.94); after further adjustment for regression dilution it was 0.78 (95% CI 0.66–0.92). Adjusted hazard ratios were relatively consistent across cohorts and subgroups but were somewhat stronger at higher ACR (p-interaction30 mg/g, an average reduction in ACR of 30% over 2-years was estimated to confer >1% absolute reduction in 10-year ESKD risk, even at earlier stages of CKD. Results were generally similar when using change in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio (PCR), or when study…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 693,816 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free