Meinhardt U, Ammann R A, Flück C, Diem P, Mullis P E
Division of Paediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology, University Children's Hospital, Inselspital, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland.
J Diabetes Complications. 2003 Sep-Oct;17(5):254-7. doi: 10.1016/s1056-8727(02)00180-0.
Diabetic nephropathy and end-stage renal failure are still a major cause of mortality amongst patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). In this study, we evaluated the Clinitek-Microalbumin (CM) screening test strip for the detection of microalbuminuria (MA) in a random morning spot urine in comparison with the quantitative assessment of albuminuria in the timed overnight urine collection ("gold standard"). One hundred thirty-four children, adolescents, and young adults with insulin-dependent DM Type 1 were studied at 222 outpatient visits. Because of urinary tract infection and/or haematuria, the data of 13 visits were excluded. Finally, 165 timed overnight urine were collected in the remaining 209 visits (79% sample per visit rate). Ten (6.1%) patients presented MA of > or =15 microg/min. In comparison however, 200 spot urine could be screened (96% sample/visit rate) yielding a significant increase in compliance and screening rate (P<.001, McNemar test). Furthermore, at 156 occasions, the gold standard and CM could be directly compared. The sensitivity and the specificity for CM in the spot urine (cut-off > or =30 mg albumin/l) were 0.89 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56-0.99] and 0.73 (CI 0.66-0.80), respectively. The positive and negative predictive value were 0.17 (CI 0.08-0.30) and 0.99 (CI 0.95-1.00), respectively. Considering CM albumin-to-creatinine ratio, the results were poorer than with the albumin concentration alone. Using CM instead of quantitative assessment of albuminuria is not cost-effective (35 US dollars versus 60 US dollars/patient/year). In conclusion, to exclude MA, the CM used in the random spot urine is reliable and easy to handle, but positive screening results of > or =30 mg albumin/l must be confirmed by analyses in the timed overnight collected urine. Although the screening compliance is improved, in terms of analysing random morning spot urine for MA, we cannot recommend CM in a paediatric diabetic outpatient setting because the specificity is far too low.
糖尿病肾病和终末期肾衰竭仍是糖尿病(DM)患者死亡的主要原因。在本研究中,我们评估了Clinitek - 微量白蛋白(CM)筛查试纸条在随机晨尿中检测微量白蛋白尿(MA)的情况,并与定时过夜尿液收集(“金标准”)中蛋白尿的定量评估进行比较。对134名1型胰岛素依赖型糖尿病儿童、青少年和年轻成年人进行了222次门诊随访研究。由于尿路感染和/或血尿,排除了13次随访的数据。最后,在其余209次随访中收集了165份定时过夜尿液(每次随访样本率为79%)。10名(6.1%)患者出现MA≥15微克/分钟。然而,相比之下,可以筛查200份晨尿样本(每次随访样本率为96%),依从性和筛查率显著提高(P<0.001,McNemar检验)。此外,在156次情况下,可以直接比较金标准和CM。晨尿中CM(临界值≥30毫克白蛋白/升)的敏感性和特异性分别为0.89 [95%置信区间(CI)0.56 - 0.99]和0.73(CI 0.66 - 0.80)。阳性和阴性预测值分别为0.17(CI 0.08 - 0.30)和0.99(CI 0.95 - 1.00)。考虑CM白蛋白与肌酐比值时,结果比仅使用白蛋白浓度时更差。使用CM代替蛋白尿的定量评估不具有成本效益(35美元/患者/年对60美元/患者/年)。总之,为排除MA,随机晨尿中使用的CM可靠且易于操作,但≥30毫克白蛋白/升的阳性筛查结果必须通过定时过夜收集尿液的分析来确认。虽然筛查依从性有所提高,但就分析随机晨尿中的MA而言,我们不建议在儿科糖尿病门诊环境中使用CM,因为其特异性太低。