BackgroundMarkers of kidney dysfunction such as proteinuria or albuminuria have been reported to be associated with coronary heart disease, but the consistency and strength of any such relationship has not been clearly defined. This lack of clarity has led to great uncertainty as to how proteinuria should be treated in the assessment and management of cardiovascular risk. We therefore undertook a systematic review of published cohort studies aiming to provide a reliable estimate of the strength of association between proteinuria and coronary heart disease.Methods and FindingsA meta-analysis of cohort studies was conducted to obtain a summary estimate of the association between measures of proteinuria and coronary risk. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for studies reporting an age- or multivariate-adjusted estimate and standard error of the association between proteinuria and coronary heart disease. Studies were excluded if the majority of the study population had known glomerular disease or were the recipients of renal transplants. Two independent researchers extracted the estimates of association between proteinuria (total urinary protein >300 mg/d), microalbuminuria (urinary albumin 30–300 mg/d), macroalbuminuria (urinary albumin >300 mg/d), and risk of coronary disease from individual studies. These estimates were combined using a random-effects model. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine possible sources of heterogeneity in effect size. A total of 26 cohort studies were identified involving 169,949 individuals and 7,117 coronary events (27% fatal). The presence of proteinuria was associated with an approximate 50% increase in coronary risk (risk ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23–1.74) after adjustment for known risk factors. For albuminuria, there was evidence of a dose–response relationship: individuals with microalbuminuria were at 50% greater risk of coronary heart disease (risk ratio 1.47, 95% CI 1.30–1.66) than those without; in those with macroalbuminuria the risk was more than doubled (risk ratio 2.17, 1.87–2.52). Sensitivity analysis indicated no important differences in prespecified subgroups.ConclusionThese data confirm a strong and continuous association between proteinuria and subsequent risk of coronary heart disease, and suggest that proteinuria should be incorporated into the assessment of an individual's cardiovascular risk.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Data on the association of ustekinumab (UST) drug concentrations and clinical outcomes are conflicting. We assessed serum UST drug and anti-UST antibody concentrations using three commercially available assays. Methods Sixty-one blood samples were analyzed for serum UST drug and anti-UST antibody concentrations using three assays: one homogeneous mobility shift assay (HMSA, Prometheus, Assay A), and two enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA; Progenika, Dynacare, Assay B and Theradiag, Assay C). Results The median (IQR) serum UST concentrations for the three assays were: Assay A 7.50 (5.35 to 12.88) µg/mL, Assay B 4.02 (2.46 to 6.95) µg/mL and Assay C 4.35 (2.62 to 7.50) µg/mL. A Kruskal–Wallis test confirmed a statistically significant difference between the different assays, X2(2) = 30.606, p < 0.001. Linear regression showed near twofold increased difference in the absolute drug concentrations between the HMSA and either ELISA. Linear quantitative correlation was observed for all three assays (r = 0.836 for A versus B, r = 0.792 for A versus C, r = 0.936 for B versus C; p < 0.01). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between assay A and B was 0.649 (95% confidence interval [CI] −0.208 to 0.874); assay A and C was 0.671 (95% CI −0.165 to 0.878); and assay B and C was 0.958 (95% CI 0.928 to 0.975); p < 0.001. No anti-UST antibodies were detected. Conclusion A good correlation was observed for serum UST drug concentrations and a good agreement was observed between the ELISA tests. However, agreement was poor between the HMSA and each ELISA tests. Clinical recommendations regarding drug concentrations should be based on assay type used.