BackgroundThe usage of urine protein/creatinine ratio to estimate daily urine protein excretion is prevalent, but relatively little attention has been paid to the influence of urine concentration and its impact on test accuracy. We took advantage of 24-hour urine collection to examine both urine protein/creatinine ratio (UPCR) and daily urine protein excretion, with the latter as the reference standard. Specific gravity from a concomitant urinalysis of the same urine sample was used to indicate the urine concentration.MethodsDuring 2010 to 2014, there were 540 adequately collected 24h urine samples with protein concentration, creatinine concentration, total volume, and a concomitant urinalysis of the same sample. Variables associated with an accurate UPCR estimation were determined by multivariate linear regression analysis. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to determine the discriminant cut-off values of urine creatinine concentration for predicting an accurate UPCR estimation in either dilute or concentrated urine samples.ResultsOur findings indicated that for dilute urine, as indicated by a low urine specific gravity, UPCR is more likely to overestimate the actual daily urine protein excretion. On the contrary, UPCR of concentrated urine is more likely to result in an underestimation. By ROC curve analysis, the best cut-off value of urine creatinine concentration for predicting overestimation by UPCR of dilute urine (specific gravity ≦ 1.005) was ≦ 38.8 mg/dL, whereas the best cut-off values of urine creatinine for predicting underestimation by UPCR of thick urine were ≧ 63.6 mg/dL (specific gravity ≧ 1.015), ≧ 62.1 mg/dL (specific gravity ≧ 1.020), ≧ 61.5 mg/dL (specific gravity ≧ 1.025), respectively. We also compared distribution patterns of urine creatinine concentration of 24h urine cohort with a concurrent spot urine cohort and found that the underestimation might be more profound in single voided samples.ConclusionsThe UPCR in samples with low or high specific gravity is more likely to overestimate or underestimate actual daily urine protein amount, respectively, especially in a dilute urine sample with its creatinine below 38.8 mg/dL or a concentrated sample with its creatinine above 61.5 mg/dL. In particular, UPCR results should be interpreted with caution in cases that involve dilute urine samples because its overestimation may lead to an erroneous diagnosis of proteinuric renal disease or an incorrect staging of chronic kidney disease.

No abstract

The pandemic infection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is widely increasing the patients affiliated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from last December of 2019. It is reported that the entry receptor of SARS-CoV-2 has been confirmed to be angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). Notably, whether the ACE-related inhibitors or drugs modulated ACE2 activity in affecting the viral activity and disease severity of SARS-CoV-2 is still an open question. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DDP-4), a well-known anti-diabetic drug, has been widely used to control the glycemic condition in patients with diabetes. In this article, we are focusing on the impact of ACE inhibitors (ACEI) and DPP4 inhibitors used on SARS-CoV-2 activity and discussions about those drugs that may be related to infectious condition of COVID-19 diseases.

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a treatment modality for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. Dextrose is a common osmotic agent used in PD solutions and its absorption may exacerbate diabetes mellitus, a common complication of ESRD. PD solutions also contain glucose degradation products (GDPs) that may lead to encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis (EPS), a severe complication of PD. A previous study showed that far-infrared (FIR) therapy improved a patient’s gastrointestinal symptoms due to EPS. Due to limited literature on the matter, this study aims to investigate dialysate GDPs and peritoneal function in diabetic patients on PD. Thirty-one PD patients were enrolled and underwent 40 min of FIR therapy twice daily for six months. We demonstrated the effect of FIR therapy on the following: (1) decrease of methylglyoxal (p = 0.02), furfural (p = 0.005), and 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (p = 0.03), (2) increase of D/D0 glucose ratio (p = 0.03), and (3) decrease of potassium levels (p = 0.008) in both DM and non-DM patients, as well as (4) maintenance and increase of peritoneal Kt/V in DM and non-DM patients, respectively (p = 0.03). FIR therapy is a non-invasive intervention that can decrease dialysate GDPs in PD patients by improving peritoneal transport rate and solute removal clearance, while also maintaining dialysis adequacy.