Supplemental Table A. Baseline proteinuria predicting renal outcome in multivariable Cox-Hazard model PredictorsHR95% CIp value Baseline UPE, g/day2.311.31.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Interpreting regression for non-statisticians Colin Fischbacher.
Advertisements

Prevalence (%) Prevalence of CAC by Degree of cPB No Carotid Plaque cPB Tertile 1 cPB Tertile 2 cPB Tertile 3 (n=1,316) (n=1,498) (n=1,497) (n=1,497) Supplementary.
Chapter 11 Survival Analysis Part 2. 2 Survival Analysis and Regression Combine lots of information Combine lots of information Look at several variables.
Logistic regression for binary response variables.
Decision Tree Models in Data Mining
Assessing Survival: Cox Proportional Hazards Model Peter T. Donnan Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics Statistics for Health Research.
Logistic Regression In logistic regression the outcome variable is binary, and the purpose of the analysis is to assess the effects of multiple explanatory.
Marshall University School of Medicine Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology BMS 617 Lecture 12: Multiple and Logistic Regression Marshall University.
Assessment of Lupus (SLE) Mortality in a Patient-Based Community Data Bank Frederick Wolfe 1, Kaleb Michaud 1,2, Tracy Li 3, Robert S. Katz 4 1 National.
Logistic Regression for binary outcomes
Assessing Survival: Cox Proportional Hazards Model
Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial (IDNT) Collaborative Study Group N Eng J Med 345: , 2001 Edmund J. Lewis, M.D. Muehrcke Family Professor of.
Correlation and Regression Chapter 9. § 9.3 Measures of Regression and Prediction Intervals.
Introduction to Logistic Regression Rachid Salmi, Jean-Claude Desenclos, Alain Moren, Thomas Grein.
Dick de Zeeuw Department of Clinical Pharmacology University Medical Center Groningen The Netherlands Albuminuria; a tool for measuring non-blood pressure.
LOGISTIC REGRESSION A statistical procedure to relate the probability of an event to explanatory variables Used in epidemiology to describe and evaluate.
Age, SexHistologyPredominant subtype Pathological stage EGFR mutation CAF1 61, MaleAdenocarcinoma Solid predominant pT3N2M0 L858R CAF2 71, MaleAdenocarcinoma.
To assess the prognostic value of variability in home-measured blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) in a general population. Objective: Methods: BP.
Copyright restrictions may apply Predictive Values of Psychiatric Symptoms for Internet Addiction in Adolescents: A 2-Year Prospective Study Ko C-H, Yen.
April 4 Logistic Regression –Lee Chapter 9 –Cody and Smith 9:F.
Logistic and Nonlinear Regression Logistic Regression - Dichotomous Response variable and numeric and/or categorical explanatory variable(s) –Goal: Model.
1 THE ROLE OF COVARIATES IN CLINICAL TRIALS ANALYSES Ralph B. D’Agostino, Sr., PhD Boston University FDA ODAC March 13, 2006.
MBP1010 – Lecture 8: March 1, Odds Ratio/Relative Risk Logistic Regression Survival Analysis Reading: papers on OR and survival analysis (Resources)
Exam 1 Review. Data referenced throughout review The Federal Trade Commission annually rates varieties of domestic cigarettes according to their tar,
Implications of MDRD for Validity of Proteinuria as a Surrogate Endpoint.
Table 1. Clinicopathological findings at biopsy Clinical Number of patients Age (years) Gender (%Male) eGFR (ml/min/1.73m 2 ) UPE (g/day) Serum albumin.
1 Multivariable Modeling. 2 nAdjustment by statistical model for the relationships of predictors to the outcome. nRepresents the frequency or magnitude.
A first order model with one binary and one quantitative predictor variable.
Preparing to Analyse Data C.Adithan Department of Pharmacology JIPMER Pondicherry
Logistic regression (when you have a binary response variable)
Instrument design Essential concept behind the design Bandit Thinkhamrop, Ph.D.(Statistics) Department of Biostatistics and Demography Faculty of Public.
1 ALLHAT Antihypertensive Trial Results by Baseline Diabetic Status January 28, 2004.
Date of download: 5/29/2016 From: The Effect of a Lower Target Blood Pressure on the Progression of Kidney Disease: Long-Term Follow- up of the Modification.
Logistic Regression Logistic Regression - Binary Response variable and numeric and/or categorical explanatory variable(s) –Goal: Model the probability.
○ South Asians (SAs) have high rates of CHD which are not entirely explained by traditional CVD risk factors. ○ The association of a family history of.
Marshall University School of Medicine Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology BMS 617 Lecture 13: Multiple, Logistic and Proportional Hazards Regression.
Date of download: 6/23/2016 Copyright © The American College of Cardiology. All rights reserved. From: Outcomes Associated With Microalbuminuria: Effect.
Table S1. Logistic regression analysis for the variables associated with the degree of change in cTnT between 2 time points (n=89) UnivariateMultivariate.
Date of download: 7/3/2016 Copyright © 2016 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. From: Fibroblast Growth Factor 23 and Risks of Mortality.
Date of download: 7/9/2016 Copyright © The American College of Cardiology. All rights reserved. From: Usual Blood Pressure and Risk of New-Onset Diabetes:
Bootstrap and Model Validation
Volume 82, Issue 12, Pages (December 2012)
The SPRINT Research Group
Urine Potassium Excretion, Kidney Failure, and Mortality in CKD
Vitamin D levels and patient outcome in chronic kidney disease
Copyright © 2011 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Alcohol Consumption and Cardiac Biomarkers: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study M. Lazo, Y. Chen, J.W. McEvoy, C. Ndumele, S. Konety,
PS Sever, PM Rothwell, SC Howard, JE Dobson, B Dahlöf,
Statistics 103 Monday, July 10, 2017.
Multiple logistic regression
Effects of Bosutinib Treatment on Renal Function in Patients With Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Leukemias  Jorge E. Cortes, Carlo Gambacorti-Passerini,
Determinants of new onset diabetes among hypertensive patients randomised in the ASCOT-BPLA Trial Dr Ajay K Gupta International Centre for Circulatory.
Apolipoprotein E-containing high-density lipoprotein (HDL) modifies the impact of cholesterol-overloaded HDL on incident coronary heart disease risk:
Soc 3306a Lecture 11: Multivariate 4
Blood Lead Levels and Decreased Kidney Function in a Population-Based Cohort  Florencia Harari, Gerd Sallsten, Anders Christensson, Marinka Petkovic, Bo.
Volume 82, Issue 12, Pages (December 2012)
Separate and combined associations of body-mass index and abdominal adiposity with cardiovascular disease: collaborative analysis of 58 prospective studies 
Erratum American Journal of Kidney Diseases
15.1 The Role of Statistics in the Research Process
A novel classification for IgA nephropathy
Volume 86, Issue 3, Pages (September 2014)
Vitamin D levels and patient outcome in chronic kidney disease
Volume 82, Issue 7, Pages (October 2012)
Validation of the Oxford classification of IgA nephropathy
Volume 73, Issue 8, Pages (April 2008)
Volume 60, Issue 3, Pages (September 2001)
Measures of Regression Prediction Interval
Volume 75, Issue 1, Pages (January 2009)
Associations between type of MI and incident HF
median of follow-up (month)
Presentation transcript:

Supplemental Table A. Baseline proteinuria predicting renal outcome in multivariable Cox-Hazard model PredictorsHR95% CIp value Baseline UPE, g/day to # Age, years to 1.04>0.2 Current smoking to 4.55>0.2 U-RBC > 30/hpf to # eGFR<60ml/min/1.73m to # Tonsillectomy to 4.06>0.2

Risk ratio for renal events UPE at baseline, g/d Mean Lower or upper of 95% CI Reduction Increase Risk Supplemental Figure A. Risk ratio for the end point associated with the baseline UPE Plots of the risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) adjusted for the baseline eGFR for the endpoint using the level of baseline proteinuria examination as the continuous variable were shown (reference; the highest quartile, the median of which was 2.34 g/day). The degree of proteinuria was log transformed.

Supplemental Table B. Categorized proteinuria at baseline predicting renal outcome in multivariable Cox-Hazard model PredictorsHR (95% CI)p value Category of UPE at baseline < 1.0 g/day0.24 (0.05 to 1.18)0.079 > 1.0 g/dayreference Age, years0.99>0.2 Current smoking U-RBC > 30/hpf0.30 (0.08 to 1.13)0.076 eGFR<60ml/min/1.73m (1.65 to 44.7)0.011 # Tonsillectomy0.73 (0.19 to 2.82)>0.2

Supplemental Figure B. An equation of propensity score for UPE at one year <0.4 g/day with baseline clinical predictors The propensity score was estimated by logistic regression model for UPE at one year < 0.4 g/day (Nagelkelke R square was 0.268, p<0.001). Propensity score for UPE at one year < 0.4 g/day = x Age (years) x UPE at baseline (g/day) eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m for “Yes” for “No” U-RBC > 30 /hpf for “Yes” for “No” Tonsillectomy for “Yes” for “No” Current smoker for “Yes” for “No” Sex for “female” for “male” BP > 130/80 mmHg for “Yes” for “No” RAAS inhibitors for “Yes” for “No” + ++

Supplemental Figure C. An equation of propensity score for UPE at one year <0.4 g/day with Oxford classification and baseline UPE The propensity score was estimated by logistic regression model for UPE at one year < 0.4 g/day (Nagelkelke R square was p<0.001). Propensity score for UPE at one year < 0.4 g/day = x UPE at baseline (g/day) for “T0” for “T1” for “T2” for “S0” for “S1” for “M0” for “M1” for “E0” for “E1” +

Supplemental Figure D. An equation of propensity score for UPE at one year <0.4 g/day with HG and baseline UPE The propensity score was estimated by logistic regression model for UPE at one year < 0.4 g/day (Nagelkelke R square was p<0.001). Propensity score for UPE at one year < 0.4 g/day = x UPE at baseline (g/day) + HG for “HG 1” for “HG 2” for “HG 3”

Supplemental Table C. Predictive power of UPE at one year < 0.4 g/day in various multivariable Cox-Hazard models for the outcome adjusted with each propensity score Predictor Cox-Hazard models for outcome adjusted with each propensity score Model with clinical characteristics b Model with Oxford classification c Model with HG d HR (95% CI)p valueHR (95% CI)p valueHR (95% CI)p value UPE at one year <0.4 g/day a 0.19 (0.05 to 0.78)0.022 # 0.13 (0.02 to 0.77)0.025 # 0.12 (0.02 to 0.59)0.009 # Abbeviations: UPE; unrine protein excretion volume, HR; hazard ratio, CI; confidence interval, HG; histological grade. a Yes vs No. b The propensity score for UPE at one year <0.4 g/day was constructed by baseline characteristics including age, sex, blood pressure, smoking, proteinuria, hematuria, eGFR, tonsillectomy, RAAS inhibitors. c The propensity socre for UPE at one year <0.4 g/day was constructed by mesangial hypercellularity, endocapillary hypercellularity, segmental sclerosis, tubulointerstitial atrophy/fibrosis in the Oxford classification and baseline proteinuria. d The propensity score for UPE at one year <0.4 g/day was constructed by HG and baseline proteinuria. # p<0.05.

True positive False positive Supplemental Figure E. ROC analysis for renal outcome by UPE at one year UPE at one year, g/day

Supplemental Table D. UPE predicting the outcome in multivariable Cox-Hazard model UPEBSEp valueHR (95% CI) UPE at baseline, g/day > (0.73 to 2.54) UPE at six months, g/day > (0.46 to 3.42) UPE at one year, g/day (1.37 to 4.15) This model was adjusted baseline eGFR. Abbreviations: B; coefficient, SE; standard error, HR; hazard ratio, CI; confidence interval.

Risk ratio for renal events UPE at one year / UPE at baseline Mean Lower or upper of 95% CI Reduction Increase Risk Supplemental Figure F. Risk ratio for the end point associated with the improvement of proteinuria (UPE at one year/ UPE at baseline).

Supplemental Table E. Rate of UPE at one year to UPE at baseline predicting renal outcome in multivariable Cox-Hazard model Predictors Model B HR (95%CI)p value Rate of UPE at one year / baseline UPE < (0.07 to 0.90)0.034 # Age, years0.99 (0.94 to 1.04)>0.2 Current smoking2.39 (0.73 to 7.82)0.15 U-RBC > 30/hpf0.42 (0.10 to 1.78)>0.2 eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m (1.66 to 54.6)0.011 # Tonsillectomy0.25 (0.08 to 1.31)0.115