Table 3

Multivariable regression analysis of various damage markers vs. albuminuria or eGFR

Damage markers vs. albuminuria
IgGKIM-1NGALCystatin CNAGH-FABP
ModelStandard βPStandard βPStandard βPStandard βPStandard βPStandard βP
 10.78<0.0010.150.1950.340.0010.49<0.0010.37<0.0010.48<0.001
 20.80<0.0010.130.2520.42<0.0010.51<0.0010.37<0.0010.49<0.001
 30.87<0.0010.120.3110.45<0.0010.350.0010.60<0.0010.50<0.001
Damage markers vs. eGFR
AlbuminIgGKIM-1NGALCystatin CNAGH-FABP
ModelStandard βPStandard βPStandard βPStandard βPStandard βPStandard βPStandard βP
 1−0.37<0.001−0.350.034−0.130.24−0.38<0.001−0.260.012−0.320.002−0.340.001
 2−0.32<0.001−0.340.0260.030.74−0.290.004−0.280.002−0.190.053−0.35<0.001
 3−0.320.001−0.390.018−0.080.42−0.260.014−0.080.21−0.230.074−0.360.001
 40.030.910.110.27−0.110.3110.070.300.020.91−0.260.037
  • Bold print indicates associations between damage markers and albuminuria or eGFR that reach statistical significance. Model 1: crude; model 2: adjustment for age and sex; model 3: adjustment for age, sex, and plasma concentration of the corresponding damage marker; model 4: adjustment for age, sex, plasma concentration of the corresponding damage marker, and albuminuria.