Table 4.

Relationship between ALB and the renal composite endpoint in different models

Exposure	Crude model (HR,95%CI, P )		Model I (HR,95%CI, P )		Model II (HR,95%CI, P )		Model III (HR,95%CI, P )
ALB	0.34 (0.29, 0.41)	< 0.001	0.44 (0.36, 0.54)	< 0.001	0.61 (0.45, 0.81)	< 0.001	0.68 (0.50, 0.92)	< 0.05
ALB Quartile
Q1	Ref		Ref		Ref		Ref
Q2	0.34 (0.25, 0.48)	< 0.001	0.44 (0.31, 0.62)	< 0.001	0.70 (0.47, 1.02)	0.06	0.71 (0.48, 1.05)	0.08
Q3	0.19 (0.13, 0.29)	< 0.001	0.27 (0.18, 0.41)	< 0.001	0.45 (0.29, 0.70)	< 0.001	0.50 (0.31, 0.79)	< 0.05
Q4	0.10 (0.06, 0.15)	< 0.001	0.15 (0.09, 0.25)	< 0.001	0.43 (0.25, 0.73)	< 0.05	0.65 (0.38, 1.13)	0.13
P for trend	< 0.001		< 0.001		< 0.001		< 0.05

Crude model: we did not adjust other covariants

Model I: we adjust gender, age, BMI, hypertension, SBP, history of CVD, diabetes, and etiology of CKD

Model II: we adjust age, BMI, gender, SBP, diabetes, hypertension, etiology of CKD, use of calcium channel blocker, UPCR, history of CVD, eGFR, urinary occult blood, Hb, use of RAAS inhibitor, use of diuretics

Model III: we adjust age(smooth), gender, SBP(smooth), BMI(smooth), hypertension, diabetes, history of CVD, Hb(smooth), UPCR(smooth), etiology of CKD, eGFR(smooth), use of RAAS inhibitor, urinary occult blood, use of calcium channel blocker, use of diuretics

CI Confidence, Ref Reference, HR Hazard ratios