Table 7.

Relationship between ALB and renal composite endpoint and renal function decline in different sensitivity analyses

Exposure	Model I (HR, 95%CI, P )		Model II (β, 95%CI, P )
eGFR ≥ 15(ml/min per 1.73 m2)
ALB	0.55 (0.39, 0.78)	< 0.001	-1.38 (-2.15, -0.60)	< 0.001
ALB Quartile
Q1	Ref		Ref
Q2	0.52 (0.31, 0.86)	< 0.05	-1.29 (-2.46, -0.11)	< 0.05
Q3	0.31 (0.16, 0.57)	< 0.001	-1.79 (-3.03, -0.56)	< 0.05
Q4	0.27 (0.14, 0.53)	< 0.001	-1.95 (-3.18, -0.72)	< 0.05
P for trend	< 0.001		< 0.05
Without DN
ALB	0.48 (0.32, 0.74)	< 0.001	-1.03 (-1.72, -0.35)	< 0.05
ALB Quartile
Q1	Ref		Ref
Q2	0.65 (0.39, 1.10)	0.11	-0.48 (-1.51, 0.56)	0.37
Q3	0.52 (0.29, 0.93)	< 0.05	-0.75 (-1.82, 0.32)	0.17
Q4	0.42 (0.22, 0.78)	< 0.05	-1.03 (-2.10, 0.03)	0.06
P for trend	< 0.05		0.05

Model I was a sensitivity analysis of the relationship between ALB and CKD progression. We adjusted gender, age, SBP, BMI, hypertension, Hb, history of CVD, UPCR, diabetes, eGFR, use of RAAS inhibitor, urinary occult blood, use of calcium channel blocker, use of diuretics

Model II was a sensitivity analysis of the relationship between ALB and kidney function decline. We adjusted age, BMI, gender, SBP, diabetes, hypertension, history of CVD, eGFR, UPCR, use of calcium channel blocker, Hb, use of RAAS inhibitor, urinary occult blood, use of diuretics

HR Hazard ratios, CI Confidence, Ref Reference