AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: We compared the predictive performance of a GFR based on serum cystatin C levels with commonly used creatinine-based methods in subjects with diabetes. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a cross-sectional study of 251 consecutive clinic patients, the mean reference (plasma clearance of (99m)Tc-diethylene-triamine-penta-acetic acid) GFR (iGFR) was 88+/-2 ml min(-1) 1.73 m(-2). A regression equation describing the relationship between iGFR and 1/cystatin C levels was derived from a test population (n=125) to allow for the estimation of GFR by cystatin C (eGFR-cystatin C). The predictive performance of eGFR-cystatin C, the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease 4 variable formula (MDRD-4) and Cockcroft-Gault (C-G) formulas were then compared in a validation population (n=126). RESULTS: There was no difference in renal function (ml min(-1) 1.73 m(-2)) as measured by iGFR (89.2+/-3.0), eGFR-cystatin C (86.8+/-2.5), MDRD-4 (87.0+/-2.8) or C-G (92.3+/-3.5). All three estimates of renal function had similar precision and accuracy. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: Estimates of GFR based solely on serum cystatin C levels had the same predictive potential when compared with the MDRD-4 and C-G formulas.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: We compared the predictive performance of a GFR based on serum cystatin C levels with commonly used creatinine-based methods in subjects with diabetes. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a cross-sectional study of 251 consecutive clinic patients, the mean reference (plasma clearance of (99m)Tc-diethylene-triamine-penta-acetic acid) GFR (iGFR) was 88+/-2 ml min(-1) 1.73 m(-2). A regression equation describing the relationship between iGFR and 1/cystatin C levels was derived from a test population (n=125) to allow for the estimation of GFR by cystatin C (eGFR-cystatin C). The predictive performance of eGFR-cystatin C, the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease 4 variable formula (MDRD-4) and Cockcroft-Gault (C-G) formulas were then compared in a validation population (n=126). RESULTS: There was no difference in renal function (ml min(-1) 1.73 m(-2)) as measured by iGFR (89.2+/-3.0), eGFR-cystatin C (86.8+/-2.5), MDRD-4 (87.0+/-2.8) or C-G (92.3+/-3.5). All three estimates of renal function had similar precision and accuracy. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: Estimates of GFR based solely on serum cystatin C levels had the same predictive potential when compared with the MDRD-4 and C-G formulas.
Authors: Michael G Shlipak; Mark J Sarnak; Ronit Katz; Linda F Fried; Stephen L Seliger; Anne B Newman; David S Siscovick; Catherine Stehman-Breen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-05-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bruce A Perkins; Robert G Nelson; Betsy E P Ostrander; Kristina L Blouch; Andrzej S Krolewski; Bryan D Myers; James H Warram Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2005-03-23 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Meda E Pavkov; William C Knowler; Kevin V Lemley; Clinton C Mason; Bryan D Myers; Robert G Nelson Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2011-11-10 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Amy K Mottl; Suma Vupputuri; Shelley A Cole; Laura Almasy; Harald H H Göring; Vincent P Diego; Sandra Laston; Nora Franceschini; Nawar M Shara; Elisa T Lee; Lyle G Best; Richard R Fabsitz; Jean W MacCluer; Jason G Umans; Kari E North Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2008-08-13 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Louise J Maple-Brown; Paul D Lawton; Jaquelyne T Hughes; Suresh K Sharma; Graham Rd Jones; Andrew G Ellis; Wendy Hoy; Alan Cass; Richard J Macisaac; Ashim K Sinha; Mark Ab Thomas; Leonard S Piers; Leigh C Ward; Katrina Drabsch; Sianna Panagiotopoulos; Robyn McDermott; Kevin Warr; Sajiv Cherian; Alex Brown; George Jerums; Kerin O'Dea Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Linda H Ficociello; Bruce A Perkins; Bijan Roshan; Janice M Weinberg; Ann Aschengrau; James H Warram; Andrzej S Krolewski Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-02-05 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Merlin C Thomas; Richard J Macisaac; George Jerums; Andrew Weekes; John Moran; Jonathan E Shaw; Robert C Atkins Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-05-26 Impact factor: 19.112