Lesley A Stevens1, Nicholas Stoycheff. 1. Division of Nephrology, Tufts-New England Medical Center, 750 Washington St, Box 391, Boston, MA 02111, USA. lstevens1@tufts-nemc.org
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Creatinine calibration by clinical laboratories is important because variability among assays adversely affects the accuracy of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimation. We describe the calibration of creatinine assays used in the National Kidney Foundation Kidney Early Evaluation Program (KEEP). METHODS: Creatinine values were requested for 200 samples at each of the 2 KEEP laboratories, Satellite Laboratory Services, LLC (2000 to 2005) and Clinical Laboratory Services (CLS; 2005 to present), for comparison with samples at the Cleveland Clinic Research Laboratory (CCRL). Linear regression and Deming regression were used to obtain slopes adjusted for measurement error and regression to the mean. RESULTS: After exclusion of outliers, mean creatinine level in 184 samples was 0.94 mg/dL at Satellite compared with 0.89 mg/dL at CCRL. Deming regression showed a slope of 1.003 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.99 to 1.02; P < 0.001) and intercept of -0.04 (95% CI, -0.59 to -0.02; P = 0.003) with R(2) = 0.9853. Final calibration consists of intercept alone because of a small slope. After exclusion of outliers, mean creatinine level in 199 samples was 1.06 mg/dL at CLS compared with 0.96 mg/dL at CCRL. Deming regression showed a slope of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.07 to 1.09; P < 0.001) and intercept of -0.18 (95% CI, -0.19 to -0.17; P < 0.001) with R(2) = 0.9939. GFR estimates were minimally affected by the Satellite calibration. At a serum creatinine value of 1 mg/dL, the change in estimated GFR was 1 mL/min/1.73 m(2) after calibration. Conversely, higher range GFR estimates were affected by calibration of the CLS creatinine assay. At a serum creatinine value of 1 mg/dL, the GFR estimate was 6 mL/min/1.73 m(2) higher after calibration. CONCLUSION: Calibration of KEEP creatinine measurements had a greater impact on the current laboratory than on the laboratory previously used. The calibration process has worked to decrease overestimation of eGFR at the high range and decrease misclassification bias.
BACKGROUND:Creatinine calibration by clinical laboratories is important because variability among assays adversely affects the accuracy of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimation. We describe the calibration of creatinine assays used in the National Kidney Foundation Kidney Early Evaluation Program (KEEP). METHODS:Creatinine values were requested for 200 samples at each of the 2 KEEP laboratories, Satellite Laboratory Services, LLC (2000 to 2005) and Clinical Laboratory Services (CLS; 2005 to present), for comparison with samples at the Cleveland Clinic Research Laboratory (CCRL). Linear regression and Deming regression were used to obtain slopes adjusted for measurement error and regression to the mean. RESULTS: After exclusion of outliers, mean creatinine level in 184 samples was 0.94 mg/dL at Satellite compared with 0.89 mg/dL at CCRL. Deming regression showed a slope of 1.003 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.99 to 1.02; P < 0.001) and intercept of -0.04 (95% CI, -0.59 to -0.02; P = 0.003) with R(2) = 0.9853. Final calibration consists of intercept alone because of a small slope. After exclusion of outliers, mean creatinine level in 199 samples was 1.06 mg/dL at CLS compared with 0.96 mg/dL at CCRL. Deming regression showed a slope of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.07 to 1.09; P < 0.001) and intercept of -0.18 (95% CI, -0.19 to -0.17; P < 0.001) with R(2) = 0.9939. GFR estimates were minimally affected by the Satellite calibration. At a serum creatinine value of 1 mg/dL, the change in estimated GFR was 1 mL/min/1.73 m(2) after calibration. Conversely, higher range GFR estimates were affected by calibration of the CLS creatinine assay. At a serum creatinine value of 1 mg/dL, the GFR estimate was 6 mL/min/1.73 m(2) higher after calibration. CONCLUSION: Calibration of KEEP creatinine measurements had a greater impact on the current laboratory than on the laboratory previously used. The calibration process has worked to decrease overestimation of eGFR at the high range and decrease misclassification bias.
Authors: Adam Whaley-Connell; Michael G Shlipak; Lesley A Inker; Manjula Kurella Tamura; Andrew S Bomback; Georges Saab; Susanna M Szpunar; Samy I McFarlane; Suying Li; Shu-Cheng Chen; Keith Norris; George L Bakris; Peter A McCullough Journal: Am J Med Date: 2012-05-23 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Lesley A Stevens; Suying Li; Changchun Wang; Cindy Huang; Bryan N Becker; Andrew S Bomback; Wendy Weinstock Brown; Nilka Ríos Burrows; Claudine T Jurkovitz; Samy I McFarlane; Keith C Norris; Michael Shlipak; Adam T Whaley-Connell; Shu-Cheng Chen; George L Bakris; Peter A McCullough Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Wei Wang; Bessie A Young; Tibor Fülöp; Ian H de Boer; L Ebony Boulware; Ronit Katz; Adolfo Correa; Michael E Griswold Journal: Am J Med Sci Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 2.378
Authors: Lesley A Stevens; Suying Li; Manjula Kurella Tamura; Shu-Cheng Chen; Joseph A Vassalotti; Keith C Norris; Adam T Whaley-Connell; George L Bakris; Peter A McCullough Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Christina M Parrinello; Morgan E Grams; Yingying Sang; David Couper; Lisa M Wruck; Danni Li; John H Eckfeldt; Elizabeth Selvin; Josef Coresh Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2016-05-19 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Claudine T Jurkovitz; Daniel Elliott; Suying Li; Georges Saab; Andrew S Bomback; Keith C Norris; Shu-Cheng Chen; Peter A McCullough; Adam T Whaley-Connell Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Georges Saab; Shu-Cheng Chen; Suying Li; Andrew S Bomback; Adam T Whaley-Connell; Claudine T Jurkovitz; Keith C Norris; Peter A McCullough Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Claudine T Jurkovitz; Suying Li; Keith C Norris; Georges Saab; Andrew S Bomback; Adam T Whaley-Connell; Peter A McCullough Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Giorgio Gentile; Maurizio Postorino; Raymond D Mooring; Luigi De Angelis; Valeria Maria Manfreda; Fabrizio Ruffini; Manuela Pioppo; Giuseppe Quintaliani Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2009-09-01 Impact factor: 2.388