Literature DB >> 18805407

Analytical study of three cystatin C assays and their impact on cystatin C-based GFR-prediction equations.

Pierre Delanaye1, Laurence Pieroni, Christelle Abshoff, Laurence Lutteri, Jean-Paul Chapelle, Jean-Marie Krzesinski, Bernard Hainque, Etienne Cavalier.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cystatin C-based equations are used to estimate GFR. However, three cystatin C immunoassays are on the market. Difference in cystatin C assays could have strong consequences on the accuracy and precision of cystatin C-based equations. We have performed an analytical study of these three assays and studied potential differences between assays on the precision of cystatin C-based equations.
METHODS: We have studied imprecision, recovery, linearity and interferences of the three immunoassays (nephelometric assay from Siemens and turbidimetric assays from Dako and Gentian). The impact of differences in cystatin C assays has been studied for the equations published by Levey (Siemens assay) and Grubb (Dako assay).
RESULTS: Analytical performance of the Dako assay is slightly less high. For cystatin C values below 2.5 mg/L, no statistical difference is found between results given by the Dako and the Gentian assays. So, both assays can be used in the Grubb equation. Cystatin C results are different with the Siemens assay. The Levey equation, built with the Siemens assay, can only be used with cystatin C values measured with this assay. Using the Dako or Gentian assay results in the Levey equation can lead to differences in estimating GFR up to 6 mL/min/1.73 m2. Differences can reach 9.5 mL/min/1.73 m2 if the Siemens assay is used in the Grubb equation.
CONCLUSION: The Siemens and Gentian assays seem analytically more valid than the Dako assay for cystatin C determination. Differences in cystatin C assays can lead to significant differences in cystatin C-based equations. However, these differences seem less important than the differences observed with creatinine and creatinine-based equations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18805407     DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2008.09.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Chim Acta        ISSN: 0009-8981            Impact factor:   3.786


  18 in total

Review 1.  The applicability of eGFR equations to different populations.

Authors:  Pierre Delanaye; Christophe Mariat
Journal:  Nat Rev Nephrol       Date:  2013-07-16       Impact factor: 28.314

Review 2.  Calibration and precision of serum creatinine and plasma cystatin C measurement: impact on the estimation of glomerular filtration rate.

Authors:  Pierre Delanaye; Etienne Cavalier; Jean-Paul Cristol; Joris R Delanghe
Journal:  J Nephrol       Date:  2014-04-08       Impact factor: 3.902

3.  Estimated GFR associates with cardiovascular risk factors independently of measured GFR.

Authors:  Ulla Dorte Mathisen; Toralf Melsom; Ole C Ingebretsen; Trond Jenssen; Inger Njølstad; Marit D Solbu; Ingrid Toft; Bjørn O Eriksen
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2011-03-31       Impact factor: 10.121

4.  The impact of interlaboratory differences in cystatin C assay measurement on glomerular filtration rate estimation.

Authors:  Christine A White; Andrew D Rule; Christine P Collier; Ayub Akbari; John C Lieske; Nathalie Lepage; Steve Doucette; Greg A Knoll
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2011-07-28       Impact factor: 8.237

5.  Renal biomarkers for assessment of kidney function in renal transplant recipients: how do they compare?

Authors:  Samra Abouchacra; Ahmed Chaaban; Raafat Hakim; Nicole Gebran; Hanan El-Jack; Faiz Rashid; Yousef Boobes; Amna Muhairi; Qutaiba Hussain; Imran Khan; Fares Chedid; Nico Negelkerke
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2012-05-26       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 6.  The global burden of chronic kidney disease: estimates, variability and pitfalls.

Authors:  Richard J Glassock; David G Warnock; Pierre Delanaye
Journal:  Nat Rev Nephrol       Date:  2016-12-12       Impact factor: 28.314

7.  Creatinine-Based and Cystatin C-Based GFR Estimating Equations and Their Non-GFR Determinants in Kidney Transplant Recipients.

Authors:  Mira T Keddis; Hatem Amer; Nikolay Voskoboev; Walter K Kremers; Andrew D Rule; John C Lieske
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2016-06-23       Impact factor: 8.237

8.  Evaluation of methods based on creatinine and cystatin C to estimate glomerular filtration rate in chronic kidney disease.

Authors:  Almudena Vega; Soledad García de Vinuesa; Marian Goicoechea; Ursula Verdalles; María Luz Martínez-Pueyo; Ana Chacón; Borja Quiroga; José Luño
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2013-11-22       Impact factor: 2.370

9.  Creatinine-or cystatin C-based equations to estimate glomerular filtration in the general population: impact on the epidemiology of chronic kidney disease.

Authors:  Pierre Delanaye; Etienne Cavalier; Olivier Moranne; Laurence Lutteri; Jean-Marie Krzesinski; Olivier Bruyère
Journal:  BMC Nephrol       Date:  2013-03-12       Impact factor: 2.388

10.  Estimated glomerular filtration rate correlates poorly with four-hour creatinine clearance in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury.

Authors:  Christopher J Kirwan; Barbara J Philips; Iain A M Macphee
Journal:  Crit Care Res Pract       Date:  2013-02-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.