CONTEXT: A triple-marker approach for chronic kidney disease (CKD) evaluation has not been well studied. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether combining creatinine, cystatin C, and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) would improve identification of risks associated with CKD compared with creatinine alone. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cohort study involving 26,643 US adults enrolled in the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study from January 2003 to June 2010. Participants were categorized into 8 groups defined by estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) determined by creatinine and by cystatin C of either <60 or ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and ACR of either <30 or ≥30 mg/g. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All-cause mortality and incident end-stage renal disease with median follow-up of 4.6 years. RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 65 years, 40% were black, and 54% were women. Of 26,643 participants, 1940 died and 177 developed end-stage renal disease. Among participants without CKD defined by creatinine, 24% did not have CKD by either ACR or cystatin C. Compared with those with CKD defined by creatinine alone, the hazard ratio for death in multivariable-adjusted models was 3.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-5.6) for participants with CKD defined by creatinine and ACR; 3.2 (95% CI, 2.2-4.7) for those with CKD defined by creatinine and cystatin C, and 5.6 (95% CI, 3.9-8.2) for those with CKD defined by all biomarkers. Among participants without CKD defined by creatinine, 3863 (16%) had CKD detected by ACR or cystatin C. Compared with participants who did not have CKD by any measure, the HRs for mortality were 1.7 (95% CI, 1.4-1.9) for participants with CKD defined by ACR alone, 2.2 (95% CI, 1.9-2.7) for participants with CKD defined by cystatin C alone, and 3.0 (95% CI, 2.4-3.7) for participants with CKD defined by both measures. Risk of incident end-stage renal disease was higher among those with CKD defined by all markers (34.1 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 28.7-40.5 vs 0.33 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 0.05-2.3) for those with CKD defined by creatinine alone. The second highest end-stage renal disease rate was among persons missed by the creatinine measure but detected by both ACR and cystatin C (rate per 1000 person-years, 6.4; 95% CI, 3.6-11.3). Net reclassification improvement for death was 13.3% (P < .001) and for end-stage renal disease was 6.4% (P < .001) after adding estimated GFR cystatin C in fully adjusted models with estimated GFR creatinine and ACR. CONCLUSION: Adding cystatin C to the combination of creatinine and ACR measures improved the predictive accuracy for all-cause mortality and end-stage renal disease.
CONTEXT: A triple-marker approach for chronic kidney disease (CKD) evaluation has not been well studied. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether combining creatinine, cystatin C, and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) would improve identification of risks associated with CKD compared with creatinine alone. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cohort study involving 26,643 US adults enrolled in the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study from January 2003 to June 2010. Participants were categorized into 8 groups defined by estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) determined by creatinine and by cystatin C of either <60 or ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and ACR of either <30 or ≥30 mg/g. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All-cause mortality and incident end-stage renal disease with median follow-up of 4.6 years. RESULTS:Participants had a mean age of 65 years, 40% were black, and 54% were women. Of 26,643 participants, 1940 died and 177 developed end-stage renal disease. Among participants without CKD defined by creatinine, 24% did not have CKD by either ACR or cystatin C. Compared with those with CKD defined by creatinine alone, the hazard ratio for death in multivariable-adjusted models was 3.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-5.6) for participants with CKD defined by creatinine and ACR; 3.2 (95% CI, 2.2-4.7) for those with CKD defined by creatinine and cystatin C, and 5.6 (95% CI, 3.9-8.2) for those with CKD defined by all biomarkers. Among participants without CKD defined by creatinine, 3863 (16%) had CKD detected by ACR or cystatin C. Compared with participants who did not have CKD by any measure, the HRs for mortality were 1.7 (95% CI, 1.4-1.9) for participants with CKD defined by ACR alone, 2.2 (95% CI, 1.9-2.7) for participants with CKD defined by cystatin C alone, and 3.0 (95% CI, 2.4-3.7) for participants with CKD defined by both measures. Risk of incident end-stage renal disease was higher among those with CKD defined by all markers (34.1 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 28.7-40.5 vs 0.33 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 0.05-2.3) for those with CKD defined by creatinine alone. The second highest end-stage renal disease rate was among persons missed by the creatinine measure but detected by both ACR and cystatin C (rate per 1000 person-years, 6.4; 95% CI, 3.6-11.3). Net reclassification improvement for death was 13.3% (P < .001) and for end-stage renal disease was 6.4% (P < .001) after adding estimated GFR cystatin C in fully adjusted models with estimated GFR creatinine and ACR. CONCLUSION: Adding cystatin C to the combination of creatinine and ACR measures improved the predictive accuracy for all-cause mortality and end-stage renal disease.
Authors: Mark E Molitch; Ralph A DeFronzo; Marion J Franz; William F Keane; Carl Erik Mogensen; Hans-Henrik Parving; Michael W Steffes Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Virginia J Howard; Mary Cushman; Leavonne Pulley; Camilo R Gomez; Rodney C Go; Ronald J Prineas; Andra Graham; Claudia S Moy; George Howard Journal: Neuroepidemiology Date: 2005-06-29 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: Jackson T Wright; George Bakris; Tom Greene; Larry Y Agodoa; Lawrence J Appel; Jeanne Charleston; DeAnna Cheek; Janice G Douglas-Baltimore; Jennifer Gassman; Richard Glassock; Lee Hebert; Kenneth Jamerson; Julia Lewis; Robert A Phillips; Robert D Toto; John P Middleton; Stephen G Rostand Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-11-20 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Andrew S Levey; Paul E de Jong; Josef Coresh; Meguid El Nahas; Brad C Astor; Kunihiro Matsushita; Ron T Gansevoort; Bertram L Kasiske; Kai-Uwe Eckardt Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2010-12-08 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Carmen A Peralta; Ronit Katz; Mark J Sarnak; Joachim Ix; Linda F Fried; Ian De Boer; Walter Palmas; David Siscovick; Andrew S Levey; Michael G Shlipak Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2010-12-16 Impact factor: 14.978
Authors: Véronique L Roger; Alan S Go; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Emelia J Benjamin; Jarett D Berry; William B Borden; Dawn M Bravata; Shifan Dai; Earl S Ford; Caroline S Fox; Heather J Fullerton; Cathleen Gillespie; Susan M Hailpern; John A Heit; Virginia J Howard; Brett M Kissela; Steven J Kittner; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Diane M Makuc; Gregory M Marcus; Ariane Marelli; David B Matchar; Claudia S Moy; Dariush Mozaffarian; Michael E Mussolino; Graham Nichol; Nina P Paynter; Elsayed Z Soliman; Paul D Sorlie; Nona Sotoodehnia; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Nathan D Wong; Daniel Woo; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-12-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Sandra V Giannelli; Christophe E Graf; François R Herrmann; Jean-Pierre Michel; Kushang V Patel; Francesco Pizzarelli; Luigi Ferrucci; Jack Guralnik Journal: Rejuvenation Res Date: 2011-09-28 Impact factor: 4.663
Authors: Carmen A Peralta; Paul Muntner; Rebecca Scherzer; Suzanne Judd; Mary Cushman; Michael G Shlipak Journal: Am J Nephrol Date: 2015-09-19 Impact factor: 3.754
Authors: Qin Zhang; Kelly J Davis; Dana Hoffmann; Vishal S Vaidya; Ronald P Brown; Peter L Goering Journal: Biomark Med Date: 2014 Impact factor: 2.851
Authors: Carmen A Peralta; Anne Lee; Michelle C Odden; Lenny Lopez; Adina Zeki Al Hazzouri; John Neuhaus; Mary N Haan Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2012-12-18 Impact factor: 5.562