BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The degree of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is currently expressed in terms of GFR, which can be determined directly or estimated according to different formulas on the basis of serum creatinine and/or cystatin C measurements (estimated GFR [eGFR]). The purpose of this study was to investigate whether eGFR values are representative for uremic toxin concentrations in patients with different degrees of CKD. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Associations between eGFR based on serum cystatin C and different uremic solutes (mol wt range 113 to 240 D; determined by colorimetry, HPLC, or ELISA) were evaluated in 95 CKD patients not on dialysis (CKD stage 2 to 5). The same analysis was also applied for six other eGFR formulas. RESULTS: There was a substantial disparity in fits among solutes. In linear regression, explained variance of eGFR was extremely low for most solutes, with eGFR > 0.4 only for creatinine. The other eGFR formulations gave comparably disappointing results with regard to their association to uremic solutes. Relative similarity in R(2) values per solute for the different eGFR values and the strong disparity in values between solutes suggest that the differences in R(2) are mainly due to discrepancies in solute handling apart from GFR. CONCLUSIONS: eGFR is poorly associated with concentrations of all studied uremic toxins in patients with different degrees of CKD, correlates differently with each individual solute, and can thus not be considered representative for evaluating the accumulation of solutes in the course of CKD.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The degree of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is currently expressed in terms of GFR, which can be determined directly or estimated according to different formulas on the basis of serum creatinine and/or cystatin C measurements (estimated GFR [eGFR]). The purpose of this study was to investigate whether eGFR values are representative for uremic toxin concentrations in patients with different degrees of CKD. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Associations between eGFR based on serum cystatin C and different uremic solutes (mol wt range 113 to 240 D; determined by colorimetry, HPLC, or ELISA) were evaluated in 95 CKD patients not on dialysis (CKD stage 2 to 5). The same analysis was also applied for six other eGFR formulas. RESULTS: There was a substantial disparity in fits among solutes. In linear regression, explained variance of eGFR was extremely low for most solutes, with eGFR > 0.4 only for creatinine. The other eGFR formulations gave comparably disappointing results with regard to their association to uremic solutes. Relative similarity in R(2) values per solute for the different eGFR values and the strong disparity in values between solutes suggest that the differences in R(2) are mainly due to discrepancies in solute handling apart from GFR. CONCLUSIONS: eGFR is poorly associated with concentrations of all studied uremic toxins in patients with different degrees of CKD, correlates differently with each individual solute, and can thus not be considered representative for evaluating the accumulation of solutes in the course of CKD.
Authors: Bruce A Cooper; Pauline Branley; Liliana Bulfone; John F Collins; Jonathan C Craig; Margaret B Fraenkel; Anthony Harris; David W Johnson; Joan Kesselhut; Jing Jing Li; Grant Luxton; Andrew Pilmore; David J Tiller; David C Harris; Carol A Pollock Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-06-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: C Zoccali; S Bode-Böger; F Mallamaci; F Benedetto; G Tripepi; L Malatino; A Cataliotti; I Bellanuova; I Fermo; J Frölich; R Böger Journal: Lancet Date: 2001 Dec 22-29 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Andrea García-Jérez; Alicia Luengo; Julia Carracedo; Rafael Ramírez-Chamond; Diego Rodriguez-Puyol; Manuel Rodriguez-Puyol; Laura Calleros Journal: J Physiol Date: 2014-12-18 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Feby Savira; Ruth Magaye; Danny Liew; Christopher Reid; Darren J Kelly; Andrew R Kompa; S Jeson Sangaralingham; John C Burnett; David Kaye; Bing H Wang Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 8.739