BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cystatin C (CysC) is a promising marker of GFR. Several equations have been derived to estimate GFR from its serum concentration. Heterogeneity in the performance of these equations exists in validation studies even when the same CysC assay from the same manufacturer is utilized. This study was designed to examine the differences in CysC and GFR estimation (eGFR) using Siemens' nephelometric immunoassay and the Mayo Clinic equation. The ability of the eGFRs to predict measured GFR was also examined. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Ninety-seven split samples were sent to laboratories at Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) in Ottawa, Canada, and at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. RESULTS: The mean CHEO CysC was 0.17 mg/L (10%) lower than the mean Mayo Clinic CysC. Using the Mayo Clinic equation, the mean eGFR difference was 7.2 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) (15%). Approximately 36% of the results agreed within 10%, while 13% were discordant by greater than 30%. Larger absolute differences in mean eGFR between the two laboratories were found in the subgroup with CysC less than 1.41 mg/L as compared with the subgroup greater than 1.41 mg/L (9.5 versus 5.0 ml/min per 1.73 m(2)). Correction of CHEO values to the Mayo Clinic did not improve GFR estimation. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences in CysC measurement exist between laboratories using the same assay by the same manufacturer and these lead to clinically relevant differences in GFR estimation. This interlaboratory variability needs to be recognized when interpreting and comparing CysC and eGFR results.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cystatin C (CysC) is a promising marker of GFR. Several equations have been derived to estimate GFR from its serum concentration. Heterogeneity in the performance of these equations exists in validation studies even when the same CysC assay from the same manufacturer is utilized. This study was designed to examine the differences in CysC and GFR estimation (eGFR) using Siemens' nephelometric immunoassay and the Mayo Clinic equation. The ability of the eGFRs to predict measured GFR was also examined. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Ninety-seven split samples were sent to laboratories at Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) in Ottawa, Canada, and at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. RESULTS: The mean CHEO CysC was 0.17 mg/L (10%) lower than the mean Mayo Clinic CysC. Using the Mayo Clinic equation, the mean eGFR difference was 7.2 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) (15%). Approximately 36% of the results agreed within 10%, while 13% were discordant by greater than 30%. Larger absolute differences in mean eGFR between the two laboratories were found in the subgroup with CysC less than 1.41 mg/L as compared with the subgroup greater than 1.41 mg/L (9.5 versus 5.0 ml/min per 1.73 m(2)). Correction of CHEO values to the Mayo Clinic did not improve GFR estimation. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences in CysC measurement exist between laboratories using the same assay by the same manufacturer and these lead to clinically relevant differences in GFR estimation. This interlaboratory variability needs to be recognized when interpreting and comparing CysC and eGFR results.
Authors: R Lewis; N Kerr; C Van Buren; P Lowry; C Sandler; O H Frazier; P Powers; J Herson; J Corriere; R Kerman Journal: Transplantation Date: 1989-11 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Gary L Myers; W Greg Miller; Josef Coresh; James Fleming; Neil Greenberg; Tom Greene; Thomas Hostetter; Andrew S Levey; Mauro Panteghini; Michael Welch; John H Eckfeldt Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2005-12-06 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: R D Perrone; T I Steinman; G J Beck; C I Skibinski; H D Royal; M Lawlor; L G Hunsicker Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 1990-09 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: F Iliadis; T Didangelos; A Ntemka; A Makedou; E Moralidis; A Gotzamani-Psarakou; T Kouloukourgiotou; D Grekas Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2011-09-23 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Ian H de Boer; Leila R Zelnick; Julie Lin; Debra Schaumberg; Lu Wang; John Ruzinski; Georgina Friedenberg; Julie Duszlak; Vadim Y Bubes; Andrew N Hoofnagle; Ravi Thadhani; Robert J Glynn; Julie E Buring; Howard D Sesso; JoAnn E Manson Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-09-30 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Morgan E Grams; Stephen P Juraschek; Elizabeth Selvin; Meredith C Foster; Lesley A Inker; John H Eckfeldt; Andrew S Levey; Josef Coresh Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2013-04-22 Impact factor: 8.860