AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: It is argued that GFR estimation (eGFR) using cystatin C-based equations (eGFRcys) is superior to that using creatinine-based equations (eGFRcre). We investigated whether eGFRcys are superior to eGFRcre in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: GFR was measured in 448 type 2 diabetic patients using (51)Cr-EDTA-measured GFR (mGFR) as the reference standard. Bias, precision and accuracy of eGFRcys and eGFRcre were compared. RESULTS: The most accurate eGFRcre equation (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration [CKD-EPI]), which produced the highest proportion of estimates that were within 30% and 10% of the reference standard (80.7% and 38.0% of samples, respectively) had a bias of 7.1 and precision of 12.0 ml min(-1) 1.73 m(-2). The calibrated eGFRcys with the highest accuracy (Tan-C), which produced the highest proportion of estimates that were within 30% (78.8%) and within 10% (39.0%) of the reference standard had a bias of -3.5 and precision of 18.0 ml min(-1) 1.73 m(-2). Moreover, the areas under the receiver operating curve were higher with eGFRcre (CKD-EPI and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease [MDRD]) than with eGFRcys for the diagnosis of mild (mGFR <90 ml min(-1) 1.73 m(-2)) and moderate (mGFR <60 ml min(-1) 1.73 m(-2)) chronic kidney disease. In patients with mGFR ≥90 ml min(-1) 1.73 m(-2), CKD-EPI was the least biased, the most precise and the most accurate equation. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: In patients with type 2 diabetes, eGFRcys do not currently provide better eGFR than eGFRcre. At present, compared with eGFRcys, eGFRcre are better at predicting the stage of chronic kidney disease. In addition, CKD-EPI seems to be the best equation for eGFR in patients with normal renal function.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: It is argued that GFR estimation (eGFR) using cystatin C-based equations (eGFRcys) is superior to that using creatinine-based equations (eGFRcre). We investigated whether eGFRcys are superior to eGFRcre in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: GFR was measured in 448 type 2 diabeticpatients using (51)Cr-EDTA-measured GFR (mGFR) as the reference standard. Bias, precision and accuracy of eGFRcys and eGFRcre were compared. RESULTS: The most accurate eGFRcre equation (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration [CKD-EPI]), which produced the highest proportion of estimates that were within 30% and 10% of the reference standard (80.7% and 38.0% of samples, respectively) had a bias of 7.1 and precision of 12.0 ml min(-1) 1.73 m(-2). The calibrated eGFRcys with the highest accuracy (Tan-C), which produced the highest proportion of estimates that were within 30% (78.8%) and within 10% (39.0%) of the reference standard had a bias of -3.5 and precision of 18.0 ml min(-1) 1.73 m(-2). Moreover, the areas under the receiver operating curve were higher with eGFRcre (CKD-EPI and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease [MDRD]) than with eGFRcys for the diagnosis of mild (mGFR <90 ml min(-1) 1.73 m(-2)) and moderate (mGFR <60 ml min(-1) 1.73 m(-2)) chronic kidney disease. In patients with mGFR ≥90 ml min(-1) 1.73 m(-2), CKD-EPI was the least biased, the most precise and the most accurate equation. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: In patients with type 2 diabetes, eGFRcys do not currently provide better eGFR than eGFRcre. At present, compared with eGFRcys, eGFRcre are better at predicting the stage of chronic kidney disease. In addition, CKD-EPI seems to be the best equation for eGFR in patients with normal renal function.
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
Authors: David M Maahs; Diana Jalal; Kim McFann; Marian Rewers; Janet K Snell-Bergeon Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2011-07-22 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Andrew S Levey; Lesley A Stevens; Christopher H Schmid; Yaping Lucy Zhang; Alejandro F Castro; Harold I Feldman; John W Kusek; Paul Eggers; Frederick Van Lente; Tom Greene; Josef Coresh Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-05-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jan C van Blijderveen; Sabine M Straus; Robert Zietse; Bruno H Stricker; Miriam C Sturkenboom; Katia M Verhamme Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2013-09-27 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Willemijn L Eppenga; Cornelis Kramers; Hieronymus J Derijks; Michel Wensing; Jack F M Wetzels; Peter A G M De Smet Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sahar Waris; Brigitte M Winklhofer-Roob; Johannes M Roob; Sebastian Fuchs; Harald Sourij; Naila Rabbani; Paul J Thornalley Journal: J Diabetes Res Date: 2015-04-09 Impact factor: 4.011
Authors: Magdalena Szopa; Maria Kapusta; Bartlomiej Matejko; Tomasz Klupa; Teresa Koblik; Beata Kiec-Wilk; Maciej Borowiec; Maciej T Malecki Journal: J Diabetes Res Date: 2015-08-10 Impact factor: 4.011