BACKGROUND: The equations used to estimate glomerular filtration rate (GFR) based on serum creatinine level are limited by their dependence on muscle mass. Although cystatin C level predicts clinical outcomes better than creatinine level in the general population, its role in estimating GFR in the reference range is unclear. Cystatin C level is not influenced by muscle mass, but by several other non-GFR determinants. We investigated whether regression models using cystatin C level alone or in combination with creatinine level in principle would improve GFR estimation in the general population compared with models using creatinine level alone. STUDY DESIGN: Study of diagnostic accuracy. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: A representative sample (n = 1,621; aged 50-62 years) of the general population in Tromsø, Norway, without coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes mellitus, or kidney disease. Individuals had participated in the Renal Iohexol Clearance Survey (RENIS-T6), part of the sixth Tromsø Study. INDEX TEST: Performance of multiple linear and fractional polynomial regression models with plasma creatinine and/or cystatin C levels as independent variables and measured GFR as a dependent variable. REFERENCE TEST: Plasma iohexol clearance. OTHER MEASUREMENTS: Creatinine measured with an enzymatic method. Cystatin C measured with a particle-enhanced turbidimetric immunoassay. RESULTS: In internal validation of models with cystatin C, creatinine, or both levels, percentages of GFR estimates within 10% of measured GFR were 61% (95% CI, 58%-63%), 62% (95% CI, 59%-64%), and 68% (95% CI, 65%-70%), respectively. Models with either cystatin C or creatinine level had very similar precision and ability to detect GFR <90 mL/min/1.73 m(2), whereas models based on both markers performed better. LIMITATIONS: Only middle-aged individuals of European ancestry were investigated. Lack of standardization between cystatin C assays. No external validation of regression models. CONCLUSIONS: Models based on cystatin C alone are not superior to those based on creatinine, but models based on both markers can improve GFR estimation in the reference range.
BACKGROUND: The equations used to estimate glomerular filtration rate (GFR) based on serum creatinine level are limited by their dependence on muscle mass. Although cystatin C level predicts clinical outcomes better than creatinine level in the general population, its role in estimating GFR in the reference range is unclear. Cystatin C level is not influenced by muscle mass, but by several other non-GFR determinants. We investigated whether regression models using cystatin C level alone or in combination with creatinine level in principle would improve GFR estimation in the general population compared with models using creatinine level alone. STUDY DESIGN: Study of diagnostic accuracy. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: A representative sample (n = 1,621; aged 50-62 years) of the general population in Tromsø, Norway, without coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes mellitus, or kidney disease. Individuals had participated in the Renal Iohexol Clearance Survey (RENIS-T6), part of the sixth Tromsø Study. INDEX TEST: Performance of multiple linear and fractional polynomial regression models with plasma creatinine and/or cystatin C levels as independent variables and measured GFR as a dependent variable. REFERENCE TEST: Plasma iohexol clearance. OTHER MEASUREMENTS: Creatinine measured with an enzymatic method. Cystatin C measured with a particle-enhanced turbidimetric immunoassay. RESULTS: In internal validation of models with cystatin C, creatinine, or both levels, percentages of GFR estimates within 10% of measured GFR were 61% (95% CI, 58%-63%), 62% (95% CI, 59%-64%), and 68% (95% CI, 65%-70%), respectively. Models with either cystatin C or creatinine level had very similar precision and ability to detect GFR <90 mL/min/1.73 m(2), whereas models based on both markers performed better. LIMITATIONS: Only middle-aged individuals of European ancestry were investigated. Lack of standardization between cystatin C assays. No external validation of regression models. CONCLUSIONS: Models based on cystatin C alone are not superior to those based on creatinine, but models based on both markers can improve GFR estimation in the reference range.
Authors: Hans Pottel; Pierre Delanaye; Elke Schaeffner; Laurence Dubourg; Bjørn Odvar Eriksen; Toralf Melsom; Edmund J Lamb; Andrew D Rule; Stephen T Turner; Richard J Glassock; Vandréa De Souza; Luciano Selistre; Karolien Goffin; Steven Pauwels; Christophe Mariat; Martin Flamant; Natalie Ebert Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Meredith C Foster; Lesley A Inker; Andrew S Levey; Elizabeth Selvin; John Eckfeldt; Stephen P Juraschek; Josef Coresh Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2013-03-19 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Matthew J Damasiewicz; Dianna J Magliano; Robin M Daly; Claudia Gagnon; Zhong X Lu; Peter R Ebeling; Steven J Chadban; Robert C Atkins; Peter G Kerr; Jonathan E Shaw; Kevan R Polkinghorne Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: George J Schwartz; Michael F Schneider; Paula S Maier; Marva Moxey-Mims; Vikas R Dharnidharka; Bradley A Warady; Susan L Furth; Alvaro Muñoz Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Daniel G Maluf; Catherine I Dumur; Jihee L Suh; Mariano J Scian; Anne L King; Helen Cathro; Jae K Lee; Ricardo C Gehrau; Kenneth L Brayman; Lorenzo Gallon; Valeria R Mas Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2013-09-11 Impact factor: 10.612