BACKGROUND: The recently established international cystatin C calibrator makes it possible to develop non-laboratory specific glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimating (eGFR) equations. This study compares the performance of the arithmetic mean of the revised Lund-Malmö creatinine and CAPA cystatin C equations (MEANLM-REV+CAPA), the arithmetic mean of the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation (CKD-EPI) creatinine and cystatin C equations (MEANCKD-EPI), and the composite CKD-EPI equation (CKD-EPICREA+CYSC) with the corresponding single marker equations using internationally standardized calibrators for both cystatin C and creatinine. METHODS: The study included 1200 examinations in 1112 adult Swedish patients referred for measurement of GFR (mGFR) 2008-2010 by plasma clearance of iohexol (median 51 mL/min/1.73 m2). Bias, precision (interquartile range, IQR) and accuracy (percentage of estimates ±30% of mGFR; P30) were compared. RESULTS: Combined marker equations were unbiased and had higher precision and accuracy than single marker equations. Overall results of MEANLM-REV+CAPA/MEANCKD-EPI/CKD-EPICREA+CYSC were: median bias -2.2%/-0.5%/-1.6%, IQR 9.2/9.2/8.8 mL/min/1.73 m2, and P30 91.3%/91.0%/91.1%. The P30 figures were about 7-14 percentage points higher than the single marker equations. The combined equations also had a more stable performance across mGFR, age and BMI intervals, generally with P30 ≥90% and never <80%. Combined equations reached P30 of 95% when the difference between eGFRCREA and eGFRCYSC was <10% but decreased to 82% at a difference of ≥40%. CONCLUSIONS: Combining cystatin C and creatinine assays improves GFR estimations with P30 ≥90% in adults. Reporting estimates of both single and combined marker equations in clinical settings makes it possible to assess the validity of the combined equation based on the agreement between the single marker equations.
BACKGROUND: The recently established international cystatin C calibrator makes it possible to develop non-laboratory specific glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimating (eGFR) equations. This study compares the performance of the arithmetic mean of the revised Lund-Malmö creatinine and CAPA cystatin C equations (MEANLM-REV+CAPA), the arithmetic mean of the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation (CKD-EPI) creatinine and cystatin C equations (MEANCKD-EPI), and the composite CKD-EPI equation (CKD-EPICREA+CYSC) with the corresponding single marker equations using internationally standardized calibrators for both cystatin C and creatinine. METHODS: The study included 1200 examinations in 1112 adult Swedish patients referred for measurement of GFR (mGFR) 2008-2010 by plasma clearance of iohexol (median 51 mL/min/1.73 m2). Bias, precision (interquartile range, IQR) and accuracy (percentage of estimates ±30% of mGFR; P30) were compared. RESULTS: Combined marker equations were unbiased and had higher precision and accuracy than single marker equations. Overall results of MEANLM-REV+CAPA/MEANCKD-EPI/CKD-EPICREA+CYSC were: median bias -2.2%/-0.5%/-1.6%, IQR 9.2/9.2/8.8 mL/min/1.73 m2, and P30 91.3%/91.0%/91.1%. The P30 figures were about 7-14 percentage points higher than the single marker equations. The combined equations also had a more stable performance across mGFR, age and BMI intervals, generally with P30 ≥90% and never <80%. Combined equations reached P30 of 95% when the difference between eGFRCREA and eGFRCYSC was <10% but decreased to 82% at a difference of ≥40%. CONCLUSIONS: Combining cystatin C and creatinine assays improves GFR estimations with P30 ≥90% in adults. Reporting estimates of both single and combined marker equations in clinical settings makes it possible to assess the validity of the combined equation based on the agreement between the single marker equations.
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: Christina Hao Wang; Anna D Rubinsky; Tracy Minichiello; Michael G Shlipak; Erika Leemann Price Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-05-31 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Ulf Nyman; Joanna Ahlkvist; Peter Aspelin; Torkel Brismar; Anders Frid; Mikael Hellström; Per Liss; Gunnar Sterner; Peter Leander Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-08-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Emil den Bakker; Reinoud Gemke; Joanna A E van Wijk; Isabelle Hubeek; Birgit Stoffel-Wagner; Arend Bökenkamp Journal: Pediatr Nephrol Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 3.714