Jeffrey W Meeusen1, Andrew D Rule2, Nikolay Voskoboev1, Nikola A Baumann1, John C Lieske3. 1. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, and Department of Health Sciences Research Division of Epidemiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 3. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, and lieske.john@mayo.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guideline recommends use of a cystatin C-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) to confirm creatinine-based eGFR between 45 and 59 mL · min(-1) · (1.73 m(2))(-1). Prior studies have demonstrated that comorbidities such as solid-organ transplant strongly influence the relationship between measured GFR, creatinine, and cystatin C. Our objective was to evaluate the performance of cystatin C-based eGFR equations compared with creatinine-based eGFR and measured GFR across different clinical presentations. METHODS: We compared the performance of the CKD-EPI 2009 creatinine-based estimated GFR equation (eGFRCr) and the newer CKD-EPI 2012 cystatin C-based equations (eGFRCys and eGFRCr-Cys) with measured GFR (iothalamate renal clearance) across defined patient populations. Patients (n = 1652) were categorized as transplant recipients (n = 568 kidney; n = 319 other organ), known chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients (n = 618), or potential kidney donors (n = 147). RESULTS: eGFRCr-Cys showed the most consistent performance across different clinical populations. Among potential kidney donors without CKD [stage 2 or higher; eGFR >60 mL · min(-1) · (1.73 m(2))(-1)], eGFRCys and eGFRCr-Cys demonstrated significantly less bias than eGFRCr; however, all 3 equations substantially underestimated GFR when eGFR was <60 mL · min(-1) · (1.73 m(2))(-1). Among transplant recipients with CKD stage 3B or greater [eGFR <45 mL · min(-1) · (1.73 m(2))(-1)], eGFRCys was significantly more biased than eGFRCr. No clear differences in eGFR bias between equations were observed among known CKD patients regardless of eGFR range or in any patient group with a GFR between 45 and 59 mL · min(-1) · (1.73 m(2))(-1). CONCLUSIONS: The performance of eGFR equations depends on patient characteristics that are readily apparent on presentation. Among the 3 CKD-EPI equations, eGFRCr-Cys performed most consistently across the studied patient populations.
BACKGROUND: The Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guideline recommends use of a cystatin C-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) to confirm creatinine-based eGFR between 45 and 59 mL · min(-1) · (1.73 m(2))(-1). Prior studies have demonstrated that comorbidities such as solid-organ transplant strongly influence the relationship between measured GFR, creatinine, and cystatin C. Our objective was to evaluate the performance of cystatin C-based eGFR equations compared with creatinine-based eGFR and measured GFR across different clinical presentations. METHODS: We compared the performance of the CKD-EPI 2009 creatinine-based estimated GFR equation (eGFRCr) and the newer CKD-EPI 2012 cystatin C-based equations (eGFRCys and eGFRCr-Cys) with measured GFR (iothalamate renal clearance) across defined patient populations. Patients (n = 1652) were categorized as transplant recipients (n = 568 kidney; n = 319 other organ), known chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients (n = 618), or potential kidney donors (n = 147). RESULTS: eGFRCr-Cys showed the most consistent performance across different clinical populations. Among potential kidney donors without CKD [stage 2 or higher; eGFR >60 mL · min(-1) · (1.73 m(2))(-1)], eGFRCys and eGFRCr-Cys demonstrated significantly less bias than eGFRCr; however, all 3 equations substantially underestimated GFR when eGFR was <60 mL · min(-1) · (1.73 m(2))(-1). Among transplant recipients with CKD stage 3B or greater [eGFR <45 mL · min(-1) · (1.73 m(2))(-1)], eGFRCys was significantly more biased than eGFRCr. No clear differences in eGFR bias between equations were observed among known CKD patients regardless of eGFR range or in any patient group with a GFR between 45 and 59 mL · min(-1) · (1.73 m(2))(-1). CONCLUSIONS: The performance of eGFR equations depends on patient characteristics that are readily apparent on presentation. Among the 3 CKD-EPI equations, eGFRCr-Cys performed most consistently across the studied patient populations.
Authors: Nrupen A Bhavsar; Lawrence J Appel; John W Kusek; Gabriel Contreras; George Bakris; Josef Coresh; Brad C Astor Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2011-09-22 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Carmen A Peralta; Michael G Shlipak; Suzanne Judd; Mary Cushman; William McClellan; Neil A Zakai; Monika M Safford; Xiao Zhang; Paul Muntner; David Warnock Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-04-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Elisabet Zamora; Josep Lupón; Marta de Antonio; Joan Vila; Judith Peñafiel; Amparo Galán; Agustín Urrutia; Mar Domingo; Antoni Bayes-Genis Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Lesley A Inker; Christopher H Schmid; Hocine Tighiouart; John H Eckfeldt; Harold I Feldman; Tom Greene; John W Kusek; Jane Manzi; Frederick Van Lente; Yaping Lucy Zhang; Josef Coresh; Andrew S Levey Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-07-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Baback Roshanravan; Kushang V Patel; Cassianne Robinson-Cohen; Ian H de Boer; Ann M O'Hare; Luigi Ferrucci; Jonathan Himmelfarb; Bryan Kestenbaum Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2014-12-24 Impact factor: 8.860
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: Carmen A Peralta; Ronit Katz; Mark J Sarnak; Joachim Ix; Linda F Fried; Ian De Boer; Walter Palmas; David Siscovick; Andrew S Levey; Michael G Shlipak Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2010-12-16 Impact factor: 14.978
Authors: Mira T Keddis; Hatem Amer; Nikolay Voskoboev; Walter K Kremers; Andrew D Rule; John C Lieske Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Hilary R Teaford; Andrew D Rule; Kristin C Mara; Kianoush B Kashani; John C Lieske; Diana J Schreier; Patrick M Wieruszewski; Erin F Barreto Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Shu Jin Tan; Matthew Cockcroft; Sam Salman; Laurens Manning; Madhu Page-Sharp; Glenn Arendts; Timothy M E Davis; Brioni R Moore; Kevin T Batty Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2020-09-21 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Ahmed Alaini; Deepak Malhotra; Helbert Rondon-Berrios; Christos P Argyropoulos; Zeid J Khitan; Dominic S C Raj; Mark Rohrscheib; Joseph I Shapiro; Antonios H Tzamaloukas Journal: World J Methodol Date: 2017-09-26