Literature DB >> 29762739

Chronic kidney disease staging with cystatin C or creatinine-based formulas: flipping the coin.

Sergio Luis-Lima1, Beatriz Escamilla-Cabrera2, Natalia Negrín-Mena1, Sara Estupiñán2, Patricia Delgado-Mallén2, Domingo Marrero-Miranda2, Ana González-Rinne2, Rosa Miquel-Rodríguez2, María Ángeles Cobo-Caso2, Manuel Hernández-Guerra3, Juana Oramas4, Norberto Batista4, Ana Aldea-Perona1, Pablo Jorge-Pérez5, Carlos González-Alayón3, Miguel Moreno-Sanfiel3, Juan Antonio González-Rodríguez6, Laura Henríquez7, Raquel Alonso-Pescoso7, Laura Díaz-Martín1, Federico González-Rinne1, Bernardo Alio Lavín-Gómez8, Judith Galindo-Hernández7, Macarena Sánchez-Gallego7, Alejandra González-Delgado9, Alejandro Jiménez-Sosa1, Armando Torres2,10, Esteban Porrini10.   

Abstract

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects 10-13% of the population worldwide. CKD classification stratifies patients in five stages of risk for progressive renal disease based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) by formulas and albuminuria. However, the reliability of formulas to reflect real renal function is a matter of debate. The effect of the error of formulas in the CKD classification is unclear, particularly for cystatin C-based equations.
Methods: We evaluated the reliability of a large number of cystatin C and/or creatinine-based formulas in the definition of the stages of CKD in 882 subjects with different clinical situations over a wide range of glomerular filtration rates (GFRs) (4.2-173.7 mL/min).
Results: Misclassification was a constant for all 61 formulas evaluated and averaged 50% for creatinine-based and 35% for cystatin C-based equations. Most of the cases were misclassified as one stage higher or lower. However, in 10% of the subjects, one stage was skipped and patients were classified two stages above or below their real stage. No clinically relevant improvement was observed with cystatin C-based formulas compared with those based on creatinine. Conclusions: The error in the classification of CKD stages by formulas was extremely common. Our study questions the reliability of both cystatin C and creatinine-based formulas to correctly classify CKD stages. Thus the correct classification of CKD stages based on estimated GFR is a matter of chance. This is a strong limitation in evaluating the severity of renal disease, the risk for progression and the evolution of renal dysfunction over time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 29762739     DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfy086

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nephrol Dial Transplant        ISSN: 0931-0509            Impact factor:   5.992


  9 in total

1.  Differences Between Cystatin C- and Creatinine-Based Estimated GFR-Early Evidence of a Clinical Marker for Frailty.

Authors:  Mara McAdams-DeMarco; Nadia M Chu; Dorry L Segev
Journal:  Am J Kidney Dis       Date:  2020-10-07       Impact factor: 8.860

2.  Cystatin C as a biomarker of chronic kidney disease: latest developments.

Authors:  Stefanie W Benoit; Eileen A Ciccia; Prasad Devarajan
Journal:  Expert Rev Mol Diagn       Date:  2020-05-25       Impact factor: 5.225

3.  Cystatin C in risk prediction after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a retrospective analysis.

Authors:  Kensuke Kuwabara; Kan Zen; Masaki Yashige; Kazuaki Takamatsu; Nobuyasu Ito; Yoshito Kadoya; Michiyo Yamano; Tetsuhiro Yamano; Takeshi Nakamura; Hitoshi Yaku; Satoaki Matoba
Journal:  ESC Heart Fail       Date:  2022-06-06

4.  Estimated GFR in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease: errors of an unpredictable method.

Authors:  Rosa Miquel Rodríguez; Sergio Luis-Lima; Juan Manuel Fernandez; María Vanesa Pérez Gómez; Beatriz González Toledo; Marian Cobo; Patricia Delgado-Mallén; Beatriz Escamilla; Cristina Oramas Marco; Sara Estupiñán; Coriolano Cruz Perera; Natalia Negrín Mena; Laura Díaz Martín; Sergio Pitti Reyes; Ibrahim Hernández González; Federico González-Rinne; Alejandra González-Delgado; Carmen Ferrer-Moure; Begoña López-Botet Zulueta; Armando Torres; Jose Carlos Rodriguez Pérez; Flavio Gaspari; Alberto Ortiz; Esteban Porrini
Journal:  J Nephrol       Date:  2022-03-31       Impact factor: 4.393

5.  Creatinine clearance after cimetidine administration in a new short procedure: comparison with plasma and renal clearances of iohexol.

Authors:  Thomas Stehlé; Khalil El Karoui; Mehdi Sakka; Ahmad Ismail; Marie Matignon; Philippe Grimbert; Florence Canoui-Poitrine; Dominique Prié; Vincent Audard
Journal:  Clin Kidney J       Date:  2019-07-21

Review 6.  Biomarker-Guided Risk Assessment for Acute Kidney Injury: Time for Clinical Implementation?

Authors:  Christian Albert; Michael Haase; Annemarie Albert; Antonia Zapf; Rüdiger Christian Braun-Dullaeus; Anja Haase-Fielitz
Journal:  Ann Lab Med       Date:  2020-08-25       Impact factor: 3.464

7.  Comparison of Performance of Equations for Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate in Chinese Patients with Biopsy-Proven Diabetic Nephropathy.

Authors:  Yiting Wang; Junlin Zhang; Geer Teng; Yucheng Wu; Qianqian Han; Hanyu Li; Tingli Wang; Fang Liu
Journal:  Dis Markers       Date:  2019-09-15       Impact factor: 3.434

8.  A Validation Study on eGFR Equations in Chinese Patients With Diabetic or Non-diabetic CKD.

Authors:  Danshu Xie; Hao Shi; Jingyuan Xie; Ying Ding; Wen Zhang; Liyan Ni; Yifan Wu; Yimin Lu; Bing Chen; Hongrui Wang; Hong Ren; Weiming Wang; Na Liu; Nan Chen
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2019-08-26       Impact factor: 5.555

9.  Estimating Renal Function Following Lung Transplantation.

Authors:  Mads Hornum; Morten Baltzer Houlind; Esben Iversen; Esteban Porrini; Sergio Luis-Lima; Peter Oturai; Martin Iversen; Pia Bredahl; Jørn Carlsen; Christian Holdflood Møller; Mads Jønsson Andersen; Bo Feldt-Rasmussen; Michael Perch
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-03-09       Impact factor: 4.241

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.