Discordance Between Creatinine-Based and Cystatin C–Based Estimated GFR: Interpretation According to Performance Compared to Measured GFR

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Dokumenter

  • Fulltext

    Forlagets udgivne version, 2,14 MB, PDF-dokument

  • Yeli Wang
  • Ogechi M. Adingwupu
  • Michael G. Shlipak
  • Alessandro Doria
  • Michelle M. Estrella
  • Marc Froissart
  • Vilmundur Gudnason
  • Anders Grubb
  • Roberto Kalil
  • Michael Mauer
  • Rossing, Peter
  • Jesse Seegmiller
  • Josef Coresh
  • Andrew S. Levey
  • Lesley A. Inker
Rationale & Objective
Use of cystatin C in addition to creatinine to estimate glomerular filtration rate (estimated glomerular filtration rate based on cystatin C [eGFRcys] and estimated glomerular filtration rate based on creatinine [eGFRcr], respectively) is increasing. When eGFRcr and eGFRcys are discordant, it is not known which is more accurate, leading to uncertainty in clinical decision making.

Study Design
Cross-sectional analysis.

Setting & Participants
Four thousand fifty participants with measured glomerular filtration rate (mGFR) from 12 studies in North America and Europe.

Exposures
Serum creatinine and serum cystatin C.

Outcome(s)
Performance of creatinine-based and cystatin C–based glomerular filtration rate estimating equations compared to mGFR.

Analytical Approach
We evaluated the accuracy of eGFRcr, eGFRcys, and the combination (eGFRcr-cys) compared to mGFR according to the magnitude of the difference between eGFRcr and eGFRcys (eGFRdiff). We used CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration) equations to estimate glomerular filtration rate. eGFRdiff was defined as eGFRcys minus eGFRcr and categorized as less than −15, −15 to <15, and ≥15 mL/min/1.73 m2 (negative, concordant, and positive groups, respectively). We compared bias (median of mGFR minus eGFR) and the percentage of eGFR within 30% of mGFR.

Results
Thirty percent of participants had discordant eGFRdiff (21.0% and 9.6% negative and positive eGFRdiffs, respectively). In the concordant eGFRdiff group, all equations displayed similar accuracy. In the negative eGFRdiff groups, eGFRcr had a large overestimation of mGFR (−13.4 [−14.5 to −12.2] mL/min/1.73 m2) and eGFRcys had a large underestimation (9.9 [9.1-11.2] mL/min/1.73m2), with opposite results in the positive eGFRdiff group. In both negative and positive eGFRdiff groups, eGFRcr-cys was more accurate than either eGFRcr or eGFRcys. These results were largely consistent across age, sex, race, and body mass index.

Limitations
Few participants with major comorbid conditions.

Conclusions
Discordant eGFRcr and eGFRcys are common. eGFR using the combination of creatinine and cystatin C provides the most accurate estimates among persons with discordant eGFRcr or eGFRcys.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
Artikelnummer100710
TidsskriftKidney Medicine
Vol/bind5
Udgave nummer10
Antal sider13
ISSN2590-0595
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2023

Bibliografisk note

Funding Information:
Research reported in this manuscript was supported by Grant 1R01DK116790 to Tufts Medical Center from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases . The funding sources had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors

ID: 377815180