Dataset Information

The performance of contemporary cystatin C-based GFR equations in predicting gentamicin clearance.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

We aimed to compare the performances of contemporary cystatin C (Cys)-based GFR equations, and the creatinine only Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation for predicting gentamicin clearance.

Methods

The bias and imprecision of the CKD-EPI, CKD-EPI_Cys and creatinine-cystatin C CKD-EPI (CKD-EPI_CrCys) equations for predicting gentamicin clearances, were assessed in 260 patients treated with gentamicin during 2012-2013. The creatinine-cystatin C Berlin Initiative Study equation (BIS_CrCys) was examined in the ?70 year subgroup. The reference gentamicin clearance was calculated using post-dose plasma concentrations.

Results

The CKD-EPI_CrCys equation had the highest percentage of estimates within 30% of the reference gentamicin clearance (70%, P = 0.003) and lowest root mean square error (95% CI) of 29 (25, 23) ml?min(-1) of the three equations for the entire cohort. There was no significant improvement in the performances of the equations with the exclusion of 41 patients with abnormal thyroid function tests or steroid co-prescription at the time of the index gentamicin dose. Of the remaining 219 patients, adjustment for individual BSA improved the performances of all GFR equations (P ? 0.003) in those with body mass indices (BMI) <18.5 or ?30?kg?m(-2) , but not those with BMI 18.5-29.9?kg?m(-2) . There was no advantage of the BIS_CrCys over the CKD-EPI_CrCys equation in the ?70 year subgroup.

Conclusions

The CKD-EPI_CrCys equation provided the best estimate of gentamicin clearance. If used for guiding gentamicin dosing, the results from GFR equations should be adjusted for individual BSA at the extremes of body size.

SUBMITTER: Chin PK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4309632 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCurrent equations for estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) that use serum creatinine or cystatin C incorporate age, sex, and race to estimate measured GFR. However, race in eGFR equations is a social and not a biologic construct.MethodsWe developed new eGFR equations without race using data from two development data sets: 10 studies (8254 participants, 31.5% Black) for serum creatinine and 13 studies (5352 participants, 39.7% Black) for both serum creatinine and cystatin C. In a validation data set of 12 studies (4050 participants, 14.3% Black), we compared the accuracy of new eGFR equations to measured GFR. We projected the prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and GFR stages in a sample of U.S. adults, using current and new equations.ResultsIn the validation data set, the current creatinine equation that uses age, sex, and race overestimated measured GFR in Blacks (median, 3.7 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8 to 5.4) and to a lesser degree in non-Blacks (median, 0.5 ml per minute per 1.73 m2; 95% CI, 0.0 to 0.9). When the adjustment for Black race was omitted from the current eGFR equation, measured GFR in Blacks was underestimated (median, 7.1 ml per minute per 1.73 m2; 95% CI, 5.9 to 8.8). A new equation using age and sex and omitting race underestimated measured GFR in Blacks (median, 3.6 ml per minute per 1.73 m2; 95% CI, 1.8 to 5.5) and overestimated measured GFR in non-Blacks (median, 3.9 ml per minute per 1.73 m2; 95% CI, 3.4 to 4.4). For all equations, 85% or more of the eGFRs for Blacks and non-Blacks were within 30% of measured GFR. New creatinine-cystatin C equations without race were more accurate than new creatinine equations, with smaller differences between race groups. As compared with the current creatinine equation, the new creatinine equations, but not the new creatinine-cystatin C equations, increased population estimates of CKD prevalence among Blacks and yielded similar or lower prevalence among non-Blacks.ConclusionsNew eGFR equations that incorporate creatinine and cystatin C but omit race are more accurate and led to smaller differences between Black participants and non-Black participants than new equations without race with either creatinine or cystatin C alone. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.).

Project description:Background and objectiveseGFR equations have been evaluated in kidney transplant recipients with variable performance. We assessed the performance of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation and the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equations on the basis of creatinine, cystatin C, and both (eGFR creatinine-cystatin C) compared with measured GFR by iothalamate clearance and evaluated their non-GFR determinants and associations across 15 cardiovascular risk factors.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsA cross-sectional cohort of 1139 kidney transplant recipients >1 year after transplant was analyzed. eGFR bias, precision, and accuracy (percentage of estimates within 30% of measured GFR) were assessed. Interaction of each cardiovascular risk factor with eGFR relative to measured GFR was determined.ResultsMedian measured GFR was 55.0 ml/min per 1.73 m(2). eGFR creatinine overestimated measured GFR by 3.1% (percentage of estimates within 30% of measured GFR of 80.4%), and eGFR Modification of Diet in Renal Disease underestimated measured GFR by 2.2% (percentage of estimates within 30% of measured GFR of 80.4%). eGFR cystatin C underestimated measured GFR by -13.7% (percentage of estimates within 30% of measured GFR of 77.1%), and eGFR creatinine-cystatin C underestimated measured GFR by -8.1% (percentage of estimates within 30% of measured GFR of 86.5%). Lower measured GFR associated with older age, women, obesity, longer time after transplant, lower HDL, lower hemoglobin, lower albumin, higher triglycerides, higher proteinuria, and an elevated cardiac troponin T level but did not associate with diabetes, smoking, cardiovascular events, pretransplant dialysis, or hemoglobin A1c. These risk factor associations differed for five risk factors with eGFR creatinine, six risk factors for eGFR Modification of Diet in Renal Disease, ten risk factors for eGFR cystatin C, and four risk factors for eGFR creatinine-cystatin C.ConclusionsThus, eGFR creatinine and eGFR creatinine-cystatin C are preferred over eGFR cystatin C in kidney transplant recipients because they are less biased, more accurate, and more consistently reflect the same risk factor associations seen with measured GFR.

Project description:Rationale & objectiveUse 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 designCross-sectional analysis.Setting & participantsFour thousand fifty participants with measured glomerular filtration rate (mGFR) from 12 studies in North America and Europe.ExposuresSerum creatinine and serum cystatin C.OutcomesPerformance of creatinine-based and cystatin C-based glomerular filtration rate estimating equations compared to mGFR.Analytical approachWe 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.ResultsThirty 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.LimitationsFew participants with major comorbid conditions.ConclusionsDiscordant 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.

Project description:Accurate assessment of kidney function is important for the management of solid-organ transplant recipients. In other clinical populations, glomerular filtration rate (GFR) most commonly is estimated using the CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration) creatinine or the 4-variable MDRD (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease) Study equation. The accuracy of these equations compared with other GFR estimating equations in transplant recipients has not been carefully studied.Diagnostic test study.Solid-organ transplant recipients longer than 6 months posttransplantation from 5 clinical populations (N=3,622, including recipients of kidney [53%], liver [35%], and other or multiple organs [12%]).Estimated GFR (eGFR) using creatinine-based GFR estimating equations identified from a systematic review of the literature. Performance of the CKD-EPI creatinine and the MDRD Study equations was compared with alternative equations.Measured GFR (mGFR) from urinary clearance of iothalamate or plasma clearance of iohexol.Error (difference between mGFR and eGFR) expressed as P30 (proportion of absolute percent error <30%) and mean absolute error.We identified 26 GFR estimating equations. Mean mGFR was 55.1±22.7 (SD) mL/min/1.73 m(2). P30 and mean absolute error for the CKD-EPI and the MDRD Study equations were 78.9% (99.6% CI, 76.9%-80.8%) for both and 10.6 (99.6% CI, 10.1-11.1) versus 11.0 (99.6% CI, 10.5-11.5) mL/min/1.73 m(2), respectively; these equations were more accurate than any of the alternative equations (P <0.001 for all pairwise comparisons for both measures). They performed better than or as well as the alternative equations in most subgroups defined by demographic and clinical characteristics, including type of transplanted organ.Study population included few nonwhites and people with solid-organ transplants other than liver and kidneys.The CKD-EPI creatinine and the MDRD Study equations perform better than the alternative creatinine-based estimating equations in solid-organ transplant recipients. They can be used for clinical management.