Dataset Information

Performance and Determinants of Serum Creatinine and Cystatin C-Based GFR Estimating Equations in South Asians.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The creatinine-based Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) equation was calibrated for the general Pakistan population (eGFRcr-PK) to eliminate bias and improve accuracy. Cystatin C-based CKD-EPI equations (eGFRcys and eGFRcr-cys) have not been assessed in this population, and non-GFR determinants of cystatin C are unknown.

Methods

We assessed eGFRcys, eGFRcr-cys, and non-GFR determinants of cystatin C in a cross-sectional study of 557 participants (≥40 years of age) from Pakistan. We compared bias (median difference in measured GFR [mGFR] and eGFR), precision (interquartile range [IQR] of differences), accuracy (percentage of eGFR within 30% of mGFR), root mean square error (RMSE), and classification of mGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m² (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] and net reclassification index [NRI]) among eGFR equations.

Results

We found that eGFRcys underestimated mGFR (bias, 12.7 ml/min/1.73 m² [95% confidence interval {CI} 10.7-15.2]). eGFRcr-cys did not improve performance over eGFRcr-PK in precision (P = 0.52), accuracy (P = 0.58), or RMSE (P = 0.49). Results were consistent among subgroups by age, sex, smoking, body mass index (BMI), and eGFR. NRI was 7.31% (95% CI 1.52%-13.1%; P < 0.001) for eGFRcr-cys versus eGFRcr-PK, but AUC was not improved (0.92 [95% CI 0.87-0.96] vs. 0.90 [95% CI 0.86-0.95]; P = 0.056). Non-GFR determinants of higher cystatin C included male sex, smoking, higher BMI and total body fat, and lower lean body mass.

Conclusion

eGFRcys underestimated mGFR in South Asians and eGFRcr-cys did not offer substantial advantage compared with eGFRcr-PK. Future studies are warranted to better understand the large bias in eGFRcys and non-GFR determinants of cystatin C in South Asians.

SUBMITTER: Wang Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8071622 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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: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.

Project description:Estimates of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) that are based on serum creatinine are routinely used; however, they are imprecise, potentially leading to the overdiagnosis of chronic kidney disease. Cystatin C is an alternative filtration marker for estimating GFR.Using cross-sectional analyses, we developed estimating equations based on cystatin C alone and in combination with creatinine in diverse populations totaling 5352 participants from 13 studies. These equations were then validated in 1119 participants from 5 different studies in which GFR had been measured. Cystatin and creatinine assays were traceable to primary reference materials.Mean measured GFRs were 68 and 70 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) of body-surface area in the development and validation data sets, respectively. In the validation data set, the creatinine-cystatin C equation performed better than equations that used creatinine or cystatin C alone. Bias was similar among the three equations, with a median difference between measured and estimated GFR of 3.9 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) with the combined equation, as compared with 3.7 and 3.4 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) with the creatinine equation and the cystatin C equation (P=0.07 and P=0.05), respectively. Precision was improved with the combined equation (interquartile range of the difference, 13.4 vs. 15.4 and 16.4 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2), respectively [P=0.001 and P<0.001]), and the results were more accurate (percentage of estimates that were >30% of measured GFR, 8.5 vs. 12.8 and 14.1, respectively [P<0.001 for both comparisons]). In participants whose estimated GFR based on creatinine was 45 to 74 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2), the combined equation improved the classification of measured GFR as either less than 60 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) or greater than or equal to 60 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) (net reclassification index, 19.4% [P<0.001]) and correctly reclassified 16.9% of those with an estimated GFR of 45 to 59 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) as having a GFR of 60 ml or higher per minute per 1.73 m(2).The combined creatinine-cystatin C equation performed better than equations based on either of these markers alone and may be useful as a confirmatory test for chronic kidney disease. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.).

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.