Dataset Information

Urinary Biomarkers and Kidney Outcomes: Impact of Indexing Versus Adjusting for Urinary Creatinine.

ABSTRACT:

Rationale & objective

Urinary biomarker concentrations are frequently indexed to urinary creatinine (Ucr) concentration in spot samples to account for urine dilution; however, this may introduce biases. We evaluated whether indexing versus adjusting urinary biomarker concentrations for Ucr concentration altered their associations with outcomes.

Study design

Observational cohort.

Setting & participants

We analyzed data from 2,360 Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) participants with estimated glomerular filtration rates < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² and urinary albumin (UAlb) and 8 urinary kidney tubule biomarkers measured at baseline.

Outcomes

The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular disease events; secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and a composite of kidney outcomes (50% estimated glomerular filtration rate decline, end-stage kidney disease, or transplantation).

Analytical approach

We used Cox proportional hazards regression to examine the associations of 1/Ucr with outcomes and compared the associations of UAlb and 8 individual urinary tubule biomarkers with outcomes, analyzed by indexing to Ucr, adjusting for 1/Ucr or the biomarker alone (without Ucr concentration).

Results

During a median follow-up of 3.3 years, 307 composite cardiovascular events, 166 deaths, and 34 composite kidney outcomes occurred. After multivariable adjustment, 1/Ucr was significantly associated with cardiovascular events (HR, 1.27 per 2-fold higher; 95% CI, 1.11-1.45), not associated with either mortality (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.87-1.28) or kidney events (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.95-2.35). For UAlb and urinary tubule biomarker concentrations, most risk estimates were not significantly different when indexed to Ucr concentration versus adjusted for 1/Ucr.

Limitations

Cohort excluded patients with diabetes and overall had low levels of albuminuria.

Conclusions

1/Ucr is independently associated with cardiovascular events in trial participants with chronic kidney disease. Indexing versus adjusting for 1/Ucr does not significantly change the associations of most urinary biomarkers with clinical outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Wettersten N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8350828 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION: Estimation of kidney function in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI), is important for appropriate dosing of drugs and adjustment of therapeutic strategies, but challenging due to fluctuations in kidney function, creatinine metabolism and fluid balance. Data on the agreement between estimating and gold standard methods to assess glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in early AKI are lacking. We evaluated the agreement of urinary creatinine clearance (CrCl) and three commonly used estimating equations, the Cockcroft Gault (CG), the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) and the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equations, in comparison to GFR measured by the infusion clearance of chromium-ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (51Cr-EDTA), in critically ill patients with early AKI after complicated cardiac surgery. METHODS: Thirty patients with early AKI were studied in the intensive care unit, 2 to 12 days after complicated cardiac surgery. The infusion clearance for 51Cr-EDTA obtained as a measure of GFR (GFR51Cr-EDTA) was calculated from the formula: GFR (mL/min/1.73m2)=(51Cr-EDTA infusion rate×1.73)/(arterial 51Cr-EDTA×body surface area) and compared with the urinary CrCl and the estimated GFR (eGFR) from the three estimating equations. Urine was collected in two 30-minute periods to measure urine flow and urine creatinine. Urinary CrCl was calculated from the formula: CrCl (mL/min/1.73m2)=(urine volume×urine creatinine×1.73)/(serum creatinine×30 min×body surface area). RESULTS: The within-group error was lower for GFR51Cr-EDTA than the urinary CrCl method, 7.2% versus 55.0%. The between-method bias was 2.6, 11.6, 11.1 and 7.39 ml/min for eGFRCrCl, eGFRMDRD, eGFRCKD-EPI and eGFRCG, respectively, when compared to GFR51Cr-EDTA. The error was 103%, 68.7%, 67.7% and 68.0% for eGFRCrCl, eGFRMDRD, eGFRCKD-EPI and eGFRCG, respectively, when compared to GFR51Cr-EDTA. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated poor precision of the commonly utilized urinary CrCl method for assessment of GFR in critically ill patients with early AKI, suggesting that this should not be used as a reference method when validating new methods for assessing kidney function in this patient population. The commonly used estimating equations perform poorly when estimating GFR, with high biases and unacceptably high errors.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Adding the measurement of cystatin C to that of serum creatinine to determine the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) improves accuracy, but the effect on detection, staging, and risk classification of chronic kidney disease across diverse populations has not been determined. METHODS:We performed a meta-analysis of 11 general-population studies (with 90,750 participants) and 5 studies of cohorts with chronic kidney disease (2960 participants) for whom standardized measurements of serum creatinine and cystatin C were available. We compared the association of the eGFR, as calculated by the measurement of creatinine or cystatin C alone or in combination with creatinine, with the rates of death (13,202 deaths in 15 cohorts), death from cardiovascular causes (3471 in 12 cohorts), and end-stage renal disease (1654 cases in 7 cohorts) and assessed improvement in reclassification with the use of cystatin C. RESULTS:In the general-population cohorts, the prevalence of an eGFR of less than 60 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) of body-surface area was higher with the cystatin C-based eGFR than with the creatinine-based eGFR (13.7% vs. 9.7%). Across all eGFR categories, the reclassification of the eGFR to a higher value with the measurement of cystatin C, as compared with creatinine, was associated with a reduced risk of all three study outcomes, and reclassification to a lower eGFR was associated with an increased risk. The net reclassification improvement with the measurement of cystatin C, as compared with creatinine, was 0.23 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18 to 0.28) for death and 0.10 (95% CI, 0.00 to 0.21) for end-stage renal disease. Results were generally similar for the five cohorts with chronic kidney disease and when both creatinine and cystatin C were used to calculate the eGFR. CONCLUSIONS:The use of cystatin C alone or in combination with creatinine strengthens the association between the eGFR and the risks of death and end-stage renal disease across diverse populations. (Funded by the National Kidney Foundation and others.).

Project description:BackgroundRecent trials have suggested use of balanced crystalloids may decrease the incidence of major adverse kidney events compared to saline in critically ill adults. The effect of crystalloid composition on biomarkers of early acute kidney injury remains unknown.MethodsFrom February 15 to July 15, 2016, we conducted an ancillary study to the Isotonic Solutions and Major Adverse Renal Events Trial (SMART) comparing the effect of balanced crystalloids versus saline on urinary levels of neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) and kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1) among 261 consecutively-enrolled critically ill adults admitted from the emergency department to the medical ICU. After informed consent, we collected urine 36 ± 12 h after hospital admission and measured NGAL and KIM-1 levels using commercially available ELISAs. Levels of NGAL and KIM-1 at 36 ± 12 h were compared between patients assigned to balanced crystalloids versus saline using a Mann-Whitney U test.ResultsThe 131 patients (50.2%) assigned to the balanced crystalloid group and the 130 patients (49.8%) assigned to the saline group were similar at baseline. Urinary NGAL levels were significantly lower in the balanced crystalloid group (median, 39.4 ng/mg [IQR 9.9 to 133.2]) compared with the saline group (median, 64.4 ng/mg [IQR 27.6 to 339.9]) (P < 0.001). Urinary KIM-1 levels did not significantly differ between the balanced crystalloid group (median, 2.7 ng/mg [IQR 1.5 to 4.9]) and the saline group (median, 2.4 ng/mg [IQR 1.3 to 5.0]) (P = 0.36).ConclusionsIn this ancillary analysis of a clinical trial comparing balanced crystalloids to saline among critically ill adults, balanced crystalloids were associated with lower urinary concentrations of NGAL and similar urinary concentrations of KIM-1, compared with saline. These results suggest only a modest reduction in early biomarkers of acute kidney injury with use of balanced crystalloids compared with saline.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02444988 . Date registered: May 15, 2015.