Measuring vs estimating glomerular filtration rate in kidney transplantation

Comparison of estimated GFR using cystatin C versus creatinine in pediatric kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

An accurate, rapid estimate of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in kidney transplant patients affords early detection of transplant deterioration and timely intervention. This study compared the performance of serum creatinine (Cr) and cystatin C (CysC)-based GFR equations to measured GFR (mGFR) using iohexol among pediatric kidney transplant recipients.

METHODS

CysC, Cr, and mGFR were obtained from 45 kidney transplant patients, 1-18 years old. Cr- and CysC-estimated GFR (eGFR) was compared against mGFR using the Cr-based (Bedside Schwartz, U25-Cr), CysC-based (Gentian CysC, CAPA, U25-CysC), and Cr-CysC combination (CKiD Cr-CysC, U25 Cr-CysC) equations in terms of bias, precision, and accuracy. Bland-Altman plots assessed the agreement between eGFR and mGFR. Secondary analyses evaluated the formulas in patients with biopsy-proven histological changes, and K/DOQI CKD staging.

RESULTS

Bias was small with Gentian CysC (0.1 ml/min/1.73 m2); 88.9% and 37.8% of U25-CysC estimations were within 30% and 10% of mGFR, respectively. In subjects with histological changes on biopsy, Gentian CysC had a small bias and U25-CysC were more accurate-both with 83.3% of and 41.7% of estimates within 30% and 10% mGFR, respectively. Precision was better with U25-CysC, CKiD Cr-CysC, and U25 Cr-CysC. Bland-Altman plots showed the Bedside Schwartz, Gentian CysC, CAPA, and U25-CysC tend to overestimate GFR when > 100 ml/min/1.72 m2. CAPA misclassified CKD stage the least (whole cohort 24.4%, histological changes on biopsy 33.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this small cohort, CysC-based equations with or without Cr may have better bias, precision, and accuracy in predicting GFR.

A comparison of four established GFR formulas to estimate measured GFR and changes in GFR in adult kidney transplant recipients

The accurate assessment of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is important in the follow-up of kidney transplant recipients in order to identify graft dysfunction. A number of formulas have been proposed to calculate GFR from endogenous plasma markers such as creatinine or cystatin C since measuring GFR using exogenous markers is troublesome. This study compares and evaluates the ability of four different GFR formulas to estimate kidney graft function and to detect changes in GFR in kidney transplant recipients. The study included patients from the prospective, multicenter CONTEXT trial in kidney transplant recipients. GFR was measured using plasma clearance of ⁵¹Cr-EDTA and estimated using the MDRD, CKD-EPI Creatinine, CKD-EPI Cystatin C and CKD-EPI Cystatin C + Creatinine equations at three (n = 83) and twelve (n = 65) months post-transplantation. For each formula mean bias, precision, and accuracy were evaluated. The MDRD equation had the lowest mean bias (0.2 ml/min/1.73 m²), whereas the CKD-EPI Cystatin C + Creatinine equation had the highest precision (8 ml/min/1.73 m²). Accuracy at three months were similar for all equations (P30 > 80%) except for the CKD-EPI Cystatin C equation, which performed poorer (P30 = 55%). None of the formulas evaluated avoided misclassification of changes in GFR. The most optimal combination of precision and accuracy suggests the use of CKD-EPI Creatinine + Cystatin C equation in kidney transplant recipients.

A circulating exosomal microRNA panel as a novel biomarker for monitoring post-transplant renal graft function

Accurate and effective biomarkers for continuous monitoring of graft function are needed after kidney transplantation. The aim of this study was to establish a circulating exosomal miRNA panel as non‐invasive biomarker for kidney transplant recipients. Plasma exosomes of 58 kidney transplant recipients and 27 healthy controls were extracted by gel exclusion chromatography and characterized by transmission electron microscopy, nanoparticle tracking analysis and Western blotting. Post‐transplant renal graft function was evaluated by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Quantitative real‐time polymerase chain reaction was used to determine the expression of exosomal microRNAs (miRNAs). Exosomal miR‐21, miR‐210 and miR‐4639 showed negative correlations with eGFR in the training set and were selected for further analysis. In the validation set, miR‐21, miR‐210 and miR‐4639 showed the capability to discriminate between subjects with chronic allograft dysfunction (eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m²) and those with normal graft function (eGFR > 90 mL/min/1.73 m²). Three‐miRNA panel exhibited higher accuracy compared with individual miRNAs or double indicators. One‐year follow‐up revealed a stable recovery of allograft function in subjects with low calculated score from three‐miRNA panel (below the optimal cut‐off value). In conclusion, a unique circulating exosomal miRNA panel was identified as an effective biomarker for monitoring post‐transplant renal graft function in this study.

Transplant Patients With Failing Renal Allografts

Progress in patient care and immunosuppressive medications has resulted in improved allograft survival in the early posttransplant period; however, substantial graft loss continues in the long term. Therefore, the number of dialysis patients with failed allografts is increasing progressively. These patients have a worse prognosis than naive dialysis patients. Cardiovascular causes are the leading cause of death, followed by infections and malignancies. Delay in return to dialysis, a chronic inflammatory state, infections, and cancer are contributing factors to mortality, whereas type of dialysis modality does not have a significant effect on outcomes. Graft nephrectomy is a risky operation; therefore, it should not be a routine procedure and rather should be performed only when indicated. Overall, most grafts are left in place, whereas graft nephrectomy is performed in atients with graft intolerance syndrome. Management of immunosuppressive drugs after graft failure is controversial. In the case of maintaining immunosuppression, there is increased risk of infections, cardiovascular diseases, and malignancies and also steroid-related adverse effects. On the other hand, discontinuation of immunosuppressants may result in loss of residual allograft function and also acute graft inflammation. Together, immunosuppressive drugs are almost always discontinued in these patients because of their inherent adverse effects. Considering the sequence of cessation, first antiproliferative drugs are stopped, followed by calcineurin inhibitors, and finally steroids. Because many studies show a clear survival benefit, every attempt should be made for a retransplant in patients with failed renal allografts.

Estimating glomerular filtration rate in kidney transplantation: Still searching for the best marker

Kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice for end-stage renal disease. The evaluation of graft function is mandatory in the management of renal transplant recipients. Glomerular filtration rate (GFR), is generally considered the best index of graft function and also a predictor of graft and patient survival. However GFR measurement using inulin clearance, the gold standard for its measurement and exogenous markers such as radiolabeled isotopes ((51)Cr EDTA, (99m)Tc DTPA or (125)I Iothalamate) and non-radioactive contrast agents (Iothalamate or Iohexol), is laborious as well as expensive, being rarely used in clinical practice. Therefore, endogenous markers, such as serum creatinine or cystatin C, are used to estimate kidney function, and equations using these markers adjusted to other variables, mainly demographic, are an attempt to improve accuracy in estimation of GFR (eGFR). Nevertheless, there is some concern about the inability of the available eGFR equations to accurately identify changes in GFR, in kidney transplant recipients. This article will review and discuss the performance and limitations of these endogenous markers and their equations as estimators of GFR in the kidney transplant recipients, and their ability in predicting significant clinical outcomes.

Accuracy of different equations in estimating GFR in pediatric kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The knowledge of renal function is crucial for the management of pediatric kidney transplant recipients. In this population, the most commonly used plasma creatinine (PCr)-based or cystatin C (CystC)-based GFR-predicting formulas may underperform (e.g., corticosteroids and trimethoprim may affect PCr concentration, whereas prednisone and calcineurin inhibitors may affect CystC concentration). This study evaluated the performance of six formulas in pediatric kidney transplant recipients.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

The study used PCr-based formulas (bedside Schwartz, Schwartz-Lyon), CystC-based formulas (Hoek, Filler), and combined PCr-CystC-based formulas (CKD in Children [CKiD] 2012 and Zappitelli). The performance of these formulas was compared using inulin clearance as reference and assessed according to CKD stages in a historical cohort that included 73 pediatric kidney transplant recipients (199 measurements). The ability of the formulas to identify GFRs<60, <75, and <90 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) was assessed.

RESULTS

At measured GFR (mGFR) ≥90 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) (nine patients; 23 measurements), the Zappitelli formula had the highest 30% accuracy (P30) (95% [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 87% to 100%]) and the bedside Schwartz had the highest 10% accuracy (P10) (56% [95% CI, 32% to 72%]). At mGFR≥60 and <90 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) (22 patients; 91 measurements), all formulas had P30 values >80%. However, only the CKiD 2012 formula had a P10 value >50%. At mGFR<60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) (42 patients; 85 measurements), the CKiD 2012 and Schwartz-Lyon formulas had the highest P10 (45% [95% CI, 34% to 55%] and 43% [95% CI, 33% to 54%]) and P30 (90% [95% CI, 84% to 97%] and 91% [95% CI, 86% to 98%]). All studied equations except Hoek and Filler had areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves significantly >90% in discriminating patients with renal dysfunction at various CKD stages (GFR<60, <75, and <90 ml/min per 1.73 m(2)).

CONCLUSIONS

In pediatric kidney transplant recipients, the CKiD 2012 formula had the best performance at mGFRs<90 ml/min per 1.73 m(2). CystC-based formulas were not superior to PCr-based formulas.

Performance of creatinine-based GFR estimating equations in solid-organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

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.

STUDY DESIGN

Diagnostic test study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

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%]).

INDEX TEST

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.

REFERENCE TEST

Measured GFR (mGFR) from urinary clearance of iothalamate or plasma clearance of iohexol.

MEASUREMENTS

Error (difference between mGFR and eGFR) expressed as P30 (proportion of absolute percent error <30%) and mean absolute error.

RESULTS

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.

LIMITATIONS

Study population included few nonwhites and people with solid-organ transplants other than liver and kidneys.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Routine determination of GFR in renal transplant recipients by HPLC quantification of plasma iohexol concentrations and comparison with estimated GFR

Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) methods are not sufficiently reliable in renal transplant recipients (RTR) and should be replaced by iohexol plasma clearance measurement. However, this method has poor availability in health centers. The aim of our study was to develop a high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method for plasma iohexol measurement in routine practice and to evaluate its plasma clearance as a reference of GFR. We developed an HPLC method using UV detection. We evaluated sample storage conditions to provide recommendations for routine practice. Then, we compared GFRbased on plasma iohexol clearance (GFR-iohexol) to eGFR using modification of diet in renal disease, Cockcroft and Gault, and CDK-EPIequations in 40 RTR. The method was validated over a concentration range of 15-300 μg/l. Excellent linearity (r > 0.998), inter- and intraday precision (CV < 3.3%), and accuracy (>96.8%) were complied with ICH guidelines. We also demonstrated excellent samples stability (9 days). Although eGFR methods are not references in RTR, we found a correct concordance between eGFR and GFR-iohexol in our population. To conclude, our method is simple, rapid, accurate, and reliable for routine clinical and research use especially in RTR.

Comparison of serum cystatin C and creatinine as a marker for early detection of decreasing glomerular filtration rate in renal transplants

Purpose

We wished to compare the clinical effectiveness of cystatin C (CyC) and serum creatinine (sCr) to assess renal function in renal transplantation patients.

Methods

We compared the clinical effectiveness of CyC with that of the sCr to estimate 24-hour urine creatinine clearance (CrCl) in 72 adult recipients who underwent renal transplantation from January 2001 to December 2008. We analyzed the data in terms of accuracy, bias, precision and sensitivity as a function of length of time posttransplantation and CrCl value.

Results

The patients were divided into four groups according to CrCl value <30, <60, <90, and ≥90 mL/min/1.73 m². The corresponding Cr-based glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimates had accuracies of 0.71, 0.906, 0.963, and 1.00 within 50% of the reference, with biases (mean percentage errors) of 4.7, 5.32, -5.79, -31.33 mL/min/1.73 m², and precisions (mean absolute percentage errors) of 7.57, 10.03, 14.52, and 31.33 mL/min/1.73 m², respectively. The CyC-based GFR estimates had accuracies of 0.35, 0.79, 0.93, and 0.67 within 50% of the reference, respectively, with biases of 15.03, 13.37, -5.58, and -34.79 mL/min/1.73 m² and precisions of 15.03, 14.80, 17.91, and 34.79 mL/min/1.73 m². The sensitivity for detecting GFR below 60 mL/min/1.73 m² was higher for CyC (0.96, 1, and 0.95) than for Cr (0.77, 0.75, and 0.82).

Conclusion

CyC is a more sensitive indicator of low GFR (CrCl <60 mL/min/1.73 m²) than sCr. However, CyC-based GFR estimates are restrictive data, and are neither accurate nor specific. Therefore, to evaluate renal function, we may need a revised CyC-based GFR formula and close monitoring of sCr.

Accuracy of GFR predictive equations in renal transplantation: validation of a new turbidimetric cystatin C assay on Architect c8000

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the Sentinel-PETIA cystatin C on Architect c8000 analyzer.

DESIGN AND METHODS

We assessed analytical performances and clinical relevance by comparison with a reference isotopic method in kidney transplant recipients.

RESULTS

This assay exhibited reliable precision and was close to the non standardized Siemens-PENIA method. All tested equations allowed reliable assessment of GFR.

CONCLUSIONS

Cystatin C improved GFR determination at the critical level of 60 mL/min/1.73 m². New formulas might be necessary after IFCC standardization.

Analytical performances of cystatin C turbidimetric assay: which impact on accuracy of glomerular filtration rate estimation in renal transplantation?

BACKGROUND

The potential use of cystatin C has recently emerged to evaluate kidney function following transplantation. Analytical performance of a particle-enhanced turbidimetric immunoassay (PETIA) using Dako Cytomation Cystatin C reagents on an Olympus AU640(®) analyzer was evaluated. Clinical relevance was determined by comparison with a reference method in a kidney transplant cohort.

METHODS

Repeatability and reproducibility were carried out for four levels of cystatin C. Linearity was done by successive dilution of plasma samples with high level of cystatin C. Comparison study was performed against the particle-enhanced nephelemetry immunoassay (PENIA) using Siemens reagents on BNII(®) system. Values of the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimated from several predictive cystatin C- and creatinine-based equations were compared to the GFR measured by isotopic method ((99m)Tc-DTPA). These predictive algorithms were analyzed with respect to bias, precision and accuracy.

RESULTS

Total intra-assay and inter-assay variation coefficients were below 4% at the four levels tested. Values obtained with Dako-PETIA on AU640(®) were correlated with the Siemens-PENIA method (Dako-Olympus=0.88 Siemens+0.17). The cystatin C alone and the creatinine-cystatin C combined equation allowed reliable assessment of GFR in our population of renal transplants. The cystatin C-based or the combined equation moderately improved determination of GFR (about 10% compared to 175MDRD for classification into the correct K/DOQI CKD stages).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of algorithms based on cystatin C and creatinine could provide a reliable estimate of the GFR in kidney transplantation. Standardization of cystatin C assays could further improve the predicting value of cystatin C in transplantation.

The impact of interlaboratory differences in cystatin C assay measurement on glomerular filtration rate estimation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Cystatin C (CysC) is a promising marker of GFR. Several equations have been derived to estimate GFR from its serum concentration. Heterogeneity in the performance of these equations exists in validation studies even when the same CysC assay from the same manufacturer is utilized. This study was designed to examine the differences in CysC and GFR estimation (eGFR) using Siemens' nephelometric immunoassay and the Mayo Clinic equation. The ability of the eGFRs to predict measured GFR was also examined.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Ninety-seven split samples were sent to laboratories at Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) in Ottawa, Canada, and at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

RESULTS

The mean CHEO CysC was 0.17 mg/L (10%) lower than the mean Mayo Clinic CysC. Using the Mayo Clinic equation, the mean eGFR difference was 7.2 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) (15%). Approximately 36% of the results agreed within 10%, while 13% were discordant by greater than 30%. Larger absolute differences in mean eGFR between the two laboratories were found in the subgroup with CysC less than 1.41 mg/L as compared with the subgroup greater than 1.41 mg/L (9.5 versus 5.0 ml/min per 1.73 m(2)). Correction of CHEO values to the Mayo Clinic did not improve GFR estimation.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences in CysC measurement exist between laboratories using the same assay by the same manufacturer and these lead to clinically relevant differences in GFR estimation. This interlaboratory variability needs to be recognized when interpreting and comparing CysC and eGFR results.