TY - JOUR

T1 - Discordance Between Creatinine-Based and Cystatin C–Based Estimated GFR

T2 - Interpretation According to Performance Compared to Measured GFR

AU - Wang, Yeli

AU - Adingwupu, Ogechi M.

AU - Shlipak, Michael G.

AU - Doria, Alessandro

AU - Estrella, Michelle M.

AU - Froissart, Marc

AU - Gudnason, Vilmundur

AU - Grubb, Anders

AU - Kalil, Roberto

AU - Mauer, Michael

AU - Rossing, Peter

AU - Seegmiller, Jesse

AU - Coresh, Josef

AU - Levey, Andrew S.

AU - Inker, Lesley A.

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2023 The Authors

PY - 2023

Y1 - 2023

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - creatinine

KW - cystatin

KW - estimated GFR

KW - Glomerular filtration rate

U2 - 10.1016/j.xkme.2023.100710

DO - 10.1016/j.xkme.2023.100710

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 37753251

AN - SCOPUS:85171650635

VL - 5

JO - Kidney Medicine

JF - Kidney Medicine

SN - 2590-0595

IS - 10

M1 - 100710

ER -