Dataset Information

Cystatin C- and Creatinine-based Estimated GFR Differences: Prevalence and Predictors in the UK Biobank.

ABSTRACT:

Rationale & objective

Large differences between estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) based on cystatin C (eGFRcys) and creatinine (eGFRcr) occur commonly. A comprehensive evaluation of factors that contribute to these differences is needed to guide the interpretation of discrepant eGFR values.

Study design

Cohort study.

Setting & participants

468,969 participants in the UK Biobank.

Exposures

Candidate sociodemographic, lifestyle factors, comorbidities, medication usage, and physical and laboratory predictors.

Outcomes

eGFRdiff, defined as eGFRcys minus eGFRcr, categorized into 3 levels: lower eGFRcys (eGFRdiff, less than -15 mL/min/1.73 m²), concordant eGFRcys and eGFRcr (eGFRdiff, -15 to < 15 mL/min/1.73 m²), and lower eGFRcr (eGFRdiff, ≥15 mL/min/1.73 m²).

Analytical approach

Multinomial logistic regression models were constructed to identify predictors of lower eGFRcys or lower eGFRcr. We developed 2 prediction models comprising 375,175 participants: (1) a clinical model using clinically available variables and (2) an enriched model additionally including lifestyle variables. The models were internally validated in an additional 93,794 participants.

Results

Mean ± standard deviation of eGFRcys was 88 ± 16 mL/min/1.73 m², and eGFRcr was 95 ± 13 mL/min/1.73 m²; 25% and 5% of participants were in the lower eGFRcys and lower eGFRcr groups, respectively. In the multivariable enriched model, strong predictors of lower eGFRcys were older age, male sex, South Asian ethnicity, current smoker (vs never smoker), history of thyroid dysfunction, chronic inflammatory disease, steroid use, higher waist circumference and body fat, and urinary albumin-creatinine ratio >300 mg/g. Odds ratio estimates for these predictors were largely inverse of those in the lower eGFRcr group. The model's area under the curve was 0.75 in the validation set, with good calibration (1.00).

Limitations

Limited generalizability.

Conclusions

This study highlights the multitude of demographic, lifestyle, and health characteristics that are associated with large eGFRdiff. The clinical model may identify individuals who are likely to have discrepant eGFR values and thus should be prioritized for cystatin C testing.

SUBMITTER: Chen DC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10986041 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cystatin C- and Creatinine-based Estimated GFR Differences: Prevalence and Predictors in the UK Biobank.

Chen Debbie C DC Lu Kaiwei K Scherzer Rebecca R Lees Jennifer S JS Rutherford Elaine E Mark Patrick B PB Potok O Alison OA Rifkin Dena E DE Ix Joachim H JH Shlipak Michael G MG Estrella Michelle M MM

Kidney medicine 20240216 4

<h4>Rationale & objective</h4>Large differences between estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) based on cystatin C (eGFRcys) and creatinine (eGFRcr) occur commonly. A comprehensive evaluation of factors that contribute to these differences is needed to guide the interpretation of discrepant eGFR values.<h4>Study design</h4>Cohort study.<h4>Setting & participants</h4>468,969 participants in the UK Biobank.<h4>Exposures</h4>Candidate sociodemographic, lifestyle factors, comorbidities, medicat ...[more]

PMID: 38567244

Similar Datasets

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:Rationale & objectiveLower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is associated with heart failure (HF) risk. However, eGFR based on cystatin C (eGFRcys) and creatinine (eGFRcr) may differ substantially within an individual. The clinical implications of these differences for risk of HF among persons with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are unknown.Study designProspective cohort study.Setting & participants4,512 adults with CKD and without prevalent HF who enrolled in the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) Study.ExposureDifference in GFR estimates (eGFRdiff; ie, eGFRcys minus eGFRcr).OutcomeIncident HF hospitalization.Analytical approachFine-Gray proportional subhazards regression was used to investigate the associations of baseline, time-updated, and slope of eGFRdiff with incident HF.ResultsOf 4,512 participants, one-third had eGFRcys and eGFRcr values that differed by over 15 mL/min/1.73 m2. In multivariable-adjusted models, each 15 mL/min/1.73 m2 lower baseline eGFRdiff was associated with higher risk of incident HF hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20 [95% CI, 1.07-1.34]). In time-updated analyses, those with eGFRdiff less than -15 mL/min/1.73 m2 had higher risk of incident HF hospitalization (HR, 1.99 [95% CI, 1.39-2.86]), and those with eGFRdiff ≥15 mL/min/1.73 m2 had lower risk of incident HF hospitalization (HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.49-0.91]) compared with participants with similar eGFRcys and eGFRcr. Participants with faster declines in eGFRcys relative to eGFRcr had higher risk of incident HF (HR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.19-1.85]) compared with those in whom eGFRcys and eGFRcr declined in parallel.LimitationsEntry into the CRIC Study was determined by eGFRcr, which constrained the range of baseline eGFRcr-but not eGFRcys-values.ConclusionsAmong persons with CKD who have large differences between eGFRcys and eGFRcr, risk for incident HF is more strongly associated with eGFRcys. Diverging slopes between eGFRcys and eGFRcr over time are also independently associated with risk of incident HF.

Project description:Rationale & objectiveSerum creatinine and cystatin C are used to estimate glomerular filtration rate, but creatinine-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFRcr), cystatin C-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFRcys), and combined creatinine- and cystatin C-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFRcr-cys) are often divergent, particularly in older adults. We investigated which estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was more accurate and less biased compared with measured glomerular filtration rate (mGFR).Study designA diagnostic test study from the Berlin Initiative Study.Setting & participantsThe study population included 657 individuals aged 70 years or older with iohexol plasma clearance (mGFR) and serum creatinine and cystatin C measurements: 567 community-dwelling participants and 90 with a serum creatinine of ≥1.5 mg/dL.Tests comparedWe defined 3 groups on the basis of the difference eGFRcys - eGFRcr: whether < -5 mL/min/1.73 m2 (lower eGFRcys), within 5 mL/min/1.73 m2 (reference), or ≥ 5 mL/min/1.73 m2 (lower eGFRcr). eGFRcr, eGFRcys, and eGFRcr-cys were compared to mGFR to assess bias and accuracy.OutcomeMedian bias (eGFR minus mGFR) with 95% CIs and accuracy (percentage of eGFR values within ±30% of mGFR).ResultsThe mean ± standard deviation age was 78 ± 6 years; the mean eGFRcys, eGFRcr, and eGFRcr-cys were 59 ± 23, 64 ± 20, and 61 ± 22 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively, and the mean mGFR was 56 ± 19 mL/min. Half of the participants were in the lower eGFRcys group (n=337, 51%). Among them, the median bias for eGFRcys was the lowest (median bias, -2.7; 95% CI, -3.8 to -1.9) compared with the other eGFR equations. Conversely, in the lower eGFRcr group (n=121, 18%), the median bias for eGFRcr was the lowest compared with those for eGFRcys and eGFRcr-cys (2.9; [95% CI, 0.9-4.8] vs 13.8 [95% CI, 11.4-15.6] and 9.5 [95% CI, 7.7-11.0], respectively). Accuracy (percentage of eGFR values within ±30% of mGFR) was 93% for eGFRcr in the lower eGFRcr group and 92% for eGFRcys and 94% for eGFRcr-cys in the lower eGFRcys group.LimitationsUntested generalizability in younger populations.ConclusionsAmong older adults, the lower eGFR between eGFRcys and eGFRcr was a more accurate and less biased estimate of mGFR when comparing the groups.

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:AimsThis study aimed to investigate the impact of different estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) values like cystatin C-based eGFR (eGFRcys), creatinine-based eGFR (eGFRcr), and their difference (eGFRdiff; eGFRcys -eGFRcr), on the incidence of heart failure (HF) in patients with type 2 diabetes(T2D).MethodsBeing a prospective cohort study, it included 7,967 patients with T2D who underwent serum creatinine and cystatin C tests as part of the Kailuan Group's 6th annual health examination (2016). Subsequently, eGFRcys, eGFRcr, and eGFRdiff were calculated. Patients were categorized into three groups: negative (<-15 mL/min/1.73 m2), midrange (-15 to 15 mL/min/1.73 m2), and positive (> 15 mL/min/1.73 m2) eGFRdiff groups, respectively. Furthermore, the relationship between the various eGFR measurements and new-onset HF were studied using Cox proportional hazards regression, and the potential improvement in predictive capability was evaluated by adding these eGFR metrics to established HF risk models.ResultsAmong 7967 participants with mean age of 60.51 years, there were 20.92% women and 79.08% men. At baseline, eGFRcys and eGFRcr values differed by more than 15 mL/min/1.73m2 in 41.3% of participants. During a median follow-up period of 3.76 years, there were 172 (2.16%) new HF cases and 517 (6.49%) all-cause deaths. The cumulative incidence of HF in the midrange, negative, and positive eGFRdiff groups was 1.74%, 4.10%, and 0.61%, respectively (p < 0.001). In multivariable adjusted models, participants in the negative eGFRdiff group had higher risk of HF compared with the midrange eGFRdiff group (HR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.57-2.94). Conversely, participants in the positive eGFRdiff group had lower risk for HF (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.17-0.93). And each 15 mL/min/ 1.73 m2 higher eGFRdiff was associated with 34% (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.58 - 0.47)lower risk of incident HF. The predictive capacity for HF risk in diabetic individuals was enhanced by adding eGFRcys or eGFRdiff to established HF risk models, with eGFRcys showing more significant additional predictive value.ConclusionThese findings suggest that large differences between eGFRcys and eGFRcr were common in community-based population with T2D. Different eGFR metrics can independently predict HF incidence in patients with T2D. Additionally, metrics like eGFRcys and eGFRdiff provide significant predictive value for HF risks beyond traditional risk factors, with eGFRcys showing more pronounced benefits in such cases.

Dataset Information

Cystatin C- and Creatinine-based Estimated GFR Differences: Prevalence and Predictors in the UK Biobank.

Rationale & objective

Study design

Setting & participants

Exposures

Outcomes

Analytical approach

Results

Limitations

Conclusions

Publications

Cystatin C- and Creatinine-based Estimated GFR Differences: Prevalence and Predictors in the UK Biobank.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets