Iohexol Plasma Clearance: Impact of Weighing the Syringe.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Delanaye P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8418941 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Iohexol Plasma Clearance: Impact of Weighing the Syringe.
Delanaye Pierre P Melsom Toralf T Cavalier Etienne E Pottel Hans H Eriksen Björn O BO Dubourg Laurence L
Kidney international reports 20210605 9
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC4807851 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn children, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) methods are hampered by inaccuracy, hence there is an obvious need for safe, simplified, and accurate measured GFR (mGFR) methods. The aim of this study was to evaluate different formulas and determine the optimal sampling points for calculating mGFR based on iohexol clearance measurements on blood samples drawn at two time points (GFR2p).MethodsThe GFR of 96 children with different stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD) (median age 9.2 years, range 3 months to 17.5 years) was determined using the iohexol plasma clearance, with blood sampling at seven time points within 5 h (GFR7p) as the reference method. Median GFR7p was 65.9 (range 6.3-153) mL/min/1.73 m2. The performance of seven different formulas with early and late normalization to body surface area (BSA) was validated against the reference.ResultsThe highest percentage (95.8 %) of GFR2p within 10 % of the reference was calculated using the formula of Jødal and Brøchner-Mortensen (JBM) from 2009, with sampling at 2 and 5 h. Normalization to BSA before correction of the distribution phase improved the performance of the original Brøchner-Mortensen method from 1972; P10 of 92.7 % compared to P10 of 82.3 % with late normalization, and a similar result was obtained with other formulas.ConclusionsGFR2p performed well across a wide spectrum of GFR levels with the JBM formula. Several other formulas tested performed well provided that early BSA normalization was performed. Blood sampling at 2 and 5 h is recommended for an optimal GFR2p assessment.
| S-EPMC5203838 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe non-ionic agent iohexol is increasingly used as the marker of choice for glomerular filtration rate (GFR) measurement. Estimates of GFR in children have low accuracy and limiting the number of blood-draws in this patient population is especially relevant. We have performed a study to evaluate different formulas for calculating measured GFR based on plasma iohexol clearance with blood sampling at only one time point (GFR1p) and to determine the optimal sampling time point.MethodsNinety-six children with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 1-5 (median age 9.2 years; range 3 months to 17.5 years) were examined in a cross-sectional study using iohexol clearance and blood sampling at seven time points within 5 h (GFR7p) as the reference method. Median GFR7p was 66 (range 6-153) mL/min/1.73 m2. The performances of six different single time-point formulas (Fleming, Ham and Piepsz, Groth and Aasted, Stake, Jacobsson- and Jacobsson-modified) were validated against the reference. The two-point GFR (GFR2p) was calculated according to the Jødal and Brøchner-Mortensen formula.ResultsThe GFR1p calculated according to Fleming with sampling at 3 h (GFR1p3h-Fleming) had the best overall performance, with 82% of measures within 10% of the reference value (P10). In children with a GFR ≥ 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (n = 78), the GFR1p3h-Fleming had a P10 of 92.3%, which is not significantly different (p = 0.29) from that of GFR2p (P10 = 96.2%). Considerable differences within and between the different formulas were found for different CKD stages and different time points for blood sampling.ConclusionsFor determination of mGFR in children with CKD and an assumed GFR of ≥ 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 we recommend GFR1p3h-Fleming as the preferred single-point method as an alternative to GFR2p. For children with a GFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2, we recommend the slope-GFR with at least two blood samples.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov , Identifier NCT01092260, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01092260?term=tondel&rank=2.
| S-EPMC5859061 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is no simple method to measure glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in swine, an established model for studying renal disease. We developed a protocol to measure GFR in conscious swine by using the plasma clearance of iohexol. We used two groups, test and validation, with eight animals each. Ten milliliters of iohexol (6.47 g) was injected into the marginal auricular vein and blood samples (3 mL) were collected from the orbital sinus at different points after injection. GFR was determined using two models: two-compartment (CL2: all samples) and one-compartment (CL1: the last six samples). In the test group, CL1 overestimated CL2 by ~30%: CL2 = 245 ± 93 and CL1 = 308 ± 123 mL/min. This error was corrected by a first-order polynomial quadratic equation to CL1, which was considered the simplified method: SM = -47.909 + (1.176xCL1) - (0.00063968xCL1²). The SM showed narrow limits of agreement with CL2, a concordance correlation of 0.97, and a total deviation index of 14.73%. Similar results were obtained for the validation group. This protocol is reliable, reproducible, can be performed in conscious animals, uses a single dose of the marker, and requires a reduced number of samples, and avoids urine collection. Finally, it presents a significant improvement in animal welfare conditions and handling necessities in experimental trials.
| S-EPMC5796180 | biostudies-literature
Project description:While there is general agreement on the necessity to measure glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in many clinical situations, there is less agreement on the best method to achieve this purpose. As the gold standard method for GFR determination, urinary (or renal) clearance of inulin, fades into the background due to inconvenience and high cost, a diversity of filtration markers and protocols compete to replace it. In this review, we suggest that iohexol, a non-ionic contrast agent, is most suited to replace inulin as the marker of choice for GFR determination. Iohexol comes very close to fulfilling all requirements for an ideal GFR marker in terms of low extra-renal excretion, low protein binding and in being neither secreted nor reabsorbed by the kidney. In addition, iohexol is virtually non-toxic and carries a low cost. As iohexol is stable in plasma, administration and sample analysis can be separated in both space and time, allowing access to GFR determination across different settings. An external proficiency programme operated by Equalis AB, Sweden, exists for iohexol, facilitating interlaboratory comparison of results. Plasma clearance measurement is the protocol of choice as it combines a reliable GFR determination with convenience for the patient. Single-sample protocols dominate, but multiple-sample protocols may be more accurate in specific situations. In low GFRs one or more late samples should be included to improve accuracy. In patients with large oedema or ascites, urinary clearance protocols should be employed. In conclusion, plasma clearance of iohexol may well be the best candidate for a common GFR determination method.
| S-EPMC5036902 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIohexol plasma clearance-based glomerular filtration rate (GFR) determination provides an accurate method for renal function evaluation. This technique is increasingly advocated for clinical situations that dictate highly accurate renal function assessment, as an alternative to conventional serum creatinine-based methods with limited accuracy or poor feasibility. In the renal transplantation setting, this particularly applies to living renal transplant donor eligibility screening, renal transplant function monitoring and research purposes. The dependency of current iohexol GFR estimation techniques on extensive sampling, however, has limited its clinical application. We developed a population pharmacokinetic model and limited sampling schedules, implemented in the online InsightRX precision dosing platform, to facilitate pragmatic iohexol GFR assessment.MethodsIohexol concentrations (n = 587) drawn 5 min to 4 h after administration were available from 67 renal transplant recipients and 41 living renal transplant donor candidates with measured iohexol GFRs of 27-117 mL/min/1.73 m2. These were split into a model development (n = 72) cohort and an internal validation (n = 36) cohort. External validation was performed with 1040 iohexol concentrations from 268 renal transplant recipients drawn between 5 min and 4 h after administration, and extended iohexol curves up to 24 h from 11 random patients with impaired renal function. Limited sampling schedules based on one to four blood draws within 4 h after iohexol administration were evaluated in terms of bias and imprecision, using the mean relative prediction error and mean absolute relative prediction error. The total deviation index and percentage of limited sampling schedule-based GFR predictions within ± 10% of those of the full model (P10) were assessed to aid interpretation.ResultsIohexol pharmacokinetics was best described with a two-compartmental first-order elimination model, allometrically scaled to fat-free mass, with patient type as a covariate on clearance and the central distribution volume. Model validity was confirmed during the internal and external validation. Various limited sampling schedules based on three to four blood draws within 4 h showed excellent predictive performance (mean relative prediction error < ± 0.5%, mean absolute relative prediction error < 3.5%, total deviation index < 5.5%, P10 > 97%). The best limited sampling schedules based on three to four blood draws within 3 h showed reduced predictive performance (mean relative prediction error < ± 0.75%, mean absolute relative prediction error < 5.5%, total deviation index < 9.5%, P10 ≥ 85%), but may be considered for their enhanced clinical feasibility when deemed justified.ConclusionsOur online pharmacometric tool provides an accurate, pragmatic, and ready-to-use technique for measured GFR-based renal function evaluation for clinical situations where conventional methods lack accuracy or show limited feasibility. Additional adaptation and validation of our model and limited sampling schedules for renal transplant recipients with GFRs below 30 mL/min is warranted before considering this technique in these patients.
| S-EPMC8417017 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCreatinine clearance after cimetidine administration (Cim-CreatClr) was once proposed as a method of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) measurement, but has been largely abandoned. We investigated whether a new short procedure for Cim-CreatClr determination could be considered an appropriate method for GFR measurement.MethodsA 150-min protocol involving oral cimetidine administration was developed to determine Cim-CreatClr. In total, 168 patients underwent simultaneous assessments of creatinine clearance before and after cimetidine administration [basal creatinine clearance (Basal-CreatClr) and Cim-CreatClr, respectively], renal iohexol clearance and plasma iohexol clearance (R-iohexClr and P-iohexClr, respectively). We compared the agreement between the various methods of GFR measurement, using Bland-Altman plots to determine biases, precisions (standard deviation of the biases) and accuracy (proportions of GFR values falling within 10, 15 and 30% of the mean: P10, P15 and P30, respectively).ResultsAfter cimetidine administration, Basal-CreatClr decreased by 19.8% [95% reference limits of agreement (95% LoA): -2.2 to 41.7%]. The bias between Cim-CreatClr and P-iohexClr was -0.6% (95% LoA -26.8 to 28%); the precision was 14.0%; P10, P15 and P30 were 57.1% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 49.3 to 64.7%], 73.2% (95% CI 65.8 to 79.7%) and 97.0% (95% CI 93.2 to 99.0%), respectively. Due to the positive bias (16.7%; 95% LoA -3.6 to 36.9%) of Cim-CreatClr relative to R-iohexClr, accuracy of Cim-CreatClr relative to R-iohexClr was poor despite a good precision (10.3%).ConclusionsOur study shows a high level of agreement between Cim-CreatClr and P-iohexClr. These results suggest that this short Cim-CreatClr procedure is a valid method for GFR measurement, which might be useful, in particular, in situations in which P-iohexClr is not suitable or not available.
| S-EPMC7467603 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMeasuring glomerular filtration rate (GFR) using iohexol plasma clearance has been proposed as the preferred way for GFR determination. The extended multiple-sample protocol is based on fitting the full concentration-time decay-curve, and from the obtained fit-parameters, the area under the curve (AUC) and GFR (the injected dose divided by the AUC) were calculated. The goal of the current study is to evaluate the impact of different fitting procedures on the precision of GFR-results obtained from the full concentration-time curve, and compare these results with those obtained with simplified multiple-samples and single-sample protocols.MethodsThe concentration-time curves of 8 samples at times 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, 240 and 300 min after bolus injection of iohexol of 570 adults, aged 70+, from the Berlin Initiative Study (BIS), were analysed. The fit-parameters for the two-compartment model (double-exponential decay curve), and from these, the AUC and GFR were obtained with 8 different fitting procedures.ResultsThe two-compartmental non-linear least squares fitting procedure showed the best accuracy (541 out of 570 reported GFR-results were within 5% of the majority of the 8 fitting methods). The two-compartmental slope-intercept fitting procedure was not always applicable and the non-compartmental fitting procedures did not always allow to calculate the GFR. All correction formulas for the simplified late multiple-samples methods showed acceptable accuracy and precision with a preference for Ng's correction formula (Lin's CCC = 0.992, bias = 0.5 ± 2.5). Jacobsson's iterative method was the best one-sample method, with Lin's CCC = 0.983 and bias = - 0.6 ± 3.4.ConclusionThe fitting procedure has an important impact on the precision of the calculated AUC and GFR. The simplified late-sample protocols and one-sample methods did not suffer from fitting problems and showed acceptable equivalence when compared to the full compartment GFR-results.Trial registrationThe "Berlin Initiative Study" is officially registered with the German Register for Clinical Studies ("Deutschen Register Klinischer Studien"(DRKS)) under registration number DRKS00017058 , since April 12, 2019, and it is also visible on the WHO clinical trials registry platform (within the next 4 weeks after the registration date).
| S-EPMC8101203 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11210064 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Early diagnosis of kidney diseases in avian species is limited. Endogenous markers currently used in avian practice are not sensitive enough to identify early kidney failure. Consequently, alternative markers should be evaluated. To be able to evaluate these alternative markers, an accurate marker to estimate the GFR should be validated. This study determined the GFR, measured as clearance of exogenous creatinine and exo-iohexol, in six different bird species, i.e. broiler chickens, laying chickens, turkeys, Muscovy ducks, pigeons and African grey parrots (4♀/4♂). To be able to compare the six bird species, normalization to bodyweight (BW) of the GFR was performed, after a good correlation between BW and kidney weight was demonstrated (R² = 0.9836). Clearance of exo-iohexol normalized to BW (mL/min/kg) was determined in all bird species, i.e. 3.09 in broiler chickens; 2.57 in laying chickens; 1.94 in turkeys; 1.29 in pigeons; 2.60 in ducks and 1.11 in parrots. However, these results differed significantly with the clearance of exogenous creatinine: 8.41 in broiler chickens; 9.33 in laying chickens; 5.62 in turkeys; 14.97 in pigeons; 17.59 in ducks and 25.56 in parrots 25.56. Iohexol is preferred to measure the GFR, since it is not prone to tubular reabsorption nor secretion.
| S-EPMC6928228 | biostudies-literature