Autosomal polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) is the most common genetic form of kidney failure, reflecting unmet needs in management. Prescription of the only approved treatment (tolvaptan) is limited to persons with rapidly progressing ADPKD. Rapid progression may be diagnosed by assessing glomerular filtration rate (GFR) decline, usually estimated (eGFR) from equations based on serum creatinine (eGFRcr) or cystatin-C (eGFRcys). We have assessed the concordance between eGFR decline and identification of rapid progression (rapid eGFR loss), and measured GFR (mGFR) declines (rapid mGFR loss) using iohexol clearance in 140 adults with ADPKD with ≥3 mGFR and eGFRcr assessments, of which 97 also had eGFRcys assessments. The agreement between mGFR and eGFR decline was poor: mean concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs) between the method declines were low (0.661, range 0.628 to 0.713), and Bland and Altman limits of agreement between eGFR and mGFR declines were wide. CCC was lower for eGFRcys. From a practical point of view, creatinine-based formulas failed to detect rapid mGFR loss (-3 mL/min/y or faster) in around 37% of the cases. Moreover, formulas falsely indicated around 40% of the cases with moderate or stable decline as rapid progressors. The reliability of formulas in detecting real mGFR decline was lower in the non-rapid-progressors group with respect to that in rapid-progressor patients. The performance of eGFRcys and eGFRcr-cys equations was even worse. In conclusion, eGFR decline may misrepresent mGFR decline in ADPKD in a significant percentage of patients, potentially misclassifying them as progressors or non-progressors and impacting decisions of initiation of tolvaptan therapy.

BACKGROUND: At present, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) remains the most frequently utilized parameter in the evaluation of kidney injury severity. Numerous equations have been formulated based on serum creatinine (Scr) or serum cystatin C (Cysc) levels. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding the efficacy of these equations in assessing eGFR, particularly for elderly individuals in China. This study aimed to evaluate the applicability of the MDRD, MDRDc, CKD-EPI series, BIS1, and FAS equations within the Chinese elderly population.
METHODS: A cohort of 298 elderly patients with measured GFR (mGFR) was enrolled. The patients were categorized into three subgroups based on their mGFR levels. The eGFR performance was examined, taking into account bias, interquartile range (IQR), accuracy P30, and root-mean-square error (RMSE). Bland-Altman plots were employed to verify the validity of eGFR.
RESULTS: The participants had a median age of 71 years, with 167 (56.0%) being male. Overall, no significant differences in bias were observed among the seven equations (P > 0.05). In terms of IQR, P30, and RMSE, the BIS1 equation demonstrated superior accuracy (14.61, 72.1%, and 13.53, respectively). When mGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 m2, all equations underestimated the true GFR, with the highest accuracy reaching only 59%. Bland-Altman plots indicated that the BIS1 equation exhibited the highest accuracy, featuring a 95% confidence interval (CI) width of 52.37.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggested that the BIS1 equation stands out as the most applicable for estimating GFR in Chinese elderly patients with normal renal function or only moderate decline. 2020NL-085-03, 2020.08.10, retrospectively registered.

Cadmium (Cd) is a pervasive, toxic environmental pollutant that preferentially accumulates in the tubular epithelium of the kidney. Current evidence suggests that the cumulative burden of Cd here leads to the progressive loss of the glomerular filtration rate (GFR). In this study, we have quantified changes in estimated GFR (eGFR) and albumin excretion (Ealb) according to the levels of blood Cd ([Cd]b) and excretion of Cd (ECd) after adjustment for confounders. ECd and Ealb were normalized to creatinine clearance (Ccr) as ECd/Ccr and Ealb/Ccr. Among 482 residents of Cd-polluted and non-polluted regions of Thailand, 8.1% had low eGFR and 16.9% had albuminuria (Ealb/Ccr) × 100 ≥ 20 mg/L filtrate. In the low Cd burden group, (ECd/Ccr) × 100 < 1.44 µg/L filtrate, eGFR did not correlate with ECd/Ccr (β = 0.007) while an inverse association with ECd/Ccr was found in the medium (β = -0.230) and high burden groups (β = -0.349). Prevalence odds ratios (POR) for low eGFR were increased in the medium (POR 8.26) and high Cd burden groups (POR 3.64). Also, eGFR explained a significant proportion of Ealb/Ccr variation among those with middle (η2 0.093) and high [Cd]b tertiles (η2 0.132) but did not with low tertiles (η2 0.001). With an adjustment of eGFR, age and BMI, the POR values for albuminuria were increased in the middle (POR 2.36) and high [Cd]b tertiles (POR 2.74) and those with diabetes (POR 6.02) and hypertension (2.05). These data indicate that (ECd/Ccr) × 100 of 1.44 µg/L filtrate (0.01-0.02 µg/g creatinine) may serve as a Cd threshold level based on which protective exposure guidelines should be formulated.

UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: Cross-sectional analysis.
UNASSIGNED: Four thousand fifty participants with measured glomerular filtration rate (mGFR) from 12 studies in North America and Europe.
UNASSIGNED: Serum creatinine and serum cystatin C.
UNASSIGNED: Performance of creatinine-based and cystatin C-based glomerular filtration rate estimating equations compared to mGFR.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: Few participants with major comorbid conditions.
UNASSIGNED: 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.

Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is thought to be the best overall indicator of kidney health. On an individual patient basis, a working knowledge of GFR is important to understand the future risk for chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression, enhanced risk for cardiovascular disease and death, and for optimal medical management including the dosing of certain drugs. Although GFR can be directly measured using exogenous compounds that are eliminated by the kidney, these methods are not scalable for repeated and routine use in clinical care. Thus, in most circumstances GFR is estimated, termed estimated GFR (eGFR), using serum biomarkers that are eliminated by the kidney. Of these, serum creatinine, and to a lesser extent cystatin C, are most widely employed. However, the resulting number is simply a population average for an individual of that age and sex with a given serum creatinine and/or cystatin C, while the range of potential GFR values is actually quite large. Thus, it is important to consider characteristics of a given patient that might make this estimate better or worse in a particular case. In some circumstances, cystatin C or creatinine might be the better choice. Ultimately it is difficult, if not impossible, to have an eGFR equation that performs equally well in all populations. Thus, in certain cases it might be appropriate to directly measure GFR for high consequence medical decision-making, such as approval for kidney donation or prior to certain chemotherapeutic regimens. In all cases, the eGFR thresholds of CKD stage should not be viewed as absolute numbers. Thus, clinical care should not be determined solely by CKD stage as determined by eGFR alone, but rather by the combination of an individual patient\'s likely kidney function together with their current clinical situation.

UNASSIGNED: Recent studies evaluated and proposed new race-neutral, creatinine-based glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimation equations. The performance of these equations in diverse potential living kidney donors requires study.
UNASSIGNED: Cross-sectional study.
UNASSIGNED: 637 potential living kidney donors from one tertiary hospital with serum creatinine concentration measurement and GFR measurement by iohexol plasma clearance between October 2016 and December 2020.
UNASSIGNED: Creatinine-based estimation of GFR by Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (2009, CKDEPI09; 2021, CKDEPI21) and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equations with and without inclusion of race coefficient, where applicable.
UNASSIGNED: Equation bias, precision, accuracy, and accurate classification of GFR as equal to and above or below 80 mL/min/1.73 m2.
UNASSIGNED: GFR estimation equation performance compared to measured GFR (mGFR) by iohexol clearance.
UNASSIGNED: The median bias of the CKDEPI21 equation underestimated mGFR by 2.8 mL/min/1.73 m2. The bias in the Black subgroup underestimated mGFR by 9.0 mL/min/1.73 m2. Compared to CKDEPI09 with and without race adjustment, the accuracy of CKDEPI21 increased across all subgroups. On average, 3.9% of individuals were misclassified by CKDEPI21 as having a GFR greater than, and 8.9% misclassified less than, 80 mL/min/1.73 m2, compared to 3.1% and 13.2% for CKDEPI09 with race adjustment, respectively. Total misclassification (either above or below 80 mL/min/1.73 m2) was 16.3% for CKDEPI21 and 16.0% for CKDEPI09 (with race adjustment).
UNASSIGNED: Limited sample of individuals identifying as Black. Lack of cystatin C data.
UNASSIGNED: In our potential living donor sample, GFR estimation by creatinine-based CKDEPI21 is less biased and more accurate than previous creatinine-based estimated GFR equations. When evaluated by race, this summative improvement remains in individuals identifying as Asian, Hispanic, or White. More external validation is needed to assess whether the new equation is an improvement over the previous CKDEPI equation with a race coefficient.

In the last decades, improvements in the average life expectancy in the world population have been associated with a significant increase in the proportion of elderly people, in parallel with a higher prevalence of non-communicable diseases, such as hypertension and diabetes. As the kidney is a common target organ of a variety of diseases, an adequate evaluation of renal function in the approach of this population is of special relevance. It is also known that the kidneys undergo aging-related changes expressed by a decline in the glomerular filtration rate (GFR), reflecting the loss of kidney function, either by a natural senescence process associated with healthy aging or by the length of exposure to diseases with potential kidney damage. Accurate assessment of renal function in the older population is of particular importance to evaluate the degree of kidney function loss, enabling tailored therapeutic interventions. The present review addresses a relevant topic, which is the effects of aging on renal function. In order to do that, we analyze and discuss age-related structural and functional changes. The text also examines the different options for evaluating GFR, from the use of direct methods to the implementation of several estimating equations. Finally, this manuscript supports clinicians in the interpretation of GFR changes associated with age and the management of the older patients with decreased kidney function.

暂无摘要。

The study aimed to evaluate the performance of a predictive model using the kidney failure risk equation (KFRE) for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in diabetes and to investigate the impact of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) as estimated by different equations on the performance of the KFRE model in diabetes.
A total of 18,928 individuals with diabetes without ESRD history from the UK Biobank, a prospective cohort study initiated in 2006-2010, were included in this study. Modification of diet in renal disease (MDRD), chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration (CKD-EPI) or revised Lund-Malmö (r-LM) were used to estimate GFR in the KFRE model. Cox proportional risk regression was used to determine the correlation coefficients between each variable and ESRD risk in each model. Harrell\'s C-index and net reclassification improvement (NRI) index were used to evaluate the differentiation of the models. Analysis was repeated in subgroups based on albuminuria and hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) levels.
Overall, 132 of the 18,928 patients developed ESRD after a median follow-up of 12 years. The Harrell\'s C-index based on GFR estimated by CKD-EPI, MDRD, and r-LM was 0.914 (95% CI = 0.8812-0.9459), 0.908 (95% CI = 0.8727-0.9423), and 0.917 (95% CI = 0.8837-0.9496), respectively. Subgroup analysis revealed that in diabetic patients with macroalbuminuria, the KFRE model based on GFR estimated by r-LM (KFRE-eGFRr-LM) had better differentiation compared to the KFRE model based on GFR estimated by CKD-EPI (KFRE-eGFRCKD-EPI) with a KFRE-eGFRr-LM C-index of 0.846 (95% CI = 0.797-0.894, p = 0.025), while the KFRE model based on GFR estimated by MDRD (KFRE-eGFRMDRD) showed no significant difference compared to the KFRE-eGFRCKD-EPI (KFRE-eGFRMDRD C-index of 0.837, 95% CI = 0.785-0.889, p = 0.765). Subgroup analysis of poor glycemic control (HbA1c >8.5%) demonstrated the same trend. Compared to KFRE-eGFRCKD-EPI (C-index = 0.925, 95% CI = 0.874-0.976), KFRE-eGFRr-LM had a C-index of 0.935 (95% CI = 0.888-0.982, p = 0.071), and KFRE-eGFRMDRD had a C-index of 0.925 (95% CI = 0.874-0.976, p = 0.498).
In adults with diabetes, the r-LM equation performs better than the CKD-EPI and MDRD equations in the KFRE model for predicting ESRD, especially for those with macroalbuminuria and poor glycemic control (HbA1c >8.5%).

Kidney transplantation (KT) is the treatment of choice for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) with decreased morbi-mortality, improved life quality, and reduced cost. However, the shortage of organs from deceased donors led to an increase in KT from living donors. Some stipulate that living donors have a higher risk of ESKD after donation compared with healthy non-donors. The reason for this is not clear. It is possible that ESKD is due to the nephrectomy-related reduction in glomerular filtration rate (GFR), followed by an age-related decline that may be more rapid in related donors. It is essential to assess donors properly to avoid rejecting suitable ones and not accepting those with a higher risk of ESKD. GFR is a central aspect of the evaluation of potential donors since there is an association between low GFR and ESKD. The methods for assessing GFR are in continuous debate, and the kidney function thresholds for accepting a donor may vary according to the guidelines. While direct measurements of GFR (mGFR) provide the most accurate evaluation of kidney function, guidelines do not systematically use this measurement as a reference. Also, some studies have shown that the GFR decreases with age and may vary with gender and race, therefore, the lower limit of GFR in patients eligible to donate may vary based on these demographic factors. Finally, it is known that CrCl overestimates mGFR while eGFR underestimates it, therefore, another way to have a reliable GFR could be the combination of two measurement methods.