肾小球滤过率、血清胱抑素C、β -2微球蛋白和蛋白尿对死亡和慢性肾病进展的预后价值比较

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Isis Cerezo, Barbara Cancho, Jorge Alberto Rodriguez Sabillon, Alberto Jorge, Alvaro Alvarez Lopez, Julian Valladares, Juan Lopez Gomez, Jorge Romero, Nicolas Roberto Robles
{"title":"肾小球滤过率、血清胱抑素C、β -2微球蛋白和蛋白尿对死亡和慢性肾病进展的预后价值比较","authors":"Isis Cerezo,&nbsp;Barbara Cancho,&nbsp;Jorge Alberto Rodriguez Sabillon,&nbsp;Alberto Jorge,&nbsp;Alvaro Alvarez Lopez,&nbsp;Julian Valladares,&nbsp;Juan Lopez Gomez,&nbsp;Jorge Romero,&nbsp;Nicolas Roberto Robles","doi":"10.1002/jcla.25139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aims</h3>\n \n <p>Serum creatinine and albuminuria are the core of most CKD prediction and progression risk models. Several biomarkers have been introduced to improve these results such as beta-2-microglobulin (B2M) and cystatin C (CysC). Nevertheless, few clinical comparisons of these biomarkers are available. We have compared serum B2M levels with albuminuria, CysC levels, and the CKD-EPI GFR equations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Designs and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A sample of 434 patients were studied: 234 males and 200 females, the mean age was 58.3 ± 15.0 years, and 33.4% have diabetes mellitus. In all patients, plasma B2M, CysC, creatinine, and urinary albumin excretion were analyzed. EGFR was calculated using CKD-EPI equations for creatinine, CysC, and creatinine-CysC. The risk of death and CKD progression was evaluated using ROC curves and Cox proportional hazards survivorship models.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>For mortality, the highest area under the curve (AUC) was for CysC (0.775, 0.676–0.875). The lowest sensitivity was shown by eGFR (creatinine) (0.298, 0.195–0.401, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), eGFR (CysC) (0.216, 0.118–0.314, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), and eGFR (creatinine + CysS) (0.218, 0.124–0.312, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). For progression to advanced CKD, the highest AUC was for CysC (0.908, 0.862–0.954). The lowest sensitivity was shown by eGFR (creatinine) (0.184, 0.106–0.261, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), eGFR (CysC) (0.095, 0.048–0.14, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), and eGFR (creatinine+ CysC) (0.087, 0.040–0.134, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). CysC, after age, was the second-best marker of life risk. Contrariwise, for CKD progression, CysC, and albuminuria were the best markers.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The best biomarker of mortality and risk of progression to CKD was CysC. Albuminuria and B2M were the next best options to be used. The lowest sensitivity was shown by estimated eGFR.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15509,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11776497/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Prognostic Value of Glomerular Filtration Rate, Serum Cystatin C, Beta-2-Microglobulin and Albuminuria for Death and Chronic Kidney Disease Progression\",\"authors\":\"Isis Cerezo,&nbsp;Barbara Cancho,&nbsp;Jorge Alberto Rodriguez Sabillon,&nbsp;Alberto Jorge,&nbsp;Alvaro Alvarez Lopez,&nbsp;Julian Valladares,&nbsp;Juan Lopez Gomez,&nbsp;Jorge Romero,&nbsp;Nicolas Roberto Robles\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jcla.25139\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aims</h3>\\n \\n <p>Serum creatinine and albuminuria are the core of most CKD prediction and progression risk models. Several biomarkers have been introduced to improve these results such as beta-2-microglobulin (B2M) and cystatin C (CysC). Nevertheless, few clinical comparisons of these biomarkers are available. We have compared serum B2M levels with albuminuria, CysC levels, and the CKD-EPI GFR equations.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Designs and Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>A sample of 434 patients were studied: 234 males and 200 females, the mean age was 58.3 ± 15.0 years, and 33.4% have diabetes mellitus. In all patients, plasma B2M, CysC, creatinine, and urinary albumin excretion were analyzed. EGFR was calculated using CKD-EPI equations for creatinine, CysC, and creatinine-CysC. The risk of death and CKD progression was evaluated using ROC curves and Cox proportional hazards survivorship models.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>For mortality, the highest area under the curve (AUC) was for CysC (0.775, 0.676–0.875). The lowest sensitivity was shown by eGFR (creatinine) (0.298, 0.195–0.401, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), eGFR (CysC) (0.216, 0.118–0.314, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), and eGFR (creatinine + CysS) (0.218, 0.124–0.312, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). For progression to advanced CKD, the highest AUC was for CysC (0.908, 0.862–0.954). The lowest sensitivity was shown by eGFR (creatinine) (0.184, 0.106–0.261, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), eGFR (CysC) (0.095, 0.048–0.14, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), and eGFR (creatinine+ CysC) (0.087, 0.040–0.134, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). CysC, after age, was the second-best marker of life risk. Contrariwise, for CKD progression, CysC, and albuminuria were the best markers.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>The best biomarker of mortality and risk of progression to CKD was CysC. Albuminuria and B2M were the next best options to be used. The lowest sensitivity was shown by estimated eGFR.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15509,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis\",\"volume\":\"39 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11776497/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcla.25139\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcla.25139","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:血清肌酐和蛋白尿是大多数CKD预测和进展风险模型的核心。一些生物标志物已被引入以改善这些结果,如β -2微球蛋白(B2M)和胱抑素C (CysC)。然而,这些生物标志物的临床比较很少。我们比较了血清B2M水平与蛋白尿、CysC水平和CKD-EPI GFR方程。设计与方法:共纳入434例患者,其中男性234例,女性200例,平均年龄58.3±15.0岁,其中糖尿病患者占33.4%。分析所有患者的血浆B2M、CysC、肌酐和尿白蛋白排泄情况。使用CKD-EPI肌酐、CysC和肌酐-CysC方程计算EGFR。使用ROC曲线和Cox比例风险生存模型评估死亡和CKD进展的风险。结果:死亡率方面,CysC的曲线下面积(AUC)最高(0.775,0.676 ~ 0.875)。eGFR(肌酐)的敏感性最低(0.298,0.195-0.401,p)。结论:CysC是死亡率和CKD进展风险的最佳生物标志物。蛋白尿和B2M是次佳选择。最低的敏感性显示为估计的eGFR。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparative Prognostic Value of Glomerular Filtration Rate, Serum Cystatin C, Beta-2-Microglobulin and Albuminuria for Death and Chronic Kidney Disease Progression

Comparative Prognostic Value of Glomerular Filtration Rate, Serum Cystatin C, Beta-2-Microglobulin and Albuminuria for Death and Chronic Kidney Disease Progression

Aims

Serum creatinine and albuminuria are the core of most CKD prediction and progression risk models. Several biomarkers have been introduced to improve these results such as beta-2-microglobulin (B2M) and cystatin C (CysC). Nevertheless, few clinical comparisons of these biomarkers are available. We have compared serum B2M levels with albuminuria, CysC levels, and the CKD-EPI GFR equations.

Designs and Methods

A sample of 434 patients were studied: 234 males and 200 females, the mean age was 58.3 ± 15.0 years, and 33.4% have diabetes mellitus. In all patients, plasma B2M, CysC, creatinine, and urinary albumin excretion were analyzed. EGFR was calculated using CKD-EPI equations for creatinine, CysC, and creatinine-CysC. The risk of death and CKD progression was evaluated using ROC curves and Cox proportional hazards survivorship models.

Results

For mortality, the highest area under the curve (AUC) was for CysC (0.775, 0.676–0.875). The lowest sensitivity was shown by eGFR (creatinine) (0.298, 0.195–0.401, p < 0.001), eGFR (CysC) (0.216, 0.118–0.314, p < 0.001), and eGFR (creatinine + CysS) (0.218, 0.124–0.312, p < 0.001). For progression to advanced CKD, the highest AUC was for CysC (0.908, 0.862–0.954). The lowest sensitivity was shown by eGFR (creatinine) (0.184, 0.106–0.261, p < 0.001), eGFR (CysC) (0.095, 0.048–0.14, p < 0.001), and eGFR (creatinine+ CysC) (0.087, 0.040–0.134, p < 0.001). CysC, after age, was the second-best marker of life risk. Contrariwise, for CKD progression, CysC, and albuminuria were the best markers.

Conclusions

The best biomarker of mortality and risk of progression to CKD was CysC. Albuminuria and B2M were the next best options to be used. The lowest sensitivity was shown by estimated eGFR.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis
Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis 医学-医学实验技术
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
7.40%
发文量
584
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis publishes original articles on newly developing modes of technology and laboratory assays, with emphasis on their application in current and future clinical laboratory testing. This includes reports from the following fields: immunochemistry and toxicology, hematology and hematopathology, immunopathology, molecular diagnostics, microbiology, genetic testing, immunohematology, and clinical chemistry.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信