eGFR在活体肾移植供者资格评估中的不准确性。

IF 6.3 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Sarrah Lahorewala, Zheng Yin, Jacob Kinskey, Shane A Bobart, Angelina Edwards, Paul Christensen, Roger L Bertholf, Xin Yi
{"title":"eGFR在活体肾移植供者资格评估中的不准确性。","authors":"Sarrah Lahorewala, Zheng Yin, Jacob Kinskey, Shane A Bobart, Angelina Edwards, Paul Christensen, Roger L Bertholf, Xin Yi","doi":"10.1093/clinchem/hvaf071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Accurate glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimation is crucial for evaluating living kidney donors, especially when measured GFR (mGFR) is unavailable. This study compares the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI), full age spectrum (FAS), and European Kidney Function Consortium (EKFC) creatinine- and/or cystatin C-based estimated GFR (eGFR) equations against iohexol mGFR to determine the optimal equation for donor eligibility assessment in a US population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>1210 kidney donor candidates were retrospectively analyzed, comparing eGFR equations based on creatinine, cystatin C, or both against iohexol mGFR. Accuracy metrics (P10, P30, mean bias) and subgroup analyses for Black donors and age-based bias were evaluated. The classification performance of eGFR equations in donor eligibility was examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 2021 CKD-EPIcr [AS (age, sex)] demonstrated the best accuracy across the overall cohort (P10 48.2%, P30 93.2%, mean bias -4.8 mL/min/1.73 m²). The 2021 CKD-EPIcr-cys (AS) excelled in Black donors (P10 60.3%, P30 95.4%, mean bias -3.6 mL/min/1.73 m²). Cystatin C-based equations showed higher negative bias, with the largest underestimation observed in older donors. All equations demonstrated <35% positive predictive value (PPV) for rejecting ineligible donors (<60 mL/min/1.73 m²) but >85% PPV in determining acceptable donors (≥90 mL/min/1.73 m²). Overall, 2021 CKD-EPIcr-cys (AS) was the most reliable for identifying acceptable donors (F1 score 83.9 at ≥90 mL/min/1.73 m²). Using age/sex-specific thresholds improved performance of all equations in donor eligibility classification compared to absolute thresholds.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>No eGFR equation reliably rejected ineligible donors. 2021 CKD-EPIcr-cys (AS) exhibited the best overall performance for donor eligibility assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":10690,"journal":{"name":"Clinical chemistry","volume":" ","pages":"870-883"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"eGFR Inaccuracy in the Assessment of Living Kidney Transplant Donor Eligibility.\",\"authors\":\"Sarrah Lahorewala, Zheng Yin, Jacob Kinskey, Shane A Bobart, Angelina Edwards, Paul Christensen, Roger L Bertholf, Xin Yi\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/clinchem/hvaf071\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Accurate glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimation is crucial for evaluating living kidney donors, especially when measured GFR (mGFR) is unavailable. This study compares the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI), full age spectrum (FAS), and European Kidney Function Consortium (EKFC) creatinine- and/or cystatin C-based estimated GFR (eGFR) equations against iohexol mGFR to determine the optimal equation for donor eligibility assessment in a US population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>1210 kidney donor candidates were retrospectively analyzed, comparing eGFR equations based on creatinine, cystatin C, or both against iohexol mGFR. Accuracy metrics (P10, P30, mean bias) and subgroup analyses for Black donors and age-based bias were evaluated. The classification performance of eGFR equations in donor eligibility was examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 2021 CKD-EPIcr [AS (age, sex)] demonstrated the best accuracy across the overall cohort (P10 48.2%, P30 93.2%, mean bias -4.8 mL/min/1.73 m²). The 2021 CKD-EPIcr-cys (AS) excelled in Black donors (P10 60.3%, P30 95.4%, mean bias -3.6 mL/min/1.73 m²). Cystatin C-based equations showed higher negative bias, with the largest underestimation observed in older donors. All equations demonstrated <35% positive predictive value (PPV) for rejecting ineligible donors (<60 mL/min/1.73 m²) but >85% PPV in determining acceptable donors (≥90 mL/min/1.73 m²). Overall, 2021 CKD-EPIcr-cys (AS) was the most reliable for identifying acceptable donors (F1 score 83.9 at ≥90 mL/min/1.73 m²). Using age/sex-specific thresholds improved performance of all equations in donor eligibility classification compared to absolute thresholds.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>No eGFR equation reliably rejected ineligible donors. 2021 CKD-EPIcr-cys (AS) exhibited the best overall performance for donor eligibility assessment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10690,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical chemistry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"870-883\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical chemistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvaf071\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical chemistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvaf071","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:准确的肾小球滤过率(GFR)估计对于评估活体肾脏供者至关重要,特别是当无法测量GFR (mGFR)时。本研究比较了慢性肾脏疾病流行病学合作(CKD-EPI)、全年龄谱(FAS)和欧洲肾功能联盟(EKFC)基于肌酐和/或胱氨酸抑制素c的估计GFR (eGFR)方程和碘醇mGFR,以确定美国人群供体资格评估的最佳方程。方法:回顾性分析1210名候选肾供者,比较基于肌酐、胱抑素C或两者的eGFR方程与碘醇mGFR。评估黑人献血者的准确性指标(P10, P30,平均偏倚)和亚组分析以及基于年龄的偏倚。对eGFR方程在供体资格方面的分类性能进行了检验。结果:2021年CKD-EPIcr [AS(年龄,性别)]在整个队列中显示出最好的准确性(P10 48.2%, P30 93.2%,平均偏差-4.8 mL/min/1.73 m²)。2021年CKD-EPIcr-cys (AS)在黑人供者中表现出色(P10 60.3%, P30 95.4%,平均偏差-3.6 mL/min/1.73 m²)。基于胱抑素c的方程显示出更高的负偏倚,在老年供者中观察到最大的低估。所有方程式在确定可接受供体(≥90 mL/min/1.73 m²)时均显示出85%的PPV。总体而言,2021 CKD-EPIcr-cys (AS)在识别可接受供体方面是最可靠的(≥90 mL/min/1.73 m²时F1评分为83.9)。与绝对阈值相比,使用年龄/性别特异性阈值提高了供体资格分类中所有方程的性能。结论:没有eGFR方程可靠地拒绝不合格的献血者。2021 CKD-EPIcr-cys (AS)在供体资格评估中表现出最佳的整体表现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
eGFR Inaccuracy in the Assessment of Living Kidney Transplant Donor Eligibility.

Background: Accurate glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimation is crucial for evaluating living kidney donors, especially when measured GFR (mGFR) is unavailable. This study compares the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI), full age spectrum (FAS), and European Kidney Function Consortium (EKFC) creatinine- and/or cystatin C-based estimated GFR (eGFR) equations against iohexol mGFR to determine the optimal equation for donor eligibility assessment in a US population.

Methods: 1210 kidney donor candidates were retrospectively analyzed, comparing eGFR equations based on creatinine, cystatin C, or both against iohexol mGFR. Accuracy metrics (P10, P30, mean bias) and subgroup analyses for Black donors and age-based bias were evaluated. The classification performance of eGFR equations in donor eligibility was examined.

Results: The 2021 CKD-EPIcr [AS (age, sex)] demonstrated the best accuracy across the overall cohort (P10 48.2%, P30 93.2%, mean bias -4.8 mL/min/1.73 m²). The 2021 CKD-EPIcr-cys (AS) excelled in Black donors (P10 60.3%, P30 95.4%, mean bias -3.6 mL/min/1.73 m²). Cystatin C-based equations showed higher negative bias, with the largest underestimation observed in older donors. All equations demonstrated <35% positive predictive value (PPV) for rejecting ineligible donors (<60 mL/min/1.73 m²) but >85% PPV in determining acceptable donors (≥90 mL/min/1.73 m²). Overall, 2021 CKD-EPIcr-cys (AS) was the most reliable for identifying acceptable donors (F1 score 83.9 at ≥90 mL/min/1.73 m²). Using age/sex-specific thresholds improved performance of all equations in donor eligibility classification compared to absolute thresholds.

Conclusions: No eGFR equation reliably rejected ineligible donors. 2021 CKD-EPIcr-cys (AS) exhibited the best overall performance for donor eligibility assessment.

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
Clinical chemistry
Clinical chemistry 医学-医学实验技术
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
4.30%
发文量
212
审稿时长
1.7 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Chemistry is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that is the premier publication for the science and practice of clinical laboratory medicine. It was established in 1955 and is associated with the Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine (ADLM). The journal focuses on laboratory diagnosis and management of patients, and has expanded to include other clinical laboratory disciplines such as genomics, hematology, microbiology, and toxicology. It also publishes articles relevant to clinical specialties including cardiology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, genetics, immunology, infectious diseases, maternal-fetal medicine, neurology, nutrition, oncology, and pediatrics. In addition to original research, editorials, and reviews, Clinical Chemistry features recurring sections such as clinical case studies, perspectives, podcasts, and Q&A articles. It has the highest impact factor among journals of clinical chemistry, laboratory medicine, pathology, analytical chemistry, transfusion medicine, and clinical microbiology. The journal is indexed in databases such as MEDLINE and Web of Science.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信