Search

IntroductionBiomarkers of acute kidney injury (AKI) are often indexed to urine creatinine (UCr) or urine osmolarity (UOsm) to control for urine concentration. We evaluated how these approaches affect the biomarker-outcome association in patients with AKI.MethodsThe Assessment, Serial Evaluation, and Subsequent Sequelae in Acute Kidney Injury Study was a cohort of hospitalized patients with and without AKI between 2009 and 2015. Using Cox proportional hazards regression, we assessed the associations and predictions (C-statistics) of urine biomarkers with a composite outcome of incident chronic kidney disease (CKD) and CKD progression. We used 4 approaches to account for urine concentration: indexing and adjusting for UCr and UOsm.ResultsAmong 1538 participants, 769 (50%) had AKI and 300 (19.5%) developed composite CKD outcome at median follow-up of 4.7 years. UCr and UOsm during hospitalization were inversely associated with the composite CKD outcome. The associations and predictions with CKD were significantly strengthened after indexing or adjusting for UCr or UOsm for urine kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1), interleukin-18 (IL-18), and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1) in patients with AKI. There was no significant improvement with indexing or adjusting UCr or UOsm for albumin, neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL), and chitinase 3-like 1 (YKL-40). Uromodulin's (UMOD) inverse association with the outcome was significantly blunted after indexing but not adjusting for UCr or UOsm.ConclusionUCr and UOsm during hospitalization are inversely associated with development and progression of CKD. Indexing or adjusting for UCr or UOsm strengthened associations and improved predictions for CKD for only some biomarkers. Incorporating urinary concentration should be individualized for each biomarker in research and clinical applications.

Introduction: As part of the precision medicine initiative, the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive Kidney Diseases has proposed collecting human kidney tissue to discover novel therapeutic targets from patients with kidney diseases. Patient attitudes on participating in kidney biopsy-based research are largely unknown., Methods: We evaluated attitudes toward donating kidney tissue to research among participants who had experienced a clinically indicated kidney biopsy, through a survey conducted 9 months (interquartile range, 5-13 months) after their biopsy., Results: Of the 177 participants contacted, 117 (66%) participated in the survey. A total of 85 participants (73%) reported that they would allow additional needle passes during a clinically indicated biopsy to donate kidney tissue for research. As reasons for participating in such a study, the participants reported the desire to help others and to contribute to science, and the lack of additional burden while participating in such a study. In a multivariable logistic model, older and African American participants had lower odds of allowing an additional pass for research (odds ratio: age ≥65 years [vs. ≤40], 0.15 [95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.73]; African Americans (vs. all others), 0.15 [95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.44]). However, participants' self-reported biopsy complications such as pain, anxiety, and hematuria did not affect their willingness to allow additional passes. A total of 23 participants (20%) stated that they would agree to undergo a biopsy for research even if it was not clinically indicated., Conclusion: Among patients who had experienced a kidney biopsy, a majority were amenable to additional needle passes to donate kidney tissue for research during a future, clinically indicated biopsy, whereas a minority would undergo a biopsy for research purpose only.