Search

Background: In clinical practice, the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is often estimated from plasma creatinine. Several studies have shown cystatin C (cys C) to be a better parameter for the diagnosis of impaired renal function. No data are available, however, on the performance of cys C in follow-up of patients, compared with creatinine. Also, comparisons of cys C with the Cockcroft and Gault (C&G) formula for estimation of GFR are few., Methods: Plasma samples were obtained from 93 consecutive patients seen for GFR determination and from 30 patients with diabetes mellitus type 2, of whom 23 were investigated a second time after 2 years. GFR was determined with [125I]iothalamate. Plasma creatinine was determined enzymatically and the creatinine clearance calculated according to C&G. Cys C was measured with a particle-enhanced immunonephelometric method., Results: GFR correlated with 1/cys C (r = 0.873) as well as with C&G (r = 0.876). The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating curves (ROCs), a measure of diagnostic accuracy, for cys C (0.931) and C&G (0.938) were equal (P = 0.815) and both better than the creatinine AUC (0.848; P = 0.006). Bland and Altman analysis showed that the simple formula GFR = -4.32 + 80.35 x 1/cys C, derived from our data, gave more accurate (P < 0.0001) and more precise (P = 0.024) GFR estimates than obtained with the C&G formula. The day-to-day variation (biological +analytical) for cys C was small (3.1%, SD 2.51%) in diabetic patients. In the follow-up study in diabetic patients, cys C was the parameter which had the best correlation (r = 0.66) with changes in GFR., Conclusions: Cys C shows a high correlation with GFR. With a very simple formula, cys C gives a good estimate of GFR, more accurate and precise than C&G. Because biological variation is low, cys C gives also a good assessment of GFR changes during follow-up. Cys C is the preferred endogenous parameter for GFR.

Background: Estimation of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) from plasma creatinine concentration after inhibition of tubular creatinine secretion with cimetidine provides a good assessment in patients with various nephropathies and with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM). The aim of this study was to compare cimetidine-aided GFR estimations using various creatinine assays., Methods: In 30 outpatients with NIDDM GFR was measured as the urinary clearance of continuously infused [125I]iothalamate. Plasma creatinine concentration was analysed after oral cimetidine with an alkaline picrate (AP) method, with an enzymatic (PAP) assay and with HPLC. GFR estimations were calculated with the Cockcroft Gault formula (CG)., Results: AP creatinine concentrations were significantly higher than PAP or HPLC values. GFR estimations by AP (CG(AP) 66 +/- 19 ml/min/1.73 m2, mean SD) were significantly lower than GFR (89 +/- 30), whereas CG(PAP) (85 +/- 30) and CG(HPLC) (84 +/- 34 ml/min/1.73 m2) were not. Bland and Altman analysis showed a difference between CG(AP) and GFR of -22.4 +/- 17.7 ml/min/1.73 m2; this difference becomes larger when the GFR increases. The difference between CG and GFR was only -3.8 +/- 14.8 ml/min/1.73 m2 for PAP and -4.4 +/- 17.5 ml/min/1.73 m2 for HPLC, without any systematic difference., Conclusion: A good assessment of the GFR from plasma creatinine after cimetidine administration is possible when creatinine is measured with an enzymatic assay or with the less convenient HPLC method. The more widespread and cheaper alkaline picrate assay is not suitable for GFR-estimation.