Search

Background: Clinicians caring for kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) most commonly use estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) to guide medication dosing as it is the most readily available measure of kidney function. Which eGFR equations provide the most accurate medication dosing guidance for KTRs remains uncertain., Methods: We studied 415 stable KTRs in Canada and New Zealand. Participants completed same-day measurements of creatinine and cystatin C and measured GFR (diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid). Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration, European Kidney Function Consortium, and transplant-specific eGFR equations were compared with both Cockcroft-Gault creatinine clearance (CrCl) and measured GFR. eGFR equations were assessed both indexed to a standardized body surface area (BSA) of 1.73 m 2 (milliliter per minute per 1.73 m 2 , as is conventional reporting from most clinical laboratories) and nonindexed (milliliter per minute) accounting for actual BSA. The primary outcome was the proportion of medication dosing discordance relative to Cockcroft-Gault CrCl or measured GFR for 8 commonly prescribed medications. Stratified analyses were performed on the basis of obesity status., Results: Nonindexed eGFR equations (milliliter per minute) resulted in substantially lower medication dosing discordance compared with indexed eGFR equations (milliliter per minute per 1.73 m 2 ). These findings were most pronounced among KTRs with obesity, in whom underdosing was frequent. When compared with Cockcroft-Gault CrCl, the lowest proportion of discordance was found with the nonindexed 2023 transplant-specific equation. When compared with measured GFR, the lowest proportion of discordance was found with the nonindexed 2021 Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration Cr/CysC equation., Conclusions: Nonindexed eGFR values accounting for actual BSA should be used by clinicians for medication dosing in KTRs. These findings may inform KT providers about which eGFR equations provide the safest, most accurate medication dosing guidance for KTRs., Competing Interests: A.A. received speaker fees from AstraZeneca and holds research grants from Otsuka, all outside of the submitted work. M.M.S. received speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Otsuka, Bayer, and GlaxoSmithKline, all outside of the submitted work. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rationale & Objective: Race-free estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) equations incorporating creatinine with and without cystatin C were recently developed and recommended for routine use. However, the performance of these equations among kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) remains unknown., Study Design: Cross-sectional study to validate the 2021 race-free Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) eGFR equation based on creatinine alone (eGFR cr ) or based on creatinine and cystatin C (eGFR cr-cys ) among KTRs., Setting & Participants: KTRs in stable condition (N = 415) from Canada and New Zealand with same-day measurements of creatinine, cystatin C, and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) using radiolabeled diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid., Tests Compared: The 2009 CKD-EPI eGFR cr , 2021 CKD-EPI eGFR cr , 2012 CKD-EPI eGFR cr-cys , 2021 CKD-EPI eGFR cr-cys , 2012 CKD-EPI eGFR cys , and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study eGFR equations were compared with measured GFR., Outcomes: Bias, precision, accuracy, and correct classification by CKD stage. Bias was defined as the difference between estimated and measured GFR. Precision was represented by the interquartile range. Accuracy was defined as the percentages of participants with eGFRs within 10%/20%/30% (P 10 /P 20 /P 30 ) of measured GFR, root mean square error, and mean absolute error., Results: 87% of patients studied were White, 3% Black, and 10% other races. Mean measured GFR was 53 ± 19 (SD) mL/min/1.73 m 2 . The 2009 and 2021 CKD-EPI eGFR cr equations demonstrated similar median bias (-2.3 vs -0.2 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , respectively), precision (14.5 vs 14.9 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ), and accuracy (P 10 /P 20 /P 30 , 32%/65%/84% vs 33%/63%/84%). The 2012 and 2021 CKD-EPI eGFR cr-cys equations also demonstrated similar median bias (-3.6 vs 0.3 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , respectively), precision (13.3 vs 14.3 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ), and accuracy (P 10 /P 20 /P 30 , 32%/63%/80% vs 32%/67%/83%). No clear difference in performance was detected between the 2021 CKD-EPI eGFR cr and eGFR cr-cys equations among KTRs. The proportion of correct classification by CKD stage was similar across all eGFR equations., Limitations: Moderate sample size, few patients had a GFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , and the large majority of patients were White., Conclusions: Among KTRs, the 2021 race-free CKD-EPI eGFR equations perform similarly to the previous CKD-EPI equations that included race correction terms. No significant difference in performance was observed between the 2021 CKD-EPI eGFR cr and eGFR cr-cys equations in the kidney transplant population., (Copyright © 2022 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with kidney transplant failure have a high risk of hospitalization and death due to infection. The optimal use of immunosuppressants after transplant failure remains uncertain and clinical practice varies widely., Methods: This prospective cohort study enrolled patients within 21 days of starting dialysis after transplant failure in 16 Canadian centers. Immunosuppressant medication use, death, hospitalized infection, rejection of the failed allograft, and anti-HLA panel reactive antibodies were determined at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months and and then twice yearly until death, repeat transplantation, or loss to follow-up., Results: The 269 study patients were followed for a median of 558 days. There were 33 deaths, 143 patients hospitalized for infection, and 21 rejections. Most patients (65%) continued immunosuppressants, 20% continued prednisone only, and 15% discontinued all immunosuppressants. In multivariable models, patients who continued immunosuppressants had a lower risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17 to 0.93) and were not at increased risk of hospitalized infection (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 0.82 to 4.0) compared with patients who discontinued all immunosuppressants or continued prednisone only. The mean class I and class II panel reactive antibodies increased from 11% to 27% and from 25% to 47%, respectively, but did not differ by immunosuppressant use. Continuation of immunosuppressants was not protective of rejection of the failed allograft (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.22 to 2.94)., Conclusions: Prolonged use of immunosuppressants >1 year after transplant failure was not associated with a higher risk of death or hospitalized infection but was insufficient to prevent higher anti-HLA antibodies or rejection of the failed allograft., (Copyright © 2022 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

Living kidney donation provides the best outcomes (survival, cost, and quality of life) of all renal replacement modalities. Living kidney donors, on the other hand, are at the increased risk of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) after donation compared with healthy nondonors for multiple possible reasons. Extensive predonation screening is required to assess eligibility for donation to avoid the rejection of suitable candidates and minimize acceptance of donors with increased risk of ESKD. The association between the lower predonation glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and increased ESKD risk in donors highlights the relevance of GFR assessment for living kidney donor candidates. However, the method to evaluate GFR is still debated, and the thresholds of acceptable predonation GFR vary across guidelines. All guidelines favor GFR measurement with an exogenous tracer over estimated GFR, but only the British Transplant Society guidelines mandates it. While the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes Group guidelines advocates for age-independent GFR thresholds, most other guidelines propose various age-dependent GFR thresholds with resulting profound differences in assessment of donor suitability between guidelines. Many important questions are not addressed by any guidelines, including the approach to discordant GFR measurement and estimated GFR results, the use of method-specific GFR thresholds and thresholds dependent on comorbidities or race. Further data are required exploring the associations between these variables and the course of postdonation GFR. Last, GFR evaluation studies conducted in approved donors and not in those initially presenting as potential candidates are questionable regarding their suitability for potential donor evaluation.

Background: Agreement between spot and 24-hour urine protein measurements is poor in kidney transplant recipients. We investigated whether using formulae to estimate creatinine excretion rate (eCER), rather than assuming a standard creatinine excretion rate, would improve the estimation of proteinuria from spot urine samples in kidney transplant recipients., Methods: We measured 24 hour urine protein and albumin and spot albumin:creatinine (ACR) and spot protein:creatinine (PCR) in 181 Kidney transplant recipients." We utilized 6 different published formulae (Fotheringham, CKD-EPI, Cockcroft-Gault, Walser, Goldwasser and Rule) to estimate eCER and from it calculated estimated albumin and protein excretion rate (eAER and ePER). Bias, precision and accuracy (within 15%, 30% and 50%) of ACR, PCR, eAER, ePER were compared to 24-hour urine protein and albumin., Results: ACR and PCR significantly underestimated 24-hour albumin and protein excretion (ACR Bias (IQR), -5.9 mg/day; p< 0.01; PCR Bias, (IQR), -35.2 mg/day; p<0.01). None of the formulae used to calculate eAER or ePER had a bias that was significantly different from the 24-hour collection (eAER and ePER bias: Fotheringham -0.3 and 7.2, CKD-EPI 0.3 and 13.5, Cockcroft-Gault -3.2 and -13.9, Walser -1.7 and 3.1, Goldwasser -1.3 and -0.5, Rule -0.6 and 4.2 mg/day respectively. The accuracy for ACR and PCR were lower (within 30% being 38% and 43% respectively) than the corresponding values estimated by utilizing eCER (for eAER 46% to 49% and ePER 46-54%)., Conclusion: Utilizing estimated creatinine excretion to calculate eAER and ePER improves the estimation of 24-hour albuminuria/proteinuria with spot urine samples in kidney transplant recipients., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors have been shown to reduce the risk of end-stage renal disease and death in non-transplant patients with proteinuria. We examined whether ramipril would have a similar beneficial effect on important clinical outcomes in kidney transplant recipients with proteinuria., Methods: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial, conducted at 14 centres in Canada and New Zealand, we enrolled adult renal transplant recipients at least 3-months post-transplant with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 20 mL/min/1·73m(2) or greater and proteinuria 0·2 g per day or greater and randomly assigned them to receive either ramipril (5 mg orally twice daily) or placebo for up to 4 years. Patients completing the final 4-year study visit were invited to participate in a trial extension phase. Treatment was assigned by centrally generated randomisation with permuted variable blocks of 2 and 4, stratified by centre and estimated GFR (above or below 40 mL/min/1·73 m(2)). The primary outcome was a composite consisting of doubling of serum creatinine, end-stage renal disease, or death in the intention-to-treat population. The principal secondary outcome was the change in measured GFR. We ascertained whether any component of the primary outcome had occurred at each study visit (1 month and 6 months post-randomisation, then every 6 months thereafter). This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 78129473., Findings: Between Aug 23, 2006, and March 28, 2012, 213 patients were randomised. 109 were allocated to placebo and 104 were allocated to ramipril, of whom 109 patients in the placebo group and 103 patients in the ramipril group were analysed and the trial is now complete. The intention to treat population (placebo n=109, ramipril n=103) was used for the primary analysis and the trial extension phase analysis. The primary outcome occurred in 19 (17%) of 109 patients in the placebo group and 14 (14%) of 103 patients in the ramipril group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·76 [95% CI 0·38-1·51]; absolute risk difference -3·8% [95% CI -13·6 to 6·1]). With extended follow-up (mean 48 months), the primary outcome occurred in 27 patients (25%) in the placebo group and 25 (24%) patients in the ramipril group (HR 0·96 [95% CI 0·55-1·65]); absolute risk difference: -0·5% (95% CI -12·0 to 11·1). There was no significant difference in the rate of measured GFR decline between the two groups (mean difference per 6-month interval: -0·16 mL/min/1·73m(2) (SE 0·24); p=0·49). 14 (14%) of patients died in the ramipril group and 11 (10%) in the placebo group, but the difference between groups was not statistically significant (HR 1·45 [95% CI 0·66 to 3·21]). Adverse events were more common in the ramipril group (39 [38%]) than in the placebo group (24 [22%]; p=0·02)., Interpretation: Treatment with ramipril compared with placebo did not lead to a significant reduction in doubling of serum creatinine, end-stage renal disease, or death in kidney transplant recipients with proteinuria. These results do not support the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors with the goal of improving clinical outcomes in this population., Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Proteinuria has been associated with transplant loss and mortality in kidney transplant recipients. Both spot samples (albumin-creatinine ratio [ACR] and protein-creatinine ratio [PCR]) and 24-hour collections (albumin excretion rate [AER] and protein excretion rate [PER]) have been used to quantify protein excretion, but which measurement is a better predictor of outcomes in kidney transplantation remains uncertain., Study Design: Observational cohort study., Setting & Participants: Tertiary care center, 207 kidney transplant recipients who were enrolled in a prospective study to measure glomerular filtration rate. Consecutive patients who met inclusion criteria were approached., Predictors: ACR and PCR in spot urine samples, AER and PER in 24-hour urine collections., Outcomes: Primary outcome included transplant loss, doubling of serum creatinine level, or death., Measurements: Urine and serum creatinine were measured using a modified Jaffé reaction that had not been standardized by isotope-dilution mass spectrometry. Urine albumin was measured by immunoturbidimetry. Urine protein was measured by pyrogallol red molybdate complex formation using a timed end point method., Results: Mean follow-up was 6.4 years and 22% developed the primary end point. Multivariable-adjusted areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were similar for the different protein measurements: ACR (0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.89), PCR (0.84; 95% CI, 0.79-0.89), PER (0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.90), and AER (0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.88). C Index values also were similar for the different proteinuria measurements: 0.87 (95% CI, 0.79-0.95), 0.86 (95% CI, 0.79-0.94), 0.88 (95% CI, 0.82-0.94), and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.77-0.95) for log(ACR), log(PCR), log(PER), and log(AER), respectively., Limitations: Single-center study. Measurement of proteinuria was at variable times posttransplantation., Conclusions: Spot and 24-hour measurements of albumin and protein excretion are similar predictors of doubling of serum creatinine level, transplant loss, and death. Thus, spot urine samples are a suitable alternative to 24-hour urine collection for measuring protein excretion in this population., (Copyright © 2014 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Quantification of proteinuria (albuminuria) in renal transplant recipients is important for diagnostic and prognostic purposes. Recent guidelines have recommended quantification of proteinuria by spot protein-to-creatinine ratio (PCR) or spot albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR). Validity of spot measurements remains unclear in renal transplant recipients., Methods: Systematic review of adult kidney transplant recipients. Studies that reported the diagnostic accuracy of PCR or ACR as compared with 24-h urine protein or albumin excretion in renal transplant recipients were included., Results: The search identified 8 studies involving 1871 renal transplant recipients. The correlation of the PCR to 24-h protein ranged from 0.772 to 0.998 with a median value of 0.92. PCR sensitivity ranged from 63 to 99 (50% of sensitivities were >90%); PCR specificity varied from 73 to 99 (50% of specificities were >90%). Only one study reported the bias; percent bias ranged from 12 to 21% and accuracy (within 30% of 24 h urine protein) ranged from 47 to 56% depending on the degree of proteinuria. For the ACR, percent bias ranged from 9 to 21%, and the accuracy (within 30%) ranged from 38 to 80%., Conclusions: The data regarding diagnostic accuracy of PCR and ACR is limited. Only one report studied the absolute measures of agreement (bias and accuracy). We recommend verifying PCR and ACR measurements with a 24-h protein before making any major diagnostic (e.g. biopsy) or therapeutic (e.g. change in immunosuppressive agents) decisions in this population.

Background: As with creatinine, cystatin C can be incorporated into a formula to estimate the glomerular filtration rate (GFR). The overall performance of cystatin C-based equations in kidney transplantation is unclear with conflicting results between studies., Methods: Systematic review of adult kidney transplant recipients. Studies that reported mean bias (mean difference between the measured and estimated GFRs) or accuracy of the cystatin C-based GFR estimation equation (e.g. percentage of estimates within 30% of the measured GFR) against the measured GFR using renal or plasma clearance of contrast agents, radioisotopes or inulin were included., Results: The search identified 10 studies that examined 14 different cystatin C-based estimating equations (n = 5 equations evaluated in more than one study). The Le Bricon equation had the best performance with a bias that ranged from -6.4 to +2.8 mL/min/1.73 m(2); 85% (95% CI, 82-88) of estimates were within 30% of the measured GFR. For the other equations, 66-82% of estimates were within 30% of the measured GFR. For the modification of diet in renal disease (MDRD) equation, 68% (95% CI, 65-72) of estimates were within 30% of the measured GFR., Conclusions: The cystatin C-based Le Bricon equation was the most accurate, and most of the cystatin C-based equations showed improvements in 30% and 50% accuracy compared with the creatinine-based MDRD equation. Cystatin C-based equations may offer an advantage over the MDRD equation in kidney transplant recipients. Estimating equations re-expressed with standardized cystatin C have been developed and their accuracy needs to be tested in the kidney transplant population.

Background: Proteinuria and albuminuria are important markers of allograft pathology and are associated with graft loss and cardiovascular disease. Traditionally, these have been quantified using a 24-hr urine collection, but spot urine measurements (albumin-creatinine and protein-creatinine ratios) have become popular because of convenience. Aside from tests of correlation, there has been little evaluation of these measurements in kidney transplantation., Methods: To further assess the value of albumin-creatinine and protein-creatinine ratios, we measured protein-creatinine ratio and 24-hr urine protein excretion (n=192) and albumin-creatinine ratio and 24-hr urine albumin excretion (n=189) in stable renal transplant patients. Bias (measured minus estimated value), precision, and accuracy was calculated., Results: For the protein-creatinine ratio, percent bias ranged from 12% to 21%, and the accuracy (within 30% of 24-hr collection) was only 47% to 56% depending on the degree of proteinuria. For the albumin-creatinine ratio, percent bias ranged from 9% to 21%, and the accuracy (within 30%) ranged from 38% to 80% depending on the degree of albuminuria. There was no statistical difference between accuracy of protein-creatinine and albumin-creatinine ratios., Conclusions: The ability of the albumin-creatinine and protein-creatinine ratios to accurately predict 24-hr albumin and protein excretion is modest. Given the similar accuracy of both measurements, either protein-creatinine ratio or albumin-creatinine ratio can be used for monitoring protein excretion. However, given the limitations of both the albumin-creatinine ratio and protein-creatinine ratio in this population, a 24-hr urine collection should be considered before making major clinical decisions (e.g., biopsy) based on the presence of proteinuria.

Background: Clinical trials in kidney transplantation are beginning to include markers of kidney function as end points now that traditional outcomes, such as acute rejection, become increasingly rare events. The frequency and type of kidney function end points used are unknown., Study Design: Systematic review., Setting & Population: Randomized controlled trials in adult kidney transplant recipients reported in 5 major general medical journals and 5 major subspecialty journals in nephrology and transplantation between January 2003 and November 2008., Selection Criteria: Inclusion of at least one kidney function end point at least 1 month posttransplant., Results: 133 (79%) of 169 randomized trials identified used a kidney function end point. Of these, 37 (28%) used one or more measures of kidney function as the primary end point, and 81 (61%), as a secondary end point. For the primary end point, 21 (57%) trials used a creatinine-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), 18 (49%) used serum creatinine level, and 7 (19%) used measured GFR. Overall, eGFR was an end point in 81 (61%) trials, and measured GFR, in 12 (9%) trials., Limitations: This review is limited by the poor quality of the included trials, with many not defining either primary or secondary end points., Conclusions: Measures of kidney function are used commonly as surrogate end points in kidney transplant trials, with eGFR becoming more frequently used over time. Further data are needed to properly validate these surrogate end points and fully understand their limitations when designing and interpreting randomized trials., (Copyright © 2010 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The new Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation was developed to address the systematic underestimation of the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) by the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study equation in patients with a relatively well-preserved kidney function. The performance of the new equation for kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) is unknown., Methods: We used the plasma clearance of (99m)Tc-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid to measure the GFR in a cohort of 207 stable KTRs and estimated the GFR with the new CKD-EPI equation., Results: The mean bias for the CKD-EPI equation of -4.5 mL x min(-1) x (1.73 m(2))(-1) was lower than that of the 4-variable MDRD Study equation; however, the 2 equations showed similar variation of individual biases around the mean or median bias, so that only modest improvement was seen in the overall percentage of GFR estimates within 30% of the measured GFR (84% vs 77% for the CKD-EPI vs MDRD Study equations, respectively). In the cohort with a GFR >60 mL x min(-1) x (1.73 m(2))(-1) (n = 98), the CKD-EPI bias was much less than that of the MDRD Study equation [-7.4 mL x min(-1) x (1.73 m(2))(-1) vs -14.3 mL x min(-1) x (1.73 m(2))(-1)], and an accuracy of + or - 30% was seen for 89% of GFR estimates, compared with 77% with the MDRD Study equation. The variation of the individual biases around the mean bias remained substantial [SD = 13.7 mL x min(-1) x (1.73 m(2))(-1)]., Conclusions: The CKD-EPI equation shows improved estimation ability, and we recommend that it replace the MDRD Study equation as the currently preferred creatinine-based estimating equation for KTRs. The precision of GFR estimates obtained with the CKD-EPI equation remains suboptimal, however, and we recommend that research on other markers of GFR, such as cystatin C and beta-trace protein, be pursued.

Evaluation of kidney function is crucial in the care of kidney transplant recipients and in the design and interpretation of clinical trials in transplantation. Kidney function is most commonly assessed in both instances using serum creatinine concentration or an estimate of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) based on serum creatinine. These are inexpensive, widely available, and easily administered. Both have significant drawbacks, notably with respect to their inability to accurately identify changes in GFR. Novel markers of GFR such as cystatin C and beta-trace protein show promise as accurate and sensitive markers of GFR but have not yet been adequately evaluated in kidney transplantation. In addition, they are relatively expensive compared to creatinine and their assays are not available in most clinical laboratories. Glomerular filtration rate measurement using a variety of different available tracers and techniques is infrequently used in either clinical care or research protocols because of its cost and cumbersomeness. This review will discuss the merits and pitfalls of the various tools available to evaluate GFR in kidney transplantation.

Background: Cystatin C and beta-trace protein (BTP) are low-molecular-weight proteins that have generated interest as alternative endogenous markers of glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Studies examining the effect of demographic, biometric, clinical, and biochemical variables on cystatin C levels have yielded conflicting results, perhaps because of the reliance on inferior methods of GFR determination. The aim of this study is to examine the independent effect of various clinical parameters on serum concentrations of creatinine, cystatin C, and BTP in kidney transplant recipients., Study Design: Cross-sectional study., Setting & Participants: 207 kidney transplant recipients with stable kidney function., Predictors: GFR, age, race, sex, body mass index, albumin level, proteinuria, smoking status, prednisone, and calcineurin inhibitor and mycophenolate mofetil use., Outcomes & Measurements: Multiple linear regression analysis was used to examine the relationship between predictor variables and cystatin C, BTP, and creatinine levels. GFR was measured by using technetium 99m-radiolabeled diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid clearance., Results: After adjusting for GFR, cystatin C and BTP levels were significantly lower in women compared with men. Greater albumin concentration was associated with significantly lower cystatin C and BTP concentrations. There was a statistically significant, but clinically small, association between body mass index and cystatin C level, but no association between the other demographic variables or medications analyzed., Limitations: Predominantly white population; results may not be applicable to other racial groups., Conclusion: Important nonrenal factors can influence BTP and cystatin C concentrations and need to be considered when interpreting BTP and cystatin C values in kidney transplant patients.

The limitations of estimates of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) based only on serum creatinine measurements have spurred an interest in more sensitive markers of GFR. Beta-trace protein (BTP), a low-molecular-weight glycoprotein freely filtered through the glomerular basement membrane and with minimal non-renal elimination, may be such a marker. We have recently derived two GFR estimation equations based on BTP. To validate these equations, we measured BTP and the plasma clearance of (99)mTc-DTPA in 92 adult kidney transplant recipients and 54 pediatric patients with impaired kidney function. GFR was estimated using the serum creatinine-based Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study equation for adults, the Schwartz and updated Schwartz equations in children, and 4 novel BTP-derived equations (our 2 equations and 2 proposed by Poge). In adults, our BTP-based equations had low median bias and high accuracy such that 89-90% of estimates were within 30% of measured GFR. In children, the median bias of our 2 equations was low and accuracy was high such that 78-83% of estimates were within 30% of measured GFR. These results were an improvement compared to the MDRD and Schwartz equations, both of which had high median bias and reduced accuracy. The updated Schwartz equation also performed well.

Background: Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) commonly is estimated in kidney transplantation by using creatinine-based estimation equations. The performance of these equations in kidney transplant recipients is unclear, with conflicting results between studies., Study Design: Systematic review., Setting & Population: Stable adult kidney transplant recipients more than 6 months posttransplantation., Selection Criteria: Reporting of or ability to calculate from available data the GFR estimation equation bias (mean difference between measured GFR and estimated GFR) and percent accuracy (percentage of GFR estimates within 10%, 20%, or 30% of measured GFR)., Index Tests: Creatinine-based GFR estimation equations (Cockcroft-Gault, 6-variable Modification of Diet in Renal Disease [MDRD] Study, 4-variable MDRD Study, and Nankivell)., Reference Tests: GFR determination using plasma or renal clearance of inulin, radioisotopes, or nonradiographic contrast., Results: The search yielded 23 studies. For the 4-variable MDRD Study equation, bias ranged from -11.4 to +9.2 mL/min/1.73 m(2) (0.15 mL/s/1.73 m(2)). Only 76% of estimates were within 30% of measured GFR. For the Cockcroft-Gault equation, bias ranged from -4.0 to +16 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and 73% of estimates were within 30% of measured GFR. For the Nankivell equation, bias ranged from -1.4 mL/min to 36.3 mL/min with a 30% accuracy of only 68%., Limitations: This review is limited by the inability to pool bias data, lack of calibration of serum creatinine in the majority of studies, and inclusion of nonindependent observations in many studies., Conclusions: Differences in patient populations, baseline GFRs of the study group, reference standard GFR used, and creatinine assay calibration likely account for the heterogeneity in results. These factors need to be considered by investigators and clinicians when interpreting estimates of GFR in kidney transplant recipients.

Background: Current clinical guidelines recommend that renal transplant recipients (RTRs) be classified into chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage using a creatinine-based estimate of glomerular filtration rate (GFR). However, creatinine-based equations are inaccurate in RTRs leading to frequent CKD stage misclassification. It is not known whether the classification of CKD stage would be improved using a cystatin C-based estimate of GFR., Methods: We measured (99m)Tc-DTPA GFR, cystatin C and creatinine in 198 stable RTRs. GFR was estimated using cystatin C-based equations (Filler, Le Bricon and Rule) and four creatinine-based equations. We determined the proportion, overall and by CKD stage, that were classified correctly by each equation as compared to the (99m)Tc-DTPA GFR., Results: The Filler equation correctly classified 76% of patients compared to only 65% with the abbreviated modification of diet in renal disease (MDRD) equation and 69% with the Cockcroft-Gault equation. In CKD stages two and four, the Filler equation correctly classified 77% and 60% of patients whereas the abbreviated MDRD equation correctly classified 46% and 93% of patients. The area under the curve by receiver operating curve analysis for overall stage classification was uniformly poor for all equations (0.52-0.56)., Conclusions: The cystatin C-based Filler and Le Bricon GFR estimates classified slightly more patients into the correct CKD stage than the standard creatinine-based equations in stable RTRs although the overall diagnostic accuracies were similar. The differences are modest and prospective studies will be needed to determine if the adoption of these equations for classification would lead to improved recognition of CKD complications or patient care.

Accurate measurement of GFR is critical for the evaluation of new therapies and the care of renal transplant recipients. Although not accurate in renal transplantation, GFR is often estimated using creatinine-based equations. Cystatin C is a marker of GFR that seems to be more accurate than creatinine. Equations to predict GFR based on the serum cystatin C concentration have been developed, but their accuracy in transplantation is unknown. GFR was estimated using four equations (Filler, Le Bricon, Larsson, and Hoek) that are based on serum cystatin C and seven equations that are based on serum creatinine in 117 adult renal transplant recipients. GFR was measured using radiolabeled diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (99mTc-DTPA), and the bias, precision, and accuracy of each equation were determined. The mean (99m)Tc-DTPA GFR was 58 +/- 23 ml/min per 1.73 m(2). The cystatin C-based equations of Filler and Le Bricon had the lowest bias (-1.7 and -3.8 ml/min per 1.73 m2), greatest precision (11.4 and 11.8 ml/min per 1.73 m2), and highest accuracy (87 and 89% within 30% of measured GFR, respectively). The cystatin C equations remained accurate even when the measured GFR was >60 ml/min per 1.73 m2. The creatinine-based equations were not as accurate, with only 53 to 80% of estimates within 30% of measured GFR. Cystatin C-based equations are more accurate at predicting GFR in renal transplant recipients than traditional creatinine-based equations. Further prospective studies with repetitive measurement of cystatin C are needed to determine whether cystatin C-based estimates of GFR will be sufficiently accurate to monitor long-term allograft function.

Co-trimoxazole is a frequently prescribed antibiotic worldwide. It is composed of both trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazol (Sfx) and is used in the treatment and prophylaxis of urinary tract and Pneumocystis jirovecii infections. The Sfx component appears to be nephrotoxic at high doses or doses inappropriately adjusted for glomerular filtration rate (GFR). The trimethoprim component, even at recommended doses, inhibits tubular creatinine secretion, leading to a rapid but ultimately reversible increase in serum creatinine independent of any changes in GFR. This translates into a falsely low estimated GFR when creatinine-based equations are used. This review focuses on evidence of the differential effects of trimethoprim and Sfx on serum creatinine concentrations and GFR and their relevance to clinical practice, with particular attention to kidney transplantation. Copyright © 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]