Yong Zhenzhu, Li Fen, Pei Xiaohua, Liu Xun, Song Dan, Zhang Xiaoxuan, Zhao Weihong
Department of Geriatric Nephrology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, 300 Guangzhou Road, Nanjing, 210029, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China.
Department of Nephrology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Int Urol Nephrol. 2019 Jan;51(1):139-146. doi: 10.1007/s11255-018-1997-4. Epub 2018 Oct 24.
The recent guidelines recommend using the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) to evaluate renal function. There are two reported full-age-spectrum (FAS) equations in 2017, which are based on serum cystatin C concentrations with or without accompanying serum creatinine level (FAS or FAS). We compared the performance and assessed the applicability of the new FAS equation with the 2012 CKD-EPI (CKD-EPI and CKD-EPI) equation in Chinese subjects.
A total of 1184 patients, mean aged 55.06 year who underwent Tc-DTPA GFR measurements (rGFR) from four hospitals were enrolled. The bias (eGFR-rGFR), precision (interquartile range of difference [IQR]), and accuracy (the proportion of eGFR within 30% of rGFR [P30]) of eGFR and rGFR calculated by four equations were compared.
Generally, the equation based on the combination of Cys and Scr performed superior to that on the basis of Cys alone, either the CKD-EPI or the FAS. Detailedly, referred to rGFR (67.33 ml/min/1.73 m), the CKD-EPI, CKD-EPI, FAS, and the FAS estimated GFR 56.46 ml/min/1.73 m, 62.79 ml/min/1.73 m, 56.45 ml/min/1.73 m, and 61.04 ml/min/1.73 m, gave ROC0.944, 0.954, 0.943, and 0.953, respectively. Another comparison as to bias, precision, P, and RMSE with FAS were - 2.87 ml/min/1.73 m, 19.01 ml/min/1.73 m, 74.16%, and 17.84 ml/min/1.73 m showed that FAS performed approximately more accurate than other equations, as well as the diagnostic consistency of GFR staging. In the rGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m subgroup, the FAS equation showed the best performance. In older subjects, compared with FAS, CKD-EPI, and CKD-EPI, the FAS equation had relatively less bias (- 8.09 vs. - 9.63, - 7.52, - 11.04, P < 0.05), most precise (15.18 vs. 16.32, 15.22, 16.63), and most accuracy, P was statistically different from the other equations, and achieved a ideal value > 70%.
The performance of the FAS equation is better than that of the CKD-EPI equation in the Chinese population, particularly in the elderly. Yet, further modification of FAS equations from a large-scale study could be more suitable for the Chinese population, particularly in older people.
近期指南推荐使用估算肾小球滤过率(eGFR)来评估肾功能。2017年报道了两个全年龄谱(FAS)方程,它们基于血清胱抑素C浓度,可伴有或不伴有血清肌酐水平(FAS或FAS)。我们比较了新FAS方程与2012年慢性肾脏病流行病学合作组(CKD-EPI)方程(CKD-EPI和CKD-EPI)在中国受试者中的性能,并评估了新FAS方程的适用性。
共纳入1184例患者,平均年龄55.06岁,这些患者来自四家医院,均接受了Tc-DTPA肾小球滤过率(rGFR)测量。比较了四个方程计算的eGFR和rGFR的偏差(eGFR-rGFR)、精密度(差异的四分位间距[IQR])和准确性(eGFR在rGFR的30%范围内的比例[P30])。
总体而言,无论是CKD-EPI还是FAS,基于胱抑素C(Cys)和血清肌酐(Scr)联合检测的方程表现均优于仅基于Cys的方程。具体而言,以rGFR(67.33ml/min/1.73m²)为参照,CKD-EPI、CKD-EPI、FAS和FAS估算的肾小球滤过率分别为56.46ml/min/1.73m²、62.79ml/min/1.73m²、56.45ml/min/1.73m²和61.04ml/min/1.73m²,ROC分别为0.944、0.954、0.943和0.953。与FAS在偏差、精密度、P和均方根误差方面的另一比较结果为-2.87ml/min/1.73m²、19.01ml/min/1.73m²、74.16%和17.84ml/min/1.73m²,这表明FAS的表现比其他方程更准确,肾小球滤过率分期的诊断一致性也是如此。在rGFR<60ml/min/1.73m²亚组中,FAS方程表现最佳。在老年受试者中,与FAS、CKD-EPI和CKD-EPI相比,FAS方程的偏差相对较小(-8.09对-9.63、-7.52、-11.04,P<0.05),最精确(15.18对16.32、15.22、16.63),且准确性最高,P与其他方程有统计学差异,达到了>70%的理想值。
在中国人群中,尤其是老年人中,FAS方程的性能优于CKD-EPI方程。然而,通过大规模研究对FAS方程进行进一步修改可能会更适合中国人群,特别是老年人。