Serum myo-inositol and valine improve metabolomic-based estimated glomerular filtration rate among kidney transplant recipients

External Validation of a Novel Multimarker GFR Estimating Equation

Key Points

Using multiple markers may improve GFR estimation especially in settings where creatinine and cystatin C are known to be limited. Panel eGFR is a novel multimarker eGFR equation consisting of age, sex, cystatin C, and nuclear magnetic resonance–measured creatinine, valine, and myo-inositol. eGFR-Cr and eGFR-Cr-CysC may underestimate measured GFR, while panel eGFR was unbiased among younger Black male individuals.

Background

Using multiple markers may improve accuracy in GFR estimation. We sought to externally validate and compare the performance of a novel multimarker eGFR (panel eGFR) equation among Black and White persons using the Genetic Epidemiology Network of Arteriopathy cohort.

Methods

We included 224 sex, race/ethnicity, and measured GFR (mGFR) category–matched persons, with GFR measured using urinary clearance of iothalamate. We calculated panel eGFR using serum creatinine, valine, myo-inositol, cystatin C, age, and sex. We compared its reliability with current eGFR equations (2021 CKD Epidemiology Collaboration creatinine [eGFR-Cr] and creatinine with cystatin C [eGFR-Cr-CysC]) using median bias, precision, and accuracy metrics. We evaluated each equation's performance in age, sex, and race subgroups.

Results

In the overall cohort, 49% were Black individuals, and mean mGFR was 79 ml/min per 1.73 m2. Panel eGFR overestimated mGFR (bias: −2.4 ml/min per 1.73 m2; 95% confidence interval [CI], −4.4 to −0.7), eGFR-Cr-CysC underestimated mGFR (bias: 4.8 ml/min per 1.73 m2; 95% CI, 2.1 to 6.7), while eGFR-Cr was unbiased (bias: 2.0 ml/min per 1.73 m2; 95% CI, −1.1 to 4.6). All equations had comparable accuracy. Among Black male individuals younger than 65 years, both eGFR-Cr (bias: 17.0 ml/min per 1.73 m2; 95% CI, 8.6 to 23.5) and eGFR-Cr-CysC (bias: 14.5 ml/min per 1.73 m2; 95% CI, 6.0 to 19.7) underestimated mGFR, whereas panel eGFR was unbiased (bias: 1.7 ml/min per 1.73 m2; 95% CI, −3.4 to 10.0). Metrics of accuracy for all eGFRs were acceptable in all subgroups except for panel eGFR in Black female individuals younger than 65 years (P30: 73.3%).

Conclusions

Panel eGFR can be used to estimate mGFR and may have utility among Black male individuals younger than 65 years where current CKD Epidemiology Collaboration equations are biased.

Performance of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance-Based Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate in a Real-World Setting

An accurate estimate of glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is essential for proper clinical management, especially in patients with kidney dysfunction. This prospective observational study evaluated the real-world performance of the nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)-based GFR_NMR equation, which combines creatinine, cystatin C, valine, and myo-inositol with age and sex. We compared GFR_NMR performance to that of the 2021 CKD-EPI creatinine and creatinine-cystatin C equations (CKD-EPI_2021Cr and CKD-EPI_2021CrCys), using 115 fresh routine samples of patients scheduled for urinary iothalamate clearance measurement (mGFR). Median bias to mGFR of the three eGFR equations was comparably low, ranging from 0.4 to 2.0 mL/min/1.73 m². GFR_NMR outperformed the 2021 CKD-EPI equations in terms of precision (interquartile range to mGFR of 10.5 vs. 17.9 mL/min/1.73 m² for GFR_NMR vs. CKD-EPI_2021CrCys; p = 0.01) and accuracy (P15, P20, and P30 of 66.1% vs. 48.7% [p = 0.007], 80.0% vs. 60.0% [p < 0.001] and 95.7% vs. 86.1% [p = 0.006], respectively, for GFR_NMR vs. CKD-EPI_2021CrCys). Clinical parameters such as etiology, comorbidities, or medications did not significantly alter the performance of the three eGFR equations. Altogether, this study confirmed the utility of GFR_NMR for accurate GFR estimation, and its potential value in routine clinical practice for improved medical care.