Estimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in children. The average between a cystatin C- and a creatinine-based equation improves estimation of GFR in both children and adults and enables diagnosing Shrunken Pore Syndrome

Estimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in adults by using the average of values obtained by a cystatin C- (eGFR_{cystatin C}) and a creatinine-based (eGFR_creatinine) equation shows at least the same diagnostic performance as GFR estimates obtained by equations using only one of these analytes or by complex equations using both analytes. Comparison of eGFR_{cystatin C} and eGFR_creatinine plays a pivotal role in the diagnosis of Shrunken Pore Syndrome, where low eGFR_{cystatin C} compared to eGFR_creatinine has been associated with higher mortality in adults. The present study was undertaken to elucidate if this concept can also be applied in children. Using iohexol and inulin clearance as gold standard in 702 children, we studied the diagnostic performance of 10 creatinine-based, 5 cystatin C-based and 3 combined cystatin C-creatinine eGFR equations and compared them to the result of the average of 9 pairs of a eGFR_{cystatin C} and a eGFR_creatinine estimate. While creatinine-based GFR estimations are unsuitable in children unless calibrated in a pediatric or mixed pediatric-adult population, cystatin C-based estimations in general performed well in children. The average of a suitable creatinine-based and a cystatin C-based equation generally displayed a better diagnostic performance than estimates obtained by equations using only one of these analytes or by complex equations using both analytes. Comparing eGFR_cystatin and eGFR_creatinine may help identify pediatric patients with Shrunken Pore Syndrome.

Multicenter Evaluation of Cystatin C Measurement after Assay Standardization

BACKGROUND

Since 2010, a certified reference material ERM-DA471/IFCC has been available for cystatin C (CysC). This study aimed to assess the sources of uncertainty in results for clinical samples measured using standardized assays.

METHODS

This evaluation was performed in 2015 and involved 7 clinical laboratories located in France and Belgium. CysC was measured in a panel of 4 serum pools using 8 automated assays and a candidate isotope dilution mass spectrometry reference measurement procedure. Sources of uncertainty (imprecision and bias) were evaluated to calculate the relative expanded combined uncertainty for each CysC assay. Uncertainty was judged against the performance specifications derived from the biological variation model.

RESULTS

Only Siemens reagents on the Siemens systems and, to a lesser extent, DiaSys reagents on the Cobas system, provided results that met the minimum performance criterion calculated according to the intraindividual and interindividual biological variations. Although the imprecision was acceptable for almost all assays, an increase in the bias with concentration was observed for Gentian reagents, and unacceptably high biases were observed for Abbott and Roche reagents on their own systems.

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive picture of the market situation since the release of ERM-DA471/IFCC shows that bias remains the major component of the combined uncertainty because of possible problems associated with the implementation of traceability. Although some manufacturers have clearly improved their calibration protocols relative to ERM-DA471, most of them failed to meet the criteria for acceptable CysC measurements.