Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Clin Chem. 2019 Mar;65(3):406-418. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2018.288092. Epub 2019 Jan 15.

Validation of a Metabolite Panel for a More Accurate Estimation of Glomerular Filtration Rate Using Quantitative LC-MS/MS.

Author information

1
Metabolon, Inc., Morrisville, NC.
2
Departments of Epidemiology, Medicine and Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health and School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
3
Division of Nephrology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.
4
Icelandic Heart Association, Kopavogur, Iceland.
5
Faculty of Medicine, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.
6
Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
7
Metabolon, Inc., Morrisville, NC; lford@metabolon.com ALevey@tuftsmedicalcenter.org.
8
Division of Nephrology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA; lford@metabolon.com ALevey@tuftsmedicalcenter.org.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Clinical practice guidelines recommend estimation of glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) using validated equations based on serum creatinine (eGFRcr), cystatin C (eGFRcys), or both (eGFRcr-cys). However, when compared with the measured GFR (mGFR), only eGFRcr-cys meets recommended performance standards. Our goal was to develop a more accurate eGFR method using a panel of metabolites without creatinine, cystatin C, or demographic variables.

METHODS:

An ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assay for acetylthreonine, phenylacetylglutamine, pseudouridine, and tryptophan was developed, and a 20-day, multiinstrument analytical validation was conducted. The assay was tested in 2424 participants with mGFR data from 4 independent research studies. A new GFR equation (eGFRmet) was developed in a random subset (n = 1615) and evaluated in the remaining participants (n = 809). Performance was assessed as the frequency of large errors [estimates that differed from mGFR by at least 30% (1 - P30); goal <10%].

RESULTS:

The assay had a mean imprecision (≤10% intraassay, ≤6.9% interassay), linearity over the quantitative range (r 2 > 0.98), and analyte recovery (98.5%-113%). There was no carryover, no interferences observed, and analyte stability was established. In addition, 1 - P30 in the validation set for eGFRmet (10.0%) was more accurate than eGFRcr (13.1%) and eGFRcys (12.0%) but not eGFRcr-cys (8.7%). Combining metabolites, creatinine, cystatin C, and demographics led to the most accurate equation (7.0%). Neither equation had substantial variation among population subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS:

The new eGFRmet equation could serve as a confirmatory test for GFR estimation.

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for HighWire Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center