Back to Authors

Ford, Lisa A.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6207-8108

Mayo Clinic

Metabolon (United States)

Citations 1

Validation of a Metabolite Panel for a More Accurate Estimation of Glomerular Filtration Rate Using Quantitative LC-MS/MS
Freed, Tiffany A., Inker, Lesley A. , Toal, Douglas R., Périchon, Régis, Chen, Jingsha, Goodman, Kelli D., Zhang, Qibo , Conner, Jessie K., Hauser, Deirdre M., Vroom, Kate E.T., Oyaski, Maria L, Wulff, Jacob , Eiríksdóttir, Guðný , Guðnason, Vilmundur , Ford, Lisa A. , Levey, Andrew S. , Coresh, Josef , Torres, Vicente E.

Clinical Chemistry | January 15, 2019 | Volume: 65 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 406-418

10.1373/clinchem.2018.288092 Get It

AbstractBACKGROUNDClinical 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.METHODSAn 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%].RESULTSThe assay had a mean imprecision (≤10% intraassay, ≤6.9% interassay), linearity over the quantitative range (r2 > 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.CONCLUSIONSThe new eGFRmet equation could serve as a confirmatory test for GFR estimation.