Miller, W. Greg

Abstract Recognizing that race is a social and not a biological construct, healthcare professionals and the public have called for removal of race in clinical algorithms. In response, the National Kidney Foundation and the American Society of Nephrology created the Task Force on Reassessing the Inclusion of Race in Diagnosing Kidney Diseases to examine the issue and provide recommendations. The final report from the Task Force recommends calculating estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) without a race coefficient using the recently published CKD-EPI 2021 creatinine (cr) and creatinine-cystatin C (cr-cys) equations. The Task Force recommends immediately replacing older eGFRcr equations (MDRD Study and CKD-EPI 2009) with the new CKD-EPI 2021 equation. In a 2019 survey by the College of American Pathologists, 23% of 6200 laboratories reporting eGFRcr used an incorrect equation that is not suitable for use with standardized creatinine measurements, 34% used the CKD-EPI 2009 equation and 43% used the MDRD Study 2006 equation re-expressed for standardized creatinine measurement. Rapid transition to using the CKD-EPI 2021 equation is an opportunity for laboratories to standardize to a single equation to eliminate differences in eGFRcr due to different equations used by different laboratories, and to report eGFR without use of race. We provide guidance to laboratories for implementing the CKD-EPI 2021 equations for both eGFRcr and eGFRcr-cys.

Abstract Background Iohexol is used for measurement of kidney glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Until recently, there have not been available proficiency standards to assist in calibrating a laboratory's results. In view of a shift in calibration at the University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC) laboratory, serving as Central Biochemistry Laboratory for the CKiD study, we performed a multicentered laboratory comparison. Methods Two batches of 30 fortified sera and patient samples from serum or heparinized plasma were sent for duplicate analysis to URMC, University of Minnesota (UMN), Mayo Clinic, and University of Lund. Five proficiency testing materials from Equalis AB were also provided. Iohexol calibration was performed using dilutions of OmnipaqueTM 300 and concentrations measured by HPLC or LC-MS/MS (Mayo). Results The 2 batches sent to UMN and University of Lund agreed well. URMC calibration was 11%–13% lower, and Mayo was 4%–8% lower for fortified samples. URMC corrected calibration was 3%–8% higher for these samples. When measured values were adjusted for the results of the Equalis samples, all laboratories agreed within 1%–2% on all iohexol concentrations. Conclusions For 12 URMC calibrator lots from November 2006 to March 2016, the factor quantifying the underestimation of measured to true iohexol concentration was 0.89. If each concentration was divided by 0.89, the calculated GFRs would be reduced by 10%–11%. GFR results for CKiD were adjusted for this shift in calibration. Regular examination of iohexol proficiency testing materials, free exchange of samples among laboratories, and standardized dilution of the stock iohexol for calibration would help to bring more universal agreement to this assay.

Abstract Background Urine albumin is a key laboratory test used for classification, assessment of risk, and monitoring treatment of patients with chronic kidney disease. Urine albumin measurement results are not standardized among different measurement procedures. Consequently, clinical guidelines using fixed decision values for urine albumin cannot be applied consistently. Content Isotope dilution mass spectrometry reference measurement procedures and certified reference materials are being developed to enable standardization of immunoassay measurement procedures for urine albumin. A previous report determined calibration bias was the major error source for differences in results among different measurement procedures for urine albumin. Performance goals for between-day precision, ≤6% CV above 15 mg/L, and for specimen-specific effects, ≤6% CV, were established on the basis of the performance capability of current measurement procedures. The biological variation model was used to estimate a total allowable error of ≤24%–30% and from that the goal for bias of ≤7%–13%. Summary A reference system of higher-order certified reference materials and reference measurement procedures is being developed to enable standardization of urine albumin measurement results. Goals have been established for total allowable error, specimen-specific effects, imprecision, and bias to facilitate efforts to standardize urine albumin measurement results.

Abstract BACKGROUND Urine albumin is the primary biomarker for detection and monitoring of kidney damage. Because fixed decision criteria are used to identify patients with increased values, we investigated if commonly used routine measurement procedures gave comparable results. METHODS Results from 17 commercially available urine albumin measurement procedures were investigated vs an isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS) procedure. Nonfrozen aliquots of freshly collected urine from 332 patients with chronic kidney disease, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension were distributed to manufacturers to perform urine albumin measurements according to the respective instructions for use for each procedure. Frozen aliquots were used for measurements by the IDMS procedure. An error model was used to determine imprecision and bias components. RESULTS Median differences between the largest positive and negative biases vs IDMS were 45%, 37%, and 42% in the concentration intervals of 12–30 mg/L, 31–200 mg/L, and 201–1064 mg/L, respectively. Biases varied with concentration for most procedures and exceeded ±10% over the concentration interval for 14 of 16 quantitative procedures. Mean biases ranged from −35% to 34% at 15 mg/L. Dilution of samples with high concentrations introduced bias for 4 procedures. The combined CV was >10% for 5 procedures. It was not possible to estimate total error due to dependence of bias on concentration. CVs for sample-specific influences were 0% to 15.2%. CONCLUSIONS Bias was the dominant source of disagreement among routine measurement procedures. Consequently, standardization efforts will improve agreement among results. Variation of bias with concentration needs to be addressed by manufacturers.

Abstract Background: Urinary excretion of albumin indicates kidney damage and is recognized as a risk factor for progression of kidney disease and cardiovascular disease. The role of urinary albumin measurements has focused attention on the clinical need for accurate and clearly reported results. The National Kidney Disease Education Program and the IFCC convened a conference to assess the current state of preanalytical, analytical, and postanalytical issues affecting urine albumin measurements and to identify areas needing improvement. Content: The chemistry of albumin in urine is incompletely understood. Current guidelines recommend the use of the albumin/creatinine ratio (ACR) as a surrogate for the error-prone collection of timed urine samples. Although ACR results are affected by patient preparation and time of day of sample collection, neither is standardized. Considerable intermethod differences have been reported for both albumin and creatinine measurement, but trueness is unknown because there are no reference measurement procedures for albumin and no reference materials for either analyte in urine. The recommended reference intervals for the ACR do not take into account the large intergroup differences in creatinine excretion (e.g., related to differences in age, sex, and ethnicity) nor the continuous increase in risk related to albumin excretion. Discussion: Clinical needs have been identified for standardization of (a) urine collection methods, (b) urine albumin and creatinine measurements based on a complete reference system, (c) reporting of test results, and (d) reference intervals for the ACR.