Dossabhoy, Neville R.

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 m 2 . Panel eGFR overestimated mGFR (bias: −2.4 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 ; 95% confidence interval [CI], −4.4 to −0.7), eGFR-Cr-CysC underestimated mGFR (bias: 4.8 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 ; 95% CI, 2.1 to 6.7), while eGFR-Cr was unbiased (bias: 2.0 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 ; 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 m 2 ; 95% CI, 8.6 to 23.5) and eGFR-Cr-CysC (bias: 14.5 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 ; 95% CI, 6.0 to 19.7) underestimated mGFR, whereas panel eGFR was unbiased (bias: 1.7 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 ; 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.

Abstract Background and Aims The use of multiple markers may improve the accuracy in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimation especially when the interpretation of creatinine and cystatin C is limited. We sought to externally validate a recently developed multi-marker nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)-based estimated GFR equation (eGFR-NMR) using the biracial Genetic Epidemiology Network of Arteriopathy cohort. Method We included 224 sex, race/ethnicity, and mGFR-category-matched participants. GFR was measured using urinary clearance of iothalamate (mGFR). We calculated eGFR-NMR using serum creatinine, valine, myo-inositol, and cystatin C, age, and sex. We compared the reliability of eGFR-NMR with current eGFR equations (2021 Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equations for creatinine [eGFR-Cr] and creatinine with cystatin C [eGFR-Cr-CysC]) using median bias, precision, and accuracy metrics. In particular, we evaluated its performance in age, sex, and race subgroups. Results In the overall cohort, mean age was 63 (±8) years, 54% were females, 49% were Black individuals, and mean mGFR was 78.7 (±24.3) ml/min/1.73 m2. eGFR-NMR overestimated mGFR by 2 mL/min/1.73 m2 (95% CI, 4 to 0.7) while eGFR-Cr-CysC underestimated mGFR by −5 mL/min/1.73 m2 (95% CI, −2 to −7). All equations had acceptable accuracy metrics. When stratified by age, sex, and race, eGFR-NMR performed the best among Black males age <65 years compared to current equations (Figure 1). In this subgroup, eGFR-NMR was unbiased (bias, 2mL/min/1.73 m2 [95% CI, -3 to 10]) compared to substantial biases of eGFR-Cr (bias, 17 mL/min/1.73 m2 [95% CI, 9 to 24]) and eGFR-Cr-CysC (bias, 15 mL/min/1.73 m2 [95% CI, 6 to 20]). In other subgroups, measures of accuracy for eGFR-NMR, eGFR-Cr, eGFR-Cr-CysC were generally similar. Conclusion eGFR-NMR can be used to estimate mGFR and was more accurate than CKD-EPI equations among Black males age <65 years.