Roth, John

Background: Total kidney volume (TKV), a prognostic biomarker in ADPKD, is used to stratify high risk individuals. eGFR measures may carry significant error in ADPKD compared to measured GFR(mGFR). This retrospective study investigates the association between height adjusted TKV (htTKV) and eGFR derived from race-free CKD-EPI equations utilizing creatinine and cystatin C. Methods: eGFR was calculated using 3 race-free CKD-EPI formulas: creatinine-based (CKD-EPI creatinine), cystatin C (CKD-EPI cys), and creatinine-cystatin C (CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C) equations on 697 Mayo Clinic ADPKD patients. Correlations between eGFR and TKV measures were estimated and stratified by MIC class risk groups and CKD. Linear regression models were computed to predict ln(htTKV) from the 3 eGFR data sets. The eGFR measures were compared to iothalamate-based mGFR in a subset of patients (n=50). Results: A correlation between eGFR measures and htTKV (Pearson correlation r of -0.53 to -0.54), varied by MIC stratification. Pearson correlation was -0.47 to -0.48 for MIC 1A and 1B, -0.67 to -0.71 for MIC 1C, and -0.67 to -0.68 for MIC 1D and 1E. All equations were significantly associated with htTKV levels, with similar adjusted beta values (95% CI) of -0.15 (-0.17 to -0.13), -0.14 (-0.16 to -0.12), -0.15 (-0.16 to -0.13), for CKD-EPI creatinine, CKD-EPI cystatin C, and CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C, respectively. Compared to mGFR, the CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation was the least biased (mean -0.86 (95% CI: -3.09 to 1.37)) versus CKD-EPI creatinine (2.31 (-0.73 to 5.34)) or CKD-EPI cystatin C (-3.54 (-5.86 to -1.21)), and most precise, with 1-P30 of 16% (95% CI 7.2% to 29.1%), compared to 18% (8.6% to 31.4%) for CKD-EPI creatinine, or 20% (10.0% to 33.7%) for CKD-EPI cystatin C. Conclusion: A moderate correlation between eGFR and htTKV associated with MIC stratification. Associations between htTKV and all 3 CKD-EPI equations were similar. CKDEPIcrcys tended to be the least biased and most precise equation when compared to mGFR and may be a reasonable alternative.

BACKGROUND: The performance of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) among patients with heart failure (HF) may be worse than in the general population due to a higher prevalence of confounding factors affecting creatinine and cystatin C. Studies in this area are scarce and not stratified by type of HF. We evaluated the performance of current creatinine and cystatin C equations (eGFRcr, eGFRcys, and eGFRcrcys) compared with measured GFR (mGFR) among patients with HF stratified by ejection fraction. METHODS: We pulled data on Mayo Clinic patients with an mGFR performed for clinical indications from 2011 to 2023, with serum creatinine and cystatin C measured within 7 days and an echocardiogram performed up to 1 year before the mGFR date. HF was identified by the presence of International Classification of Diseases codes within 1 year before the mGFR and subgrouped into ejection fraction (EF) ≥50% (HFEF≥50%, n=182) or <50% (HFEF<50%, n=115) and compared with no-HF controls (n=1871). CKD-EPI (and EKFC) eGFRcr, eGFRcys, and eGFRcrcys equations were calculated and compared for bias (mGFR minus eGFR) and accuracy (1-P30, proportion of people with ≥30% difference between eGFR and mGFR). CIs were generated by bootstrapping. RESULTS: The HF groups were characterized by older age, higher proportion of males, more diabetes, higher creatinine, and higher cystatin C than controls. In terms of bias, eGFRcr overestimated mGFR to a greater extent in both HF groups compared with controls, whereas eGFRcys and eGFRcrcys showed similar bias in both HF groups and controls. In the HF groups, cystatin C-based equations were more accurate than eGFRcr, particularly within HFEF<50% (1-P30 of 28% and 34% for CKD-EPI eGFRcys and eGFRcrcys, respectively, versus 60% for eGFRcr), whereas eGFRcrcys was more accurate in controls. The CKD-EPI and EKFC equations were overall convergent, showing similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HF, eGFRcr demonstrates inferior performance (more bias and less accuracy) compared with cystatin C-based eGFRs, with this effect being more pronounced in those with HFEF<50%.

Cancer therapy-induced hypertension (HTN) is an increasingly recognized complication associated with a wide range of anticancer agents, including vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors, proteasome inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and alkylating agents. The pathogenesis of HTN in this setting is multifactorial, involving mechanisms such as endothelial dysfunction, nitric oxide (NO) suppression, sympathetic nervous system activation, and vascular remodeling. Additional factors, including paraneoplastic syndromes, poorly controlled pain, mood disturbances, and overlapping cardiovascular risk factors like obesity and diabetes, further contribute to the complexity of diagnosis and management. Despite its prevalence and clinical implications, cancer therapy-induced HTN is often addressed using general population guidelines, with limited oncology-specific protocols available. Accurate blood pressure measurement and individualized treatment plans are critical to optimize outcomes and avoid interruptions to cancer therapy. Antihypertensive agents such as angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), and calcium channel blockers have shown efficacy in both blood pressure control and, in some cases, oncologic outcomes. A multidisciplinary approach involving oncologists, cardiologists, and primary care providers is essential to navigate the interplay between cancer treatment and cardiovascular health. Ongoing research is needed to develop targeted guidelines and improve the long-term care of cancer patients affected by treatment-induced HTN.