Citations

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%.

Background: Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGF-I) are frequently used for cancer treatment. VEGF-I can cause proteinuria and acute kidney injury (AKI) with thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) as a commonly described pathology, but other glomerular pathologies are not well characterized. We aim to describe the clinical characteristics and glomerular lesions associated with VEFG-I in a single center cohort. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients treated with VEGF-I and underwent kidney biopsies from 2010 to 2022 at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. Biopsy findings were reviewed by our pathologists. Data on patients’ characteristics, clinical course, and outcomes were abstracted. Descriptive statistics were used to report relevant patient characteristics and findings. Results: From 2010 to 2022, 19 kidney biopsies were performed for kidney dysfunction in patients on VEGF-I. Eleven had complete data, with a median age of 62 years (interquartile range 58–66 years); renal cell carcinoma (RCC) was the most common cancer (4 of 11 patients). TMA was noted in 8 of the 11 biopsies, with proteinuria as the most frequent indication for biopsy in these cases. Three patients had findings other than TMA. One developed anti-phospholipase A2 receptor negative membranous nephropathy; VEGF-I and pembrolizumab were discontinued, and prednisone improved proteinuria. Another patient had known cryoglobulinemia with nephrotic range proteinuria which was exacerbated by VEGF-I peaking at 11 g/day. Despite stopping VEGF-I and treating with prednisone and rituximab, kidney dysfunction progressed to end stage kidney disease (ESKD). A third patient had IgA nephropathy with concurrent diabetic changes, but proteinuria progressed even after stopping VEGF-I. Conclusion: In this case-series of patients treated with VEGF-I undergoing kidney biopsy, we describe the pathological characteristics, clinical course, and outcomes of patients with pathologies other than TMA. Our study adds information to the sparse literature on patients with renal dysfunction after receiving VEGF-I.

ABSTRACT An increasing number of cancer patients are benefiting from long term cancer-directed therapy with an ever-expanding arsenal of novel agents from monoclonal antibodies to small molecules and cellular therapies in addition to the mainstay cytotoxic chemotherapy. All these therapies are accompanied by a unique array of adverse events, which include kidney toxicity. In this context, the need for onco-nephrology expertise continues to grow. Oncologists and hematologists collaborate closely with onco-nephrologists to determine: (i) treatment options for special populations based on accurate assessment of patients’ glomerular filtration rate, (ii) supportive therapies for those whose treatment course is complicated by acute kidney injury, and (iii) pharmacologic strategies to continue or restart cancer therapy during kidney dysfunction. Here we outline 10 tips for common clinical scenarios in an outpatient onco-nephrology clinic.

Accurate assessment of GFR is key in patients with cancer to guide drug eligibility, adjust dosing of systemic therapy, and minimize the risks of undertreatment and systemic toxicity. Several aspects of GFR evaluation in patients with cancer have been unclear, such as the choice of the GFR estimating equation and the overall lack of data on the reliability of new filtration markers, such as cystatin C. This uncertainty has led to concerns that inaccurate GFR estimation may have a large effect on clinical practice and research. Recent data have brought important developments to the field. The new and timely Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes 2024 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of CKD raised important considerations and provided guidance on key aspects of GFR evaluation in patients with cancer. The guidelines cover valid estimating equations, incorporation of cystatin C in GFR estimation, drawbacks of using race in GFR estimation, and acknowledge that non-GFR determinants of filtration markers may be prominent in patients with cancer, reducing the accuracy of GFR estimating equations, prompting greater utilization of GFR measurement. The aim of this review is to summarize advances in GFR evaluation in patients with cancer considering the new Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes guidelines and other recent data.

Key Points Studies on GFR assessment in people with cancer are needed. In this study, the creatinine–cystatin C equations performed better than other equations, and this was observed in solid and hematological cancers. Our findings give support to the preferential use of creatinine and cystatin C–based equations in people with cancer. Background GFR assessment is important in clinical practice with implications for diagnosis, prognostication, and drug dosing. People with cancer are at risk of imprecision in GFR estimation. This cross-sectional study evaluated the performance of various creatinine and cystatin C–based equations in comparison with measured GFR (mGFR) in people with cancer. Methods We retrieved data for all adult patients who had mGFR by urinary iothalamate clearance between 2011 and 2023 at Mayo Clinic and use of an electronic health record diagnosis code for cancer within 2 years before mGFR. The CKD Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI), European Kidney Function Consortium, and Cockcroft–Gault equations were computed, along with performance metrics (bias, precision, and root mean square error [RMSE]. Confidence intervals were generated by bootstrapping, and analysis were stratified by solid and hematological cancers. Results From all adults with cancer and mGFR, 1145 had both creatinine and cystatin C available within 7 days of mGFR. Among all equations, the creatinine–cystatin C CKD-EPI equation provided the best performance, with small bias (median, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 2.3 to 3.8) and higher precision (RMSE, 14.5) compared with creatinine-only or cystatin C–only equations (RMSE varying from 16.6 to 20), and this was also true in solid and hematological cancers. The creatinine–cystatin European Kidney Function Consortium equation had a similar performance to CKD-EPI, Cockcroft–Gault showed worst precision (30% of people with errors above 30%), and cystatin C CKD-EPI equation was the most biased, prone to underestimation of mGFR. Conclusions In our cohort of patients with mGFR and cancer, the CKD-EPI creatinine–cystatin C equation performed best for GFR assessment, and this was true for both solid and hematological cancers. Our findings give support for the preferential use of creatinine and cystatin C–based equations instead of creatinine-only or cystatin C–only equations in people with cancer. Podcast This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2025_03_25_CJASNMar20.3.3252025.mp3

ABSTRACT Background and Hypothesis Teclistamab, a novel bispecific monoclonal antibody targeting CD3 and B cell maturation antigen (BCMA), and chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy are promising options for treating relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). However, the rates of acute kidney injury (AKI) associated with teclistamab remain inadequately characterized. This study aims to compare the incidence, severity, and outcomes of AKI between patients receiving teclistamab and CAR-T therapy. Methods This was a retrospective study involving 64 patients with relapsed/refractory MM treated with either teclistamab or CAR-T therapy. All patients had previously received at least four lines of chemotherapy before being treated with either teclistamab or CAR-T. The primary outcome was the incidence of AKI, and secondary outcomes included AKI severity, kidney recovery rates, and mortality. Kaplan–Meier estimates for AKI-free survival were calculated, and hazard ratios (HRs) for AKI risk were determined using Cox proportional hazards models. Results Sixty-four patients met inclusion criteria for this study (30 received CAR-T and 34 received teclistamab therapy). Among these patients, 14 AKI events occurred in total (22%), with 10 events (29%) in the teclistamab group and four events (13%) in the CAR-T group. AKI-free survival estimates at 180 days after treatment initiation were 68% [95% confidence interval (CI): 53%–87%] for teclistamab patients and 90% (95% CI: 79%–100%) for CAR-T patients. While patients receiving teclistamab were found to have an increased risk of an AKI event compared to those receiving CAR-T therapy, the results were not statistically significant [HR (95% CI): 3.38 (0.93–12.31), P = .065]. Conclusions This study suggests that patients treated with teclistamab may experience a higher incidence of AKI compared to those receiving CAR-T therapy. However, further research is required to determine whether this increased risk is attributable to disease progression or teclistamab itself. These results highlight the need for close kidney function monitoring in patients receiving teclistamab.

Abstract High-dose methotrexate (MTX) results in high rates of acute kidney injury (AKI), neutropenia, and hepatotoxicity. Glucarpidase is a recombinant enzyme that cleaves MTX, but clinical data supporting its use are scarce. We examined the association between glucarpidase administration and outcomes in adults with MTX-AKI from 28 cancer centers across the United States using a sequential target trial emulation framework. The primary end point was kidney recovery at hospital discharge, defined as survival to discharge with serum creatinine &lt;1.5-fold baseline and without dialysis dependence. Key secondary end points were time to kidney recovery, neutropenia, and transaminitis on day 7, and time to death. Using multivariable logistic and Cox regression models, we compared outcomes in patients who received glucarpidase within 4 days following MTX initiation with those in patients who did not. Among 708 patients with MTX-AKI, 209 (29.5%) received glucarpidase. Overall, 183 (25.8%) had a primary end point event. Glucarpidase receipt was associated with a 2.70-fold higher adjusted odds of kidney recovery (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.69–4.31) compared with no glucarpidase receipt. Patients treated with glucarpidase also had faster time to kidney recovery (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.18–3.33) and lower risks of grade ≥2 neutropenia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28–0.91) and grade ≥2 transaminitis (aOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28–0.91) on day 7. There was no difference in time to death (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.49–1.18). These data suggest glucarpidase may improve both renal and extrarenal outcomes in patients with MTX-AKI.