Validation of a Metabolite Panel for a More Accurate Estimation of Glomerular Filtration Rate Using Quantitative LC-MS/MS. (1st March 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Freed, Tiffany A; Coresh, Josef; Inker, Lesley A; Toal, Douglas R; Perichon, Regis; Chen, Jingsha; Goodman, Kelli D; Zhang, Qibo; Conner, Jessie K; Hauser, Deirdre M; Vroom, Kate E T; Oyaski, Maria L; Wulff, Jacob E; Eiríksdóttir, Gudný; Gudnason, Vilmundur; Torres, Vicente E; Ford, Lisa A; Levey, Andrew S
• Is Part Of: Clinical chemistry. Volume 65:Number 3(2019)
• Page Start: 406
• Page End: 418
• Publication Date: 2019-03-01
• Subjects: Clinical chemistry -- Periodicals; Pharmaceutical chemistry -- Periodicals; Biochemistry -- Periodicals; Biochimie -- Périodiques; Diagnostics biologiques -- Périodiques; Biochemistry; Clinical chemistry; Pharmaceutical chemistry; Biochemistry; Laboratory Techniques and Procedures; Klinische chemie; Periodicals; 616.075605
• DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2018.288092
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0009-9147

Abstract

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Clinical 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. METHODS: An 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%]. RESULTS: The assay had a mean imprecision (≤10% intraassay, ≤6.9% interassay), linearity over the quantitative range ( r 2 > 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. CONCLUSIONS: The new eGFRmet equation could serve as a confirmatory test for GFR estimation.