Conventional creatinine-based glomerular filtration rate (GFR) equations are insufficiently accurate for estimating GFR in cirrhosis. The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) recently proposed an equation to estimate GFR in subjects without cirrhosis using both serum creatinine and cystatin C levels. Performance of the new CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation (2012) was superior to previous creatinine- or cystatin C-based GFR equations. To evaluate the performance of the CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation in subjects with cirrhosis, we compared it to GFR measured by non-radiolabeled iothalamate plasma clearance (mGFR) in 72 subjects with cirrhosis. We compared the “bias”, “precision” and “accuracy” of the new CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation to that of 24-hour urinary creatinine clearance (CrCl), Cockcroft-Gault (CG) and previously reported creatinine- and/or cystatin C-based GFR-estimating equations. Accuracy of CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation as quantified by root mean squared error of difference scores [differences between mGFR and estimated GFR (eGFR) or between mGFR and CrCl, or between mGFR and CG equation for each subject] (RMSE=23.56) was significantly better than that of CrCl (37.69, P=0.001), CG (RMSE=36.12, P=0.002) and GFR-estimating equations based on cystatin C only. Its accuracy as quantified by percentage of eGFRs that differed by greater than 30% with respect to mGFR was significantly better compared to CrCl (P=0.024), CG (P=0.0001), 4-variable MDRD (P=0.027) and CKD-EPI creatinine 2009 (P=0.012) equations. However, for 23.61% of the subjects, GFR estimated by CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation differed from the mGFR by more than 30%. CONCLUSIONS The diagnostic performance of CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation (2012) in patients with cirrhosis was superior to conventional equations in clinical practice for estimating GFR. However, its diagnostic performance was substantially worse than reported in subjects without cirrhosis.

The findings suggested that one mechanism by which patients with end-stage renal disease are at increased risk of drug toxicity is reduced activity of the CYP3A enzyme pathway.

Objectives To evaluate performance of kidney function estimation equations and to determine the frequency of drug dose discordance in an older population. Design Cross-sectional analysis of data from community-dwelling volunteers randomly selected from the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging from January 1, 2005–December 31, 2010. Subjects Two hundred sixty-nine men and women with a mean ± SD age of 81 ± 6 years, mean serum creatinine concentration (Scr) of 1.1 ± 0.4 mg/dl, and mean measured 24-hour creatinine clearance (mClcr) of 53 ± 13 ml/minute. Measurements and Main Results Kidney function was estimated by using the following equations: Cockcroft-Gault (CG), Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study (MDRD), and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI). The performance of each equation was assessed by measuring bias and precision relative to mClcr. Dose calculation errors (discordance) were determined for 10 drugs requiring renal dosage adjustments to avoid toxicity when compared to the FDA-approved dosages. The CG equation was the least biased estimate of mClcr. The MDRD and CKD-EPI equations were significantly positively biased compared to CG (mean ± SD 34 ± 20% and 22 ± 15%, respectively, p<0.001) and mClcr (29 ± 47% and 18 ± 40%, respectively, p<0.001). Rounding low Scr values (< 1.0 mg/dl) up to an arbitrary value of 1.0 mg/dL resulted in CG values (44±10 mL/min) that were significantly lower than mClcr (56±12 mL/min, p<0.001) and CG (56±15 mL/min, p<0.001). The MDRD and CKD-EPI equations had median dose discordance rates of 28.6% and 22.9%, respectively. Conclusion The MDRD and CKD-EPI equations significantly overestimated creatinine clearance (mClcr and CG) in elderly individuals. This leads to dose calculation errors for many drugs, particularly in individuals with severe renal impairment. Thus, GFR-estimating equations should not be substituted in place of the CG equation in older adults for the purpose of renal dosage adjustments. In addition, the common practice of rounding or replacing low Scr values with an arbitrary value of 1.0 mg/dL for use in the CG equation should be avoided. Additional studies that evaluate alternative eGFR equations in the older populations that incorporate pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic outcomes measures are needed.

Background-Nesiritide (synthetic human brain natriuretic peptide) is approved for the treatment of symptomatic heart failure. However, studies of brain natriuretic peptide in patients with heart failure have come to conflicting conclusions about effects on glomerular filtration rate (GFR), effective renal plasma flow, natriuresis, and diuresis. Methods and Results-To identify a population at high risk of renal dysfunction with conventional treatment, we selected patients with a creatinine level increased from baseline (within 6 months). We examined the effects of nesiritide on GFR (measured by iothalamate clearance), renal plasma flow (measured by para-amino hippurate clearance), urinary sodium excretion, and urine output in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Patients received nesiritide (2 g/kg IV bolus followed by an infusion of 0.01 g/kg per minute) or placebo for 24 hours on consecutive days. Nesiritide and placebo data were compared by repeated-measures analysis and Student t test. We studied 15 patients with a recent mean baseline creatinine of 1.5Ϯ0.4 mg/dL and serum creatinine of 1.8Ϯ0.8 mg/dL on admission to the study. There were no differences in GFR, effective renal plasma flow, urine output, or sodium excretion for any time interval or for the entire 24-hour period between the nesiritide and placebo study days. For 24 hours, urine output was 113Ϯ51 mL/h with placebo and 110Ϯ56 mL/h with nesiritide. GFR during placebo was 40.9Ϯ25.9 mL/min and with nesiritide was 40.9Ϯ25.8. Conclusions-Nesiritide did not improve renal function in patients with decompensated heart failure, mild chronic renal insufficiency, and renal function that had worsened compared with baseline. The lack of effect may be related to renal insufficiency, hemodynamic alterations, sodium balance, severity of heart failure, or drug dose. Understanding the importance of these issues will permit effective and appropriate use of nesiritide.