nach oben

Journal of Nephrology

Erschienen in:

Open Access 05.08.2021 | Original Article

Estimation of kidney function in patients with primary neuromuscular diseases: is serum cystatin C a better marker of kidney function than creatinine?

verfasst von: Annika Aldenbratt, Christopher Lindberg, Elias Johannesson, Ola Hammarsten, Maria K. Svensson

Erschienen in: Journal of Nephrology | Ausgabe 2/2022

Abstract

Background

Using serum creatinine leads to an overestimation of kidney function in patients with primary neuromuscular disorders, and reduced kidney function may remain undetected. Cystatin C (CysC) could provide a better estimation.

Aim

To evaluate the precision, accuracy, and bias of two creatinine-, one cystatin C-based and one combined equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in patients with primary neuromuscular disease.

Patients and methods

Of the 418 patients initially identified at the out-patient clinic, data on kidney function was obtained for 145 adult patients (age 46 ± 14 years, BMI 26 ± 6 kg/m²) with primary neuromuscular disease. Kidney function was measured by iohexol clearance, and blood samples for serum creatinine and CysC were drawn simultaneously. Bias was defined as the mean difference between eGFR and measured iohexol clearance, and accuracy as the proportion of eGFRs within ± 10% (P10) of measured clearance.

Results

Kidney function (iohexol clearance) was 81 ± 19 (38–134) ml/min/1.73m². All equations overestimated kidney function by 22–60 ml/min/1.73m². eGFR CysC had the lowest bias overall 22 (95% CI 20–26) ml/min/1.73m² also at all levels of kidney function we evaluated (at 30–59 ml/min/1.73m² bias was 27 (95% CI 21–35), at 60–89 it was 25 (95% CI 20–28) and at ≥ 90 it was 12 (95% CI 7–22)). eGFR CysC also had the best accuracy in patients with reduced kidney function (P10 was 5.9% at 30–59 ml/min/1.73m²).

Conclusions

Cystatin C-based estimations of kidney function performed better than creatinine-based ones in patients with primary neuromuscular disease, but most importantly, all evaluated equations overestimated kidney function, especially in patients with reduced kidney function. Therefore, kidney function should be measured by gold-standard methods when precision and accuracy are needed.

Graphic abstract

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 204 KB)

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s40620-021-01122-x.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

eGFR

Estimated glomerular filtration rate

CKD-EPI

Chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration

MDRD

Modification of diet in renal disease study group

IDMS

Isotope dilution mass spectrometry

BMI

Body mass index

Introduction

Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is a validated marker of kidney function [1, 2] recommended in treatment guidelines [3, 4]. In patients with neuromuscular diseases muscle mass is diminished and therefore creatinine-based estimations systematically overestimate kidney function and reduced kidney function may remain undetected and undiagnosed [5, 6]. When serum creatinine is combined with information on lean body mass, a slightly better estimate is achieved [7]. Cystatin C (CysC) correlates well with the clearance of inulin, ⁵¹Cr-EDTA and iohexol, and is not affected by muscle mass to the same extent as creatinine [8, 9] and has therefore been suggested as a better marker of kidney function [10‐12]. CysC has been evaluated in different patient populations, but few studies have assessed CysC in patients with primary neuromuscular diseases including Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) [13, 14], amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) [15] and myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) [16]. Recent studies have shown that CysC concentrations are affected by determinants other than kidney function and muscle mass. Age, male gender, body mass index (BMI), fat mass, triglycerides, hypertension, uric acid, C-reactive protein and diabetes have all been associated with higher serum concentrations of CysC regardless of kidney function [12, 17]. This is of importance since patients with muscular dystrophy often have an absolute or relative increase in body fat [18, 19]. Treatment with high doses of glucocorticoids, as well as thyroid dysfunction and ethnicity also influence CysC levels [10‐12]. A report from the Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment highlighted that cystatin C-based equations had not been sufficiently evaluated in patients with a low BMI [20].

This study was designed to evaluate the precision, accuracy, and bias of two creatinine-, one cystatin C-based and one combined equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in patients with primary neuromuscular diseases. The findings may also be valuable for subjects with low muscle mass or BMI due to other reasons [21].

Patients and methods

Patients

Out of 418 adult patients diagnosed with primary neuromuscular diseases at the Neuromuscular Centre at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, 314 were asked to participate in the study, 153 patients accepted to participate and finally 145 patients (68 men and 77 women) were included in the study and their kidney function was evaluated. A flowchart describing the recruitment of study participants is shown in Fig. 1. The majority of patients (n = 94) had DM1, 19 had Facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD), 15 had Limb-girdle muscular dystrophy (LGMD), eleven had Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), three had DMD and three had Becker muscular dystrophy (BMD). Inclusion criteria were: age above 18 years and having a primary neuromuscular disease. The reduction in muscle function ranged from near-normal strength to severe weakness, not excluding wheelchair users and patients with need of assisted ventilation with Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP), however, patients with severe muscle contractures making the study examinations difficult or impossible were excluded. Exclusion criteria were: estimated survival less than 1 year, known ischemic heart disease, malignancy or an inadequately treated endocrine disease. In addition, included patients should not have a previous history of kidney disease or reduced kidney function. Two patients receiving ongoing medication with corticosteroids were not excluded. Patients were included in the study between 1st October, 2010 and 31st January, 2014. The study was approved by the ethics committee of Gothenburg, Sweden (dnr 492-10). Study procedures were performed according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Methods

Blood samples for analysis of serum creatinine and cystatin C were drawn simultaneously as iohexol plasma-clearance was performed. Measured kidney function (clearance) was determined by plasma-clearance of iohexol (Bis(2,3-dihydroxypropyl)-5-[N-(2,3-dihydroxypropyl)-acetamido]-2, 4,6-triiodo-isophthalamide) according to routine procedures. Five.0 mL of iohexol (Omnipaque® 300 mg J/mL, Nycomed) was administered intravenously. After 4 h a second blood sample was drawn from the contralateral arm for analysis of iohexol concentration. The distribution volume was estimated using a function related to body weight, and another method was used to correct for the lack of complete uniform distribution and non-immediate mixing. The analysis and calculations of iohexol clearance were performed at the Department of Clinical Chemistry at Sahlgrenska University Hospital/Mölndal. This department participates in inter-laboratory comparison schemes from Equalis and has been certified (https://www.equalis.se/en/). Iohexol concentration was determined by HPLC [22, 23] with a between-day Coefficient of variation (CV) of 2.6%. IDMS-calibrated serum creatinine and cystatin C concentrations were analysed using a Cobas system (Roche) at the Department of Clinical Chemistry at Sahlgrenska University Hospital. TheCV for the creatinine and Cystatin C methods was less than 5% within the range in this patient population.

The indexed eGFRs (ml/min/1.73 m²) were calculated using the following equations:

MDRD (175 × SCr^−1,154 + age^0.203 + 1.212 (if patient is black) × 0.742 (if female) [24]
CKD-EPI (141 × min (SCr/k, 1)^a × max (SCr/k, 1)^−1,209 × 0.993^age × 1.018 (if female);
(a = − 0.329 if female, a = − 0.411 if male)) [25]
Cystatin C-based eGFR (eGFR CysC)130 × cystatin C^−1.069 × age^−0.117 − 7 [26]
Combined mean value cystatin C- and creatinine-based eGFR (eGFR CysC + CKD-EPI)

Unindexed kidney function (clearance) and eGFRs (ml/min) were calculated using the following equation:

Absolute GFR (ml/min) = relative GFR [ml/min/body surface area (1.73 m²)] × body surface area (m²)/1.73(m²) and the body surface area (BSA) was calculated with the DuBois and DuBois formula; body area (m²) = 0.20247 × length (m) 0.725 × weight (kg) 0.425 [27].

Statistical methods

Continuous data variables are expressed as mean (SD) if parametric and as median (interquartile range (IQR)) if non-parametric using the Shapiro-Wilks test for normality. Correlations between estimations (eGFR) and measured clearance were performed using both bivariate and multivariable Spearman's correlation analysis. ρ in text and tables is the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. In multivariable analyses, adjusting for gender, age, smoking status and muscle mass [skeletal muscle index; (SMI)], partial Spearman's Rho method was used and ρ is the partial correlation coefficient. Bias was assessed as the mean difference (eGFR-measured clearance), with negative values indicating lower eGFR than measured kidney function (underestimation) and positive values indicating overestimation. Accuracy was defined as the proportion of eGFRs within ± 30% (P30) and ± 10% (P10) of measured clearance. The 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated as measures of the statistical uncertainty when estimating bias and accuracy using bootstrap with 1000 replications, which gives good estimates of confidence intervals. Bias and accuracy P30 and P10 were evaluated in relation to the kidney function levels 30–59, 60–89 and ≥ 90 ml/min/1.73m² (26). The significance of the differences between eGFR equations was determined with the paired sign test for the bias. McNemar's exact test for correlated proportions P30 and P10 was used for pairwise comparisons. Bland–Altman diagrams were used to depict bias and the limits of agreement [28]. In these diagrams, the reference method, e.g. measured clearance (rather than the mean of the two methods) is shown on the x-axis. This approach has been recommended when one of the two methods can be considered more accurate [29], but this has also been challenged by Stevens et al. since clearance too is measured with error. A p value of ≤ 0.05 was considered as significant. MedCalc (MedCalc Software, Broekstaat 52, 9030 Mariakerke, Belgium) and IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0 (IBM Corporation, 1 New Orchard Road, Armonk, New York 10504-1722, U.S.) software were used for the analyses.

Results

Study participants

Clinical and biochemical characteristics of the study participants (n = 145) are shown in Table 1. The overall kidney function (measured clearance) was 81 ± 19 (38–134) ml/min/1.73m² with no difference between men and women (not shown). Only 18 patients had a measured clearance below 60 ml/min/1.73m². Unindexed kidney function (measured clearance) and eGFRs are shown in Supplementary Table 1.

Table 1

Clinical and biochemical characteristics of study participants (n = 145)

	Different levels of measured kidney function (clearance) (ml/min/1.73 m²)
	All (n = 145)	30–59 (n = 18)	60–89 (n = 79)	≥ 90 (n = 48)	p-value^a
Age (years)	46 (14)	57.7 (10)	47.6 (13)	39.7 (13)	< 0.001
Length (cm)	171.5 (9.8)	170.2 (7.0)	171.7 (9.5)	170.6 (10.8)	0.75
Weight (kg)	76.8 (18.3)	73.2 (18.6)	79.2 (19.7)	72.8 (15.7)	0.12
BMI (kg/m²)	25.9 (6.2)	24.8 (5.1)	26.7 (7.7)	24.9 (5.0)	0.26
Gender
Male n (%)	68 (46)	8 (12)	37 (54)	23 (34)	0.97
Female n (%)	77 (54)	10 (54)	42 (54)	25 (32)	0.97
SMI (kg/m²)	6.2 (2.1)	5.6 (2.6)	6.6 (2.4)	5.9 (3.1)	0.13
S-cystatin C (mg/L)	0.96 (0.2)	1.2 (.2)	.99 (.1)	.86 (.1)	< 0.001
S-creatinine (ųmol/L)	58.2 (23.8)	65.6 (26.9)	63.1 (21.7)	45.7 (21.6)	0.03
MDRD (ml/min/1.73m²)	113 (69.3)	101.5 (60.8)	100.0 (43.9)	152.5 (159.4)	< 0.001
CKD-EPI (ml/min/1.73m²)	111.0 (29.0)	99.5 (41.8)	106.0 (27.0)	129.0 (33.5)	< 0.001
eGFR CysC (ml/min/1.73m²)	104.7 (25.6)	82.3 (19.4)	98.1 (19.3)	118.3 (19.3)	< 0.001
eGFR CysC + CKD-EPI (ml/min/1.73m²)	111.8 (27.9)	91.1 (27.0)	103.7 (22.1)	121.2 (23.5)	< 0.001
Diagnosis (%)
Myotonic dystrophy 1	94 (64.8)	16 (17)	64 (68)	14 (15)
Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy	6 (4)	1 (17)	2 (33)	3 (50)
Facioscapulohumeral	19 (13)	0 (0)	4 (21)	15 (79)
Muscular dystrophy (FSHD)
Limb-girdle muscular dystrophy	19 (13)	1 (5)	8 (42)	10 (53)
Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA)	7 (5)	0 (0)	1 (14)	6 (86)

Results expressed as mean ± SD. Diagnosis expressed as n (%)

SMI skeletal muscle index; FSHD Facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy; Limb-girdle Limb-girdle muscular dystrophy SMA spinal muscular atrophy, eGFR estimated GFR, CKD-EPI chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration; MDRD modification of diet in renal disease [1, 31]

Correlations between measured clearance and estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs)

The correlations between BSA-indexed measured clearance and eGFRs are shown in Table 2. All eGFRs correlated to measured clearance (ρ = 0.41–0.64) and the strongest correlation was found between the cystatin C-based eGFR (eGFR CysC) (ρ = 0.64) followed by the combined cystatin C- and creatinine–based eGFR (eGFR CysC + CKD-EPI) (ρ = 0.61) and the creatinine-based eGFR (CKD-EPI) (ρ = 0.48). The correlations for these three equations remained significant after adjusting for age, gender, smoking status and SMI (ρ = 0.52, ρ = 0.46 and ρ = 0.45). The MDRD equation displayed the largest change after adjustment and the correlation to measured clearance was markedly reduced from ρ = 0.41 to ρ = 0.11 (NS). When unindexed measured clearance and GFR estimates (ml/min) were used, correlations were similar, except for unadjusted MDRD that was markedly reduced (ρ = 0.12) and non-significant. After adjustment, MDRD improved slightly to ρ = 0.12 and became significant (see Supplementary Table 2).

Table 2

Correlations between estimated (eGFR) and measured kidney function (clearance) (n = 145)

	Unadjusted clearance		Adjusted clearance^a
MDRD (ml/min/1.73m²)	0.41	(0.25, 0.55)	0.11	(− 0.07, 0.32)
CKD-EPI (ml/min/1.73m²)	0.48	(0.33, 0.62)	0.45	(0.10, 0.45)
eGFR CysC (ml/min/1.73m²)	0.64	(0.51, 0.73)	0.52	(0.38, 0.64)
eGFRCys C + CKD-EPI (ml/min/1.73m²) 0.61	(0.47, 0.71)	0.46	(0.28, 0.62)

95% confidence intervals (95% CI) based on bootstrap in parentheses. All correlations except adjusted MDRD were significant, p < 0.05

MDRD modification of diet in renal disease study group, CKD-EPI chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration, eGFR CysC Cystatin C-based estimated GFR, eGFR CysC + CKD-EPI; combined Cystatin C-based and CKD-EPI (mean values), see methods section

^aAdjusted for age, gender, smoking status and muscle mass (SMI, skeletal muscle index)

Bias for estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs)

Table 3 compares bias and accuracy of BSA-indexed eGFRs according to level of kidney function (clearance). With regard to overall bias, all equations overestimate kidney function, from 22 to 60 ml/min/1.73m², with eGFR CysC having the smallest bias (22), followed by CKD-EPI (27), MDRD (32) and eGFR CysC + CKD-EPI (26) (all p < 0.05). When comparing bias at different kidney function levels different patterns were found for the equations. eGFR CysC had the lowest bias at all levels of kidney function (clearance) and overall eGFR CysC had a significantly lower bias than MDRD and eGFR CysC + CKD-EPI. All equations had a larger bias in patients with reduced kidney function, i.e. measured clearance below 60 ml/min/1.73m².

Table 3

Comparison of the performance (bias and accuracy) of estimated GFR equations (eGFR) by kidney function (clearance), overall and at different levels of kidney function (n = 145)

	Different levels of kidney function (clearance) (ml/min/1.73m²)
	Overall (n = 145)	30–59 (n = 18)	60–89 (n = 79)	≥ 90 (n = 48)
Bias^a (ml/min/1.73 m²)
MDRD	31.7 (22.9, 39.2)*	45.5 (15.5, 65.0)*	28.0 (18.0, 35.6)	48.1 (25.1 82.5)*
CKD-EPI	27.0 (24.0, 35.0)	45.0 (20.0, 57.0)*	30.0 (24.0, 36.0)*	23.5 (15.0, 39.0)*
eGFR CysC	22.2 (19.1, 25.2)	27.2 (20.7, 35.1)	25.2 (19.8, 28.4)	11.9 (7.4, 21.8)
eGFR CysC + CKD-EPI	26.1 (23.6, 29.1)*	34.3 (25.4, 49.1)*	27.2 (24.1, 30.2)*	19.2 (16.5, 25.0)*
Accuracy (P10)^b (%)
MDRD	15.9 (10.3, 22.1)	5.6 (0.0, 18.8)	19.0 (10.9, 27.5)	14.6 (5.1, 25.6)*
CKD-EPI	11.0 (6.2, 16.6)*	0.0 (0.0, 0.0)	7.6 (2.6, 14.3)	20.8 (9.5, 32.7)*
eGFR CysC	20.8 (13.9, 27.8)	5.9 (0.0, 20.0)	7.6 (2.4, 13.8)	47.9 (34.0, 61.7)
eGFR CysC + CKD-EPI	11.8 (6.9, 18.1)*	0.0 (0.0, 0.0)	5.1 (1.2, 10.4)	27.1 (15.1, 40.0)*
Accuracy (P30) ^b (%)
MDRD	38.6 (31.1, 46.9)	22.2 (4.5, 43.8)	41.8 (30.1, 52.3)	39.6 (25.6, 52.9)*
CKD-EPI	37.2 (29.7, 45.5)*	11.1 (0.0, 27.8)	31.6 (21.1, 42.2)	56.3 (40.5, 69.4)*
eGFR CysC	49.3 (41.0, 56.9)	11.8 (0.0, 28.6)	38.0 (27.2, 48.7)	81.3 (68.9, 91.1)
eGFR CysC + CKD-EPI	43.8 (35.4, 51.4)	5.9 (0.0, 19.0)	34.2 (23.4 45.0)	72.9 (58.8, 84.3)

CKD-EPI chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration; MDRD modification of diet in renal disease

*p ≤ 0.05 vs eGFR CysC

^aBias was assessed the mean difference (eGFR-measured clearance) with negative values indicating lower eGFR than measured clearance (underestimation of kidney function) and positive values indicating overestimation

^bAccuracy is defined as the proportion of eGFRs within ± > 30% (P30) and within ± > 10% (P10) of measured clearance (95% CI)

Accuracy was evaluated as measured clearance ± 10% (P10) and ± 30% (P30) and the overall accuracy for the different equations varied, P10 from 5.6 to 21% and P30 from 20 to 49%. Overall eGFR CysC had a significantly higher overall P10 than MDRD and eGFR CysC+CKD-EPI. When comparing the accuracy at different levels of kidney function MDRD and eGFR CysC had a low P10 in patients with reduced kidney function (5.6 and 5.9%, respectively). At P30 all creatinine-based equations improved their performance overall but the 95% CIs were wide. Among the creatinine-based equations, MDRD had the best performance in patients with reduced kidney function (22%) and CKD-EPI in patients with normal kidney function (56%). eGFR CysC had the best accuracy in patients with normal kidney function, significantly higher than both MDRD and eGFR CKD-EPI but the P30 in patients with reduced kidney function was only 12%. Unindexed kidney function (measured clearance) and eGFRs are shown in Supplementary Table 3 and commented on below.

Bland–Altman diagrams for estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs)

The bias for different equations are also illustrated by Bland–Altman diagrams displayed in Fig. 2a–d. eGFR CysC, CKD-EPI, eGFR CysC + CKD-EPI and MDRD overestimated kidney function; GFR (measured clearance) by mean 22 ± 18, 35 ± 33, 30 ± 21 and 88 ± 174 ml/min/1.73m², respectively. Thus, MDRD exhibited the largest bias. The largest overestimations using eGFRs were found in patients with reduced kidney function. Figures using unindexed kidney function (measured clearance) and eGFRs are found in Supplementary Fig. 2a–d.

Summary of comparisons between BSA-indexed and unindexed values evaluating bias and accuracy

Overall, only minor changes were observed when unindexed measured clearances, i.e. absolute values (ml/min) were used instead of BSA-indexed and eGFRs, i.e. relative values (ml/min/1.73m²). Important to note is that the use of unindexed measured clearances and eGFRs also resulted in a change in number of subjects in the different kidney function-level categories, in 30–59 ml/min 18 to 16, in 60–89 ml/min 79–61 and in > 90 ml/min 48–67. When using unindexed measured clearance and eGFRs the overall difference in bias between eGFR CysC and eGFR CKD-EPI and the differences in accuracy between P10 eGFR CysC and eGFR CysC + CKD-EPI, and P30 eGFRCys and eGFR CysC + CKD-EPI, respectively, became significant. Figures and tables using unindexed measured clearances and eGFRs are found in the Supplementary section.

Discussion

In this study we show that s using a cystatin C-based equation to estimate kidney function in patients with primary neuromuscular disease results in better precision, accuracy and lower bias compared to creatinine-based estimations, but most importantly, we show that all creatinine- and cystatin C-based equations evaluated in this study overestimate kidney function in this patient population and especially in patients with reduced kidney function. In addition, and in contrast to other patient populations, a combined equation based on the mean values of creatinine and cystatin C is not more precise and accurate than a cystatin C-based estimation [30].

Previous studies have demonstrated the potential usefulness of cystatin C as a marker of kidney function in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy [13, 14], amyotrophic lateral sclerosis [15] and myotonic dystrophy 1 [16], but in a study in children and adolescents with spinal dysraphism the authors concluded that slightly to moderately reduced kidney function could still remain undiagnosed [31]. Interestingly, in a recent study in community-dwelling older adults with sarcopenia and chronic kidney disease eGFR creatinine was not significantly correlated to muscle volume and strength, on the contrary, eGFR cystatin C was positively correlated to these parameters [32]. The findings in our study support guidelines recommending cystatin C-based estimation of kidney function when creatinine-based equations could be inaccurate. However, a weakness with the current guidelines is that they do not specify in which populations this should be done [3, 4]. Even though a cystatin C-based equation may provide better accuracy, in our study it varies within a wide range especially in patients with reduced kidney function (35–67%). In addition, a bias of 22 and a low P30 of 49% could probably not be considered “good enough” for the use of these estimates in clinical practise, especially in patients where a reduction in kidney function is suspected. We therefore argue that kidney function should be measured and not just estimated in patients in whom better accuracy is warranted, i.e. when drug dosing is important and especially when renally excreted and potentially toxic drugs and contrast media are administered.

A clinically important finding in this study is that both creatinine- and cystatin C-based equations systematically overestimate kidney function in patients with primary neuromuscular diseases, especially in patients with reduced kidney function. The reason for this overestimation when using cystatin C-based estimates is not entirely clear since previous studies have shown that cystatin C is less correlated to muscle mass and diet than creatinine [33, 34]. Previously identified non-GFR-related factors such as inflammation, obesity [17], insulin resistance [35, 36], oxidative damage [37], growth hormone [38], thyroid hormone [39] and glucocorticoids [10] have all instead been linked to increased cystatin C production and thus an underestimation of GFR. A potential explanation for the overestimation of kidney function when using cystatin-C based equations could be that body fat is a determinant of cystatin C [12] and that patients with muscular dystrophy would have not only a reduction in muscle mass but also in fat mass. This could be true but might not be the entire explanation since many patients with muscular dystrophy actually have either an absolute or a relative increase in body fat [18, 19]. To our knowledge no factor resulting in a true decreased production of cystatin C, and hence in an overestimation of kidney function, has been reported.

The convention of indexing glomerular filtration rate to BSA attempts to normalize kidney function across populations of differing body size but may be inappropriate when a more precise estimation of kidney function is needed or in patients with extreme body sizes. Adding to the complexity, there is a disproportionate relation between extracellular volume (ESV) and BSA [40], and a higher ECV in women may be concealed by scaling to BSA [41]. The use of absolute values has been shown to improve the performance of estimation of individual kidney function [42]. We therefore explored the use of both indexed and unindexed measures and estimates of kidney function in these subjects with muscle wasting diseases. In our study only minor changes were observed when unindexed values were used instead of BSA-indexed ones. One potential reason is that the patient population in this study, despite having muscle wasting conditions, did not display extreme body size. They also had a relatively normal BSA (1.88 m²) close to the BSA used for normalization (1.73 m²) of kidney function.

A weakness when using cystatin C-based estimations of kidney function has previously been the lack of an international calibrator resulting in analytical bias and inability to compare cystatin C analysis carried out using different assays. Recently, an international cystatin C calibrator was used to develop an assay-independent cystatin C-based equation for estimation of GFR (CAPA) [26]. It is however worth pointing out that CAPA does not have a sex coefficient and a potential impact of sex has not been evaluated in this study. In this study cystatin C was calibrated and the matching CAPA equation was used. This has not been done previously in studies with patients with low muscle mass. Interestingly, in this population, a combined equation based on the mean value of creatinine- and cystatin C-based estimates was not more precise and accurate than a cystatin C-based estimation; something that has been shown in other populations [30]. A plausible explanation for this finding is the overestimation of kidney function for both creatinine- and cystatin C-based estimations. Among the creatinine-based equations evaluated, MDRD had the best accuracy in patients with reduced kidney function, both for P30 and to a lesser extent also P10. MDRD is currently the most commonly used creatinine-based equation in subjects with reduced kidney function.

The findings of our study should however be interpreted in light of its strengths and limitations. The strengths include that the study population is larger than in previous corresponding studies, the measurements of serum creatinine and cystatin C were done using standardized and calibrated assays, and the analysed blood samples were drawn simultaneously with the measurements of iohexol clearance. However, there are also some limitations. One is that we pooled patients with different primary neuromuscular diseases who may have had different disease characteristics, and that from the initial 418 patients identified at the outpatient clinic data on renal function was obtained only in 145 cases in CKD stage I–IIIa, thus few participants had severe kidney failure or an advanced neuromuscular disease with very low muscle mass. The generalizability to all patients with reduced muscle mass should thus be further evaluated. The calibration of measured and estimated kidney function by BSA has been questioned in patients with altered body composition, i.e. both low and high body mass index, however, this concern is not specific for this study [40, 43] but nonetheless, we have tried to address this issue by calculating both indexed and unindexed measures and estimates.

Another limitation and potential concern is that plasma clearance of iohexol used to measure kidney function in this study has not been validated specifically in patients with primary neuromuscular disease or in other populations with low body mass index and reduced muscle mass, i.e. sarcopenia, but there are studies ongoing to assess this matter (personal communication).

Another potential explanation for part of the results in this study may thus be that both the MDRD and the CKD-EPI equation were developed using urinary clearance of iothalamate as a measurement of kidney function; GFR. This is in contrast with our study but also in the development of the cystatin C -based estimation using CAPA where plasma clearance of iohexol was used. A recent paper has shown that there may be an approx. 15% difference between urinary clearances for the two tracers [44]. Since plasma clearance is thought to be greater than urinary clearance, plasma clearance for iohexol may be 5–10% lower than urinary clearance for iothalamate, therefore, this must be taken into account.

It should also be highlighted that Pearson's correlation coefficient does not take into account any differences in values between compared groups and thus the correlation can be quite good even when eGFR values differ from measured clearance values by twofold or more. To explain the difference between agreement and correlation it is therefore important to depict bias and the limits of agreement using Bland–Altman diagrams.

In conclusion, our findings indicate that a cystatin C-based estimation of kidney function may be more accurate in patients with primary neuromuscular disease and low muscle mass. However, even though it provides better accuracy, it varies within a wide range and should thus not be considered good enough for use in patients in whom better accuracy is warranted, for example when contrast media and potentially toxic drugs are administered.

Another important finding is that both creatinine- and cystatin c-based equations systematically overestimated kidney function, especially in patients with reduced kidney function. This is clinically relevant, since detecting and diagnosing patients with reduced kidney function is extremely important as they are at risk of developing secondary metabolic complications and/or end-stage kidney disease, and the reduction of kidney function may affect drug dosing. Further studies are necessary both to validate currently used techniques for measuring kidney function in patients with low body mass index and reduced muscle mass, as well as to evaluate diagnostic strategies for estimating kidney function in patients with reduced muscle mass and altered body composition.

Acknowledgements

We thank research nurses Karin Håkansson and Blanka Andersson for help in reviewing medical records and for skilful assistance in finding and including patients in our study. We also thank research nurse Inger Olander at the Department of Nephrology for all help with daily practicalities. Last but not least we thank the Department of Clinical Chemistry for their valuable advice and for performing all the iohexol clearance measurements.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has any conflict of interest or competing interests to declare.

Ethical statement

The study was approved by the ethics committee of Gothenburg, Sweden (dnr 492–10). Study procedures were performed according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Study procedures were performed according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

Jetzt testen ¹

e.Med Innere Medizin

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Innere Medizin erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen des Fachgebietes Innere Medizin, den Premium-Inhalten der internistischen Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten internistischen Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

Jetzt testen ²

e.Med Urologie

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Urologie erhalten Sie Zugang zu den urologischen CME-Fortbildungen und Premium-Inhalten der urologischen Fachzeitschriften.

Jetzt testen ³

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 204 KB)

Perrone RD, Madias NE, Levey AS (1992) Serum creatinine as an index of renal function: new insights into old concepts. Clin Chem 38(10):1933–1953CrossRef

Levey AS, Coresh J, Balk E, Kausz AT, Levin A, Steffes MW, Hogg RJ, Perrone RD, Lau J, Eknoyan G, National Kidney F (2003) National Kidney Foundation practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification. Ann Intern Med 139(2):137–147. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-139-2-200307150-00013CrossRefPubMed

Stevens PE, Levin A, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes Chronic Kidney Disease Guideline Development Work Group M (2013) Evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease: synopsis of the kidney disease: improving global outcomes 2012 clinical practice guideline. Ann Intern Med 158(11):825–830. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-158-11-201306040-00007CrossRefPubMed

Current Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) nomenclature used by KDIGO (2020). Transplantation 104 (4S1 Suppl 1):7. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.tp.0000660604.20951.09

Griggs RC, Forbes G, Moxley RT, Herr BE (1983) The assessment of muscle mass in progressive neuromuscular disease. Neurology 33(2):158–165. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.33.2.158CrossRefPubMed

Franciotta D, Zanardi MC, Albertotti L, Orcesi S, Berardinelli A, Pichiecchio A, Uggetti C, Tagliabue A (2003) Measurement of skeletal muscle mass in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: use of 24-h creatinine excretion. Acta Diabetol 40(Suppl 1):S290-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-003-0089-8CrossRefPubMed

Gowda S, Desai PB, Kulkarni SS, Hull VV, Math AA, Vernekar SN (2010) Markers of renal function tests. N Am J Med Sci 2(4):170–173PubMedPubMedCentral

Roos JF, Doust J, Tett SE, Kirkpatrick CM (2007) Diagnostic accuracy of cystatin C compared to serum creatinine for the estimation of renal dysfunction in adults and children–a meta-analysis. Clin Biochem 40(5–6):383–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2006.10.026CrossRefPubMed

Hojs R, Bevc S, Ekart R, Gorenjak M, Puklavec L (2006) Serum cystatin C as an endogenous marker of renal function in patients with mild to moderate impairment of kidney function. Nephrol Dial Transpl 21(7):1855–1862. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfl073CrossRef

10.

Risch L, Herklotz R, Blumberg A, Huber AR (2001) Effects of glucocorticoid immunosuppression on serum cystatin C concentrations in renal transplant patients. Clin Chem 47(11):2055–2059CrossRef

11.

Fricker M, Wiesli P, Brandle M, Schwegler B, Schmid C (2003) Impact of thyroid dysfunction on serum cystatin C. Kidney Int 63(5):1944–1947. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1755.2003.00925.xCrossRefPubMed

12.

Kottgen A, Selvin E, Stevens LA, Levey AS, Van Lente F, Coresh J (2008) Serum cystatin C in the United States: the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III). Am J Kidney Dis 51(3):385–394. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2007.11.019CrossRefPubMed

13.

Viollet L, Gailey S, Thornton DJ, Friedman NR, Flanigan KM, Mahan JD, Mendell JR (2009) Utility of cystatin C to monitor renal function in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Muscle Nerve 40(3):438–442. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.21420CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Villa CR, Kaddourah A, Mathew J, Ryan TD, Wong BL, Goldstein SL, Jefferies JL (2016) Identifying evidence of cardio-renal syndrome in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy using cystatin C. Neuromuscul Disord 26(10):637–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nmd.2016.07.010CrossRefPubMed

15.

Tetsuka S, Morita M, Ikeguchi K, Nakano I (2013) Utility of cystatin C for renal function in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Acta Neurol Scand 128(6):386–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/ane.12134CrossRefPubMed

16.

Matsumura T, Saito T, Yonemoto N, Nakamori M, Sugiura T, Nakamori A, Fujimura H, Sakoda S (2016) Renal dysfunction can be a common complication in patients with myotonic dystrophy 1. J Neurol Sci 368:266–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2016.07.036CrossRefPubMed

17.

Stevens LA, Schmid CH, Greene T, Li L, Beck GJ, Joffe MM, Froissart M, Kusek JW, Zhang YL, Coresh J, Levey AS (2009) Factors other than glomerular filtration rate affect serum cystatin C levels. Kidney Int 75(6):652–660. https://doi.org/10.1038/ki.2008.638CrossRefPubMed

18.

Merlini L, Vagheggini A, Cocchi D (2014) Sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity in patients with muscular dystrophy. Front Aging Neurosci 6:274. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2014.00274CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Vera KA, McConville M, Kyba M, Keller-Ross ML (2020) Sarcopenic obesity in facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy. Front Physiol 11:1008. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2020.01008CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Soveri I, Berg UB, Bjork J, Elinder CG, Grubb A, Mejare I, Sterner G, Back SE, Group SGR (2014) Measuring GFR: a systematic review. Am J Kidney Dis 64(3):411–424. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2014.04.010CrossRefPubMed

21.

Fehrman-Ekholm I, Seeberger A, Bjork J, Sterner G (2009) Serum cystatin C: a useful marker of kidney function in very old people. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 69(5):606–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365510903015771CrossRefPubMed

22.

Eriksson CG, Kallner A (1991) Glomerular filtration rate: a comparison between Cr-EDTA clearance and a single sample technique with a non-ionic contrast agent. Clin Biochem 24(3):261–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-9120(91)80017-wCrossRefPubMed

23.

Harapanhalli RS, Yaghmai V, Patel YD, Baker SR, Rao DV (1993) Assay of radiographic contrast agents in mice plasma and testes by high-performance liquid chromatography. Anal Chem 65(5):606–612. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac00053a020CrossRefPubMed

24.

Levey AS, Greene T, Sarnak MJ, Wang X, Beck GJ, Kusek JW, Collins AJ, Kopple JD (2006) Effect of dietary protein restriction on the progression of kidney disease: long-term follow-up of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study. Am J Kidney Dis 48(6):879–888. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2006.08.023CrossRefPubMed

25.

Levey AS, Stevens LA, Schmid CH, Zhang YL, Castro AF 3rd, Feldman HI, Kusek JW, Eggers P, Van Lente F, Greene T, Coresh J, Ckd EPI (2009) A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med 150(9):604–612. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-150-9-200905050-00006CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Grubb A, Horio M, Hansson LO, Bjork J, Nyman U, Flodin M, Larsson A, Bokenkamp A, Yasuda Y, Blufpand H, Lindstrom V, Zegers I, Althaus H, Blirup-Jensen S, Itoh Y, Sjostrom P, Nordin G, Christensson A, Klima H, Sunde K, Hjort-Christensen P, Armbruster D, Ferrero C (2014) Generation of a new cystatin C-based estimating equation for glomerular filtration rate by use of 7 assays standardized to the international calibrator. Clin Chem 60(7):974–986. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2013.220707CrossRefPubMed

27.

Du Bois D, Du Bois EF (1916) A formula to estimate the approximate surface area if height and weight be known. Arch Intern Med 17:863–871CrossRef

28.

Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1(8476):307–310CrossRef

29.

Krouwer JS (2008) Why Bland-Altman plots should use X, not (Y+X)/2 when X is a reference method. Stat Med 27(5):778–780. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3086CrossRefPubMed

30.

Nyman U, Grubb A, Sterner G, Bjork J (2009) Different equations to combine creatinine and cystatin C to predict GFR. Arithmetic mean of existing equations performs as well as complex combinations. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 69(5):619–627. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365510902946992CrossRefPubMed

31.

Abrahamsson K, Jodal U, Sixt R, Olsson I, Sillen U (2008) Estimation of renal function in children and adolescents with spinal dysraphism. J Urol 179(6):2407–2409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.167CrossRefPubMed

32.

Kusunoki H, Tsuji S, Kusukawa T, Wada Y, Tamaki K, Nagai K, Itoh M, Sano K, Amano M, Maeda H, Sugita H, Hasegawa Y, Kishimoto H, Shimomura S, Shinmura K (2020) Relationships between cystatin C- and creatinine-based eGFR in Japanese rural community- dwelling older adults with sarcopenia. Clin Exp Nephrol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10157-020-01981-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Tangri N, Stevens LA, Schmid CH, Zhang YL, Beck GJ, Greene T, Coresh J, Levey AS (2011) Changes in dietary protein intake has no effect on serum cystatin C levels independent of the glomerular filtration rate. Kidney Int 79(4):471–477. https://doi.org/10.1038/ki.2010.431CrossRefPubMed

34.

Vinge E, Lindergard B, Nilsson-Ehle P, Grubb A (1999) Relationships among serum cystatin C, serum creatinine, lean tissue mass and glomerular filtration rate in healthy adults. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 59(8):587–592. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365519950185076CrossRefPubMed

35.

de Boer IH, Katz R, Chonchol MB, Fried LF, Ix JH, Kestenbaum B, Mukamal KJ, Peralta CA, Siscovick DS (2012) Insulin resistance, cystatin C, and mortality among older adults. Diabetes Care 35(6):1355–1360. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc11-1657CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Lee SH, Park SA, Ko SH, Yim HW, Ahn YB, Yoon KH, Cha BY, Son HY, Kwon HS (2010) Insulin resistance and inflammation may have an additional role in the link between cystatin C and cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. Metabolism 59(2):241–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metabol.2009.07.019CrossRefPubMed

37.

Xie L, Terrand J, Xu B, Tsaprailis G, Boyer J, Chen QM (2010) Cystatin C increases in cardiac injury: a role in extracellular matrix protein modulation. Cardiovasc Res 87(4):628–635. https://doi.org/10.1093/cvr/cvq138CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Sze L, Bernays RL, Zwimpfer C, Wiesli P, Brandle M, Schmid C (2013) Impact of growth hormone on cystatin C. Nephron Extra 3(1):118–124. https://doi.org/10.1159/000356464CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Kotajima N, Yanagawa Y, Aoki T, Tsunekawa K, Morimura T, Ogiwara T, Nara M, Murakami M (2010) Influence of thyroid hormones and transforming growth factor-beta1 on cystatin C concentrations. J Int Med Res 38(4):1365–1373. https://doi.org/10.1177/147323001003800418CrossRefPubMed

40.

Peters AM, Snelling HL, Glass DM, Love S, Bird NJ (2010) Estimated lean body mass is more appropriate than body surface area for scaling glomerular filtration rate and extracellular fluid volume. Nephron Clin Pract 116(1):c75-80. https://doi.org/10.1159/000314666CrossRefPubMed

41.

Peters AM, Seshadri N, Neilly MD, Perry L, Hooker CA, Howard B, Sobnack R, Irwin A, Dave S, Snelling H, Gruning T, Patel NH, Shabo G, Williams N, Barnfield MC, Lawson RS (2013) Higher extracellular fluid volume in women is concealed by scaling to body surface area. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 73(7):546–552. https://doi.org/10.3109/00365513.2013.819524CrossRefPubMed

42.

Redal-Baigorri B, Rasmussen K, Heaf JG (2013) The use of absolute values improves performance of estimation formulae: a retrospective cross sectional study. BMC Nephrol 14:271. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2369-14-271CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Delanaye P, Krzesinski JM (2011) Indexing of renal function parameters by body surface area: intelligence or folly? Nephron Clin Pract 119(4):c289-292. https://doi.org/10.1159/000330276CrossRefPubMed

44.

Seegmiller JC, Burns BE, Schinstock CA, Lieske JC, Larson TS (2016) Discordance between iothalamate and iohexol urinary clearances. Am J Kidney Dis 67(1):49–55. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2015.08.020CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Estimation of kidney function in patients with primary neuromuscular diseases: is serum cystatin C a better marker of kidney function than creatinine?
verfasst von: Annika Aldenbratt
Christopher Lindberg
Elias Johannesson
Ola Hammarsten
Maria K. Svensson
Publikationsdatum: 05.08.2021
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Journal of Nephrology / Ausgabe 2/2022
Print ISSN: 1121-8428
Elektronische ISSN: 1724-6059
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40620-021-01122-x

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

^{Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag}

Kostenlos registrieren

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

„Überwältigende“ Evidenz für Tripeltherapie beim metastasierten Prostata-Ca.

22.05.2024 Prostatakarzinom Nachrichten

Patienten mit metastasiertem hormonsensitivem Prostatakarzinom sollten nicht mehr mit einer alleinigen Androgendeprivationstherapie (ADT) behandelt werden, mahnt ein US-Team nach Sichtung der aktuellen Datenlage. Mit einer Tripeltherapie haben die Betroffenen offenbar die besten Überlebenschancen.

So sicher sind Tattoos: Neue Daten zur Risikobewertung

22.05.2024 Melanom Nachrichten

Das größte medizinische Problem bei Tattoos bleiben allergische Reaktionen. Melanome werden dadurch offensichtlich nicht gefördert, die Farbpigmente könnten aber andere Tumoren begünstigen.

CAR-M-Zellen: Warten auf das große Fressen

22.05.2024 Onkologische Immuntherapie Nachrichten

Auch myeloide Immunzellen lassen sich mit chimären Antigenrezeptoren gegen Tumoren ausstatten. Solche CAR-Fresszell-Therapien werden jetzt für solide Tumoren entwickelt. Künftig soll dieser Prozess nicht mehr ex vivo, sondern per mRNA im Körper der Betroffenen erfolgen.

Frühzeitige HbA1c-Kontrolle macht sich lebenslang bemerkbar

22.05.2024 Typ-2-Diabetes Nachrichten

Menschen mit Typ-2-Diabetes von Anfang an intensiv BZ-senkend zu behandeln, wirkt sich positiv auf Komplikationen und Mortalität aus – und das offenbar lebenslang, wie eine weitere Nachfolgeuntersuchung der UKPD-Studie nahelegt.

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Aim

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusions

Graphic abstract

Supplementary Information

Publisher's Note

Introduction

Patients and methods

Patients

Methods

Statistical methods

Results

Study participants

Correlations between measured clearance and estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs)

Bias for estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs)

Bland–Altman diagrams for estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs)

Summary of comparisons between BSA-indexed and unindexed values evaluating bias and accuracy

Discussion

Acknowledgements

Declarations

Conflict of interest

Ethical statement

Consent to participate

Publisher's Note

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

e.Med Innere Medizin

e.Med Urologie

Supplementary Information

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2022

Eculizumab use in a tertiary care nephrology center: data from the Vienna TMA cohort

Immune-mediated thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura in childhood treated by caplacizumab, about 3 cases

Association between hyperkalemia, RAASi non-adherence and outcomes in chronic kidney disease

Assessment of glomerular morphological patterns by deep learning algorithms

Contraceptive use among women with kidney transplants in the United States

Plasmatic osteopontin and vascular access dysfunction in hemodialysis patients: a cross-sectional, case–control study (The OSMOSIS Study)

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

„Überwältigende“ Evidenz für Tripeltherapie beim metastasierten Prostata-Ca.

So sicher sind Tattoos: Neue Daten zur Risikobewertung

CAR-M-Zellen: Warten auf das große Fressen

Frühzeitige HbA1c-Kontrolle macht sich lebenslang bemerkbar

Update Innere Medizin