Medication-related adverse events in patients with cancer and discrepancies in cystatin C- versus creatinine-based eGFR ======================================================================================================================= * Paul E. Hanna * Qiyu Wang * Ian Strohbehn * Daiana Moreno * Destiny Harden * Tianqi Ouyang * Nurit Katz-Agranov * Harish Seethapathy * Kerry L. Reynolds * Shruti Gupta * David E. Leaf * Meghan E. Sise ## Abstract **Background** Creatinine-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFRCRE) may overestimate kidney function in patients with cancer. Cystatin C-based eGFR (eGFRCYS) is an alternative marker of kidney function. We investigated whether patients with an eGFR discrepancy, defined as eGFRCYS >30% lower than the concurrent eGFRCRE, had an increased risk of adverse events resulting from renally-cleared medications. **Patients and Methods** We conducted a cohort study of adult patients with cancer who had serum creatinine and cystatin C measured on the same day between May 2010 and January 2022 at two academic cancer centers in Boston, MA. The primary outcome was the incidence of each of the following medication-related adverse events: 1) supratherapeutic vancomycin levels (>30μg/mL); 2) trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole-related hyperkalemia (>5.5mEq/L); 3) baclofen-induced neurotoxicity; and 4) supratherapeutic digoxin levels (>2.0ng/mL). **Results** 1988 patients with cancer had simultaneous eGFRCYS and eGFRCRE. The mean age was 66 years (SD±14), 965 (49%) were female, and 1555 (78%) were non-Hispanic white. eGFR discrepancy occurred in 579 patients (29%). Patients with eGFR discrepancy were more likely to experience medication-related adverse events compared to those without eGFR discrepancy: vancomycin levels >30μg/mL (24% vs. 10%, p=0.004), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole-related hyperkalemia (24% vs. 12%, p=0.013), baclofen-induced neurotoxicity (25% vs. 0%, p=0.13), and supratherapeutic digoxin levels (38% vs. 0%, p=0.03). The adjusted OR for vancomycin levels >30μg/mL was 2.30 (95% CI 1.05 – 5.51, p = 0.047). **Conclusion** Among patients with cancer with simultaneous assessment of eGFRCYS and eGFRCRE, medication-related adverse events occur more commonly in those with eGFR discrepancy. These findings underscore the importance of accurate assessment of kidney function and appropriate dosing of renally-cleared medications in patients with cancer. ## Introduction Accurate assessment of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is key to dosing renally-cleared medications. While the gold standard method for evaluating kidney function is direct measurement of glomerular filtration rate (mGFR) using inulin or chromium-51 labeled ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid,1 GFR estimation using serum creatinine is the most commonly used method in both clinical practice and research.2-4 Creatinine is a byproduct of muscle metabolism that is filtered and secreted by the kidneys. Despite continued improvements of currently available eGFR equations, creatinine-based eGFR remains imprecise and can overestimate kidney function, particularly in patients with sarcopenia.5, 6 This can lead to inaccurate dosing of medications that require adjustment based on eGFR, such as commonly used antibiotics, muscle relaxants, anti-epileptic drugs, blood thinners, and antiarrhythmic medications. Cystatin C is a low molecular weight (13K Dalton) protein produced by all nucleated cells. It is freely filtered by the glomerulus and does not undergo reabsorption or secretion.7 Unlike creatinine, cystatin C is not readily affected by age, sex, muscle mass, or diet, and has been increasingly used as an alternative to creatinine to estimate GFR.2, 5, 8 A recent, large study in patients with solid tumors demonstrated that using an equation that combines both creatinine and cystatin C is the most accurate way to estimate GFR.8, 9 Because cancer is a significant risk factor for sarcopenia,10 we hypothesized that having a cystatin C-based eGFR (eGFRCYS) that is significantly lower than creatinine-based eGFR (eGFRCRE) would be common in patients with cancer. Given that patients with cancer are commonly exposed to numerous medications that require dose adjustment by kidney function, we hypothesized that adverse events related to renally-cleared medications would be higher in patients with a large discrepancy between eGFRCYS versus eGFRCRE. ## Methods ### Patient population Using Mass General Brigham’s centralized data warehouse, the Research Patient Data Registry (RPDR)11, 12, we identified adult patients with a pre-existing diagnosis of malignancy who had both serum creatinine and cystatin C measurements on the same day between May 2010 and January 2022. eGFRCRE was calculated using the CKD Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) 2021 race-free equation,5 while eGFRCYS was calculated using the CKD Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) 2012 race-free equation.13, 14 ### Data collection The date of the first simultaneous eGFRCRE and eGFRCYS measurement was considered the baseline date. Comorbidities were defined based on diagnosis codes appearing any time prior to the baseline date, and concurrent medication use was defined by active prescription within 1 year prior to the baseline date. Cancer type was determined by the most frequently used cancer-related diagnosis code prior to the baseline. Baseline chronic kidney disease was defined by the 2021 race free CKD-EPI equation that incorporates both serum creatinine and cystatin C 8, and chronic kidney disease was staged per Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guidelines.15 Clinical diagnoses of medication adverse events were determined by manual chart review by two investigators; with a third available to resolve disagreement. ### Primary exposure The primary exposure was eGFR discrepancy, defined as eGFRCYS more than 30% lower than the eGFRCRE; the reference group consisted of all other patients and included patients whose eGFRCYS was more than 30% greater than eGFRCRE as this would not place patients at risk factor for adverse medication side effects from renally-cleared medications. The 30% cut-off was chosen because it is commonly used in clinical studies to define the accuracy of eGFR from measured GFR.9, 16 We additionally identified a subset of patients with severe eGFR discrepancy, defined as eGFRCYS more than 50% lower than eGFRCRE and eGFRCYS less than 30 mL/min/1.73m2. ### Primary outcome: Adverse events related to renally-cleared medications We examined the risk of selected medication adverse events using detailed chart review. We selected medications (intravenous vancomycin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, baclofen, and digoxin) that are typically dose-adjusted based on eGFR and whose side effects could be quantified by drug level monitoring, laboratory abnormalities, or identified by chart review. In all cases, we evaluated drug exposures that occurred within 90 days of the baseline date. The therapeutic range for a vancomycin trough level is 15-20μg/mL and levels greater than 20μg/mL are considered supratherapeutic17, 18. We defined severely elevated vancomycin trough levels as those greater than >30 μg/mL and used manual chart review to exclude peak values.19-21 Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole-related hyperkalemia was defined as a serum potassium level >5.5mEq/L (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse events [CTCAE v 4.0] grade 2), and severe hyperkalemia was defined as a level >6.0mEq/L (grade 3) within 30 days of starting trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. As a sensitivity analysis, we determined the average rise in potassium after initiation of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and the rate of an absolute increase in serum potassium ≥0.5mEq/L from baseline. Baclofen toxicity was determined by chart review. Baclofen toxicity was defined as altered mental status, myoclonus, seizure, or orthostatic hypotension/dizziness warranting discontinuation of the medication.22, 23 An investigator blinded to cystatin C values evaluated all clinical documentation within 90 days of baseline to identify potential cases of baclofen toxicity. Digoxin toxicity was determined by chart review. An investigator blinded to cystatin C values evaluated all clinical documentation and digoxin levels obtained within 90 days of baseline. Digoxin toxicity was defined as altered mental status, nausea, orthostatic hypotension, or bradycardia attributed to digoxin by the treating team, with a corresponding digoxin trough level above the therapeutic range.24, 25 ### Secondary outcomes We evaluated eGFR discrepancy and severe eGFR discrepancy as dependent variables and determined which baseline characteristics and laboratory studies were associated with eGFR discrepancy. We evaluated the effect of eGFR discrepancy on 30-day mortality. Date of simultaneous eGFRCRE and eGFRCYS served as day 0. Patients lost to follow-up within 30 days were censored at their last visit. ### Statistical Analysis We reported baseline characteristics using counts and percentages for categorical variables and means and standard deviations (SD) for normally distributed continuous variables, and median and interquartile range for skewed variables. Logistic regression models were used to examine the association between baseline demographics, comorbidities, medications, laboratory studies, and eGFR discrepancy in a univariable model. Serum albumin and hemoglobin were evaluated in clinically relevant categories shown in **Table 1**. Variables were then selected based on clinical plausibility and information criteria (Akaike and Bayesian) to generate the final multivariable model. The Wald Chi-squared test was used to assess the significance of explanatory variables. The final model was adjusted for age, sex, race, eGFRCRE-CYS, BMI, smoking, hypertension, coronary artery disease, diabetes, cirrhosis, malnutrition, thyroid disease, proton pump inhibitor use, diuretic use, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker use, corticosteroid use, serum albumin, and hemoglobin, View this table: [Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/18/2023.01.18.23284656/T1) Table 1. Patient Characteristics eGFR discrepancy was defined as eGFRCYS more than 30% lower than eGFRCRE. Count and percent or mean and standard deviations are shown. Body mass index was missing for 479 participants (24%), serum albumin was missing for 72 participants (3.6%), and hemoglobin was missing for 46 participants (2.3%). The remaining data was complete. Chronic kidney disease was staged using the eGFRCRE-CYS. Abbreviations: eGFRCRE-CYS = estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate using creatinine and cystatin C equation, ACEi/ARB = Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor/Angiotensin Receptor Blocker. Chi-squared or Fisher’s exact tests were used to assess differences in the rate of medication adverse events across groups, as appropriate. As a sensitivity analysis, we performed univariable and multivariable logistic regression to predict the odds of elevated vancomycin level >30 μg/mL; the final multivariable model was adjusted for age, sex, race, baseline eGFRCRE-CYS, BMI, diabetes, and corticosteroid use. All comparisons were two-sided, with p<0.05 considered significant. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and multivariable Cox regression models were used to compare 30-day survival across groups. The final multivariable model was adjusted for age, sex, race, baseline eGFRCRE-CYS, BMI, coronary artery disease, diabetes, cirrhosis, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker use, proton pump inhibitor use, diuretic use, corticosteroid use, serum albumin, and hemoglobin level. All analyses were performed using R 4.1.1 (R Foundation), SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute), and GraphPad PRISM V.9.1.0 (GraphPad Software). #### Informed Consent The Massachusetts General Brigham Institutional Review Board approved this retrospective study and waived the need for informed consent. ## Results ### Baseline characteristics There were 1988 patients with cancer who had a simultaneous creatinine and cystatin C measured between May 4th, 2010, and January 26th, 2022 (**Figure 1**). Mean age was 66 (SD 14 years), 965 (49%) were female, and 1555 (78%) were non-Hispanic white. Patients with a wide array of cancer types were included (**Supplemental Table 1)**. View this table: [Supplemental Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/18/2023.01.18.23284656/T2) Supplemental Table 1. Cancer type Cancer type was determined by the most commonly appearing cancer-related diagnosis code prior to the baseline date. eGFR discrepancy is defined by an eGFRCYS more than 30% lower than eGFRCRE. ![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/01/18/2023.01.18.23284656/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/18/2023.01.18.23284656/F1) Figure 1. Patient flow Patient flow. Exposure to each medication was determined by an active prescription within 90 days of the baseline date. *Shows the analyzed sample for each medication. Abbreviations: eGFRCRE = creatinine-based estimated glomerular filtration rate, eGFRCYS = cystatin c-based estimated glomerular filtration rate. A total of 579 patients (29%) had an eGFRCYS more than 30% lower than eGFRCRE. A scatterplot of eGFRCRE vs. eGFRCYS is shown in **Supplemental Figure 1A** and the distribution of the differences between eGFRCRE and eGFRCYS is shown in **Supplemental Figure 1B**. As noted in the methods, the reference group included patients whose eGFRCYS was within 30% of the eGFRCRE, as well as the 209 patients (10.5%) whose eGFRCYS was 30% higher than eGFRCRE. Predictors of eGFR discrepancy in the multivariable logistic model included white race (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16–2.045, obesity with body-mass-index (BMI) ≥ 30 vs. normal BMI 18.5-24.9 kg/m2 (aOR 1.51, 95% CI 1.07–2.13), cirrhosis (aOR 1.82, 95% CI 1.14–2.95), diuretic use (aOR 1.68, 95% CI 1.23–2.30), recent corticosteroid use (aOR 1.70, 95% CI 1.28–2.24), hypoalbuminemia (aOR 5.48, 95% CI 3.84–7.86 for serum albumin < 3.0 vs. ≥4.0 g/dL), and anemia (aOR 2.17, 95% CI 1.55–3.03 for hemoglobin <10.0 vs. ≥ 12.0 g/dL) (**Figure 2, Supplemental Table 2**). ![Supplemental Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/01/18/2023.01.18.23284656/F7.medium.gif) [Supplemental Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/18/2023.01.18.23284656/F7) Supplemental Figure 1. Scatter plot of creatinine-based and cystatin C-based eGFR, and distribution of eGFR difference Scatterplot showing distribution of eGFRCRE and eGFRCYS among patients with cancer (S1A); the blue line is the line of equality. Figure S1B. A histogram and superimposed density curve showing the distribution of eGFR difference defined by eGFRCYS minus eGFRCRE. The red dotted line signifies equivalence between eGFRCRE and eGFRCYS. Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range View this table: [Supplemental Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/18/2023.01.18.23284656/T3) Supplemental Table 2. Predictors of eGFRCYS more than 30% lower than eGFRCRE Univariable and multivariable logistic regression model. *Chronic medication use was defined within 1 year prior to baseline; corticosteroid use was defined within 30 days of baseline. In all cases the population median was imputed for missing variables (Body mass index was missing for 479 participants, serum albumin was missing for 72 participants, hemoglobin was missing for 46 participants). Abbreviations eGFRCRE-CYS = estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate calculated using the 2021 race-free combined serum creatinine and cystatin C equation, ACEi/ARB = Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor/Angiotensin Receptor Blocker. ![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/01/18/2023.01.18.23284656/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/18/2023.01.18.23284656/F2) Figure 2. Predictors of eGFR discrepancy **Forrest plot showing adjusted odds ratios.** Logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between baseline characteristics and the eGFR discrepancy (eGFRCYS > 30% lower than eGFRCRE) in patients with cancer. The unadjusted and adjusted models are also shown in **Supplemental Table 2**. Abbreviations: eGFRCRE-CYS = estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate calculated using the 2021 race-free combined serum creatinine and cystatin C equation Hypoalbuminemia and anemia were the baseline factors most strongly associated with having an eGFR discrepancy; there was a stepwise increase in the likelihood of eGFR discrepancy as albumin and hemoglobin levels decreased (**Figure 3, Supplemental Figure 2**). Among patients with albumin ≥ 4.0 g/dL only 174/1224 (14%) had an eGFR discrepancy, compared to 198/297 (67%) in patients with albumin < 3.0 g/dL. Among patients with hemoglobin ≥ 12 g/dL only 117/886 (13%) had an eGFR discrepancy, compared to 130/196 (66%) in patients with hemoglobin < 8.0 g/dL. ![Supplemental Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/01/18/2023.01.18.23284656/F8.medium.gif) [Supplemental Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/18/2023.01.18.23284656/F8) Supplemental Figure 2. Scatter plot of creatinine-based and cystatin C-based eGFR by albumin and hemoglobin levels. Scatterplot showing distribution of eGFRs among patients with cancer stratified by different albumin levels (S2A) and hemoglobin levels (S2B) as shown. The identity line (line of equality) is shown in blue. ![Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/01/18/2023.01.18.23284656/F3.medium.gif) [Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/18/2023.01.18.23284656/F3) Figure 3. Rate of eGFR discrepancy by albumin and hemoglobin levels. eGFR discrepancy defined by eGFRCYS > 30% lower than eGFRCRE shown with light blue bars, and severe eGFR discrepancy (eGFRCYS > 50% lower than eGFRCRE and eGFRCYS < 30mL/min/1.73m2) shown with dark blue bars become more common in patients with worsening hypoalbuminemia (**3A**) and anemia (**3B**). There were 139 patients (7.0% of the overall cohort) who had severe eGFR discrepancy (eGFRCYS > 50% lower than eGFRCRE and eGFRCYS < 30mL/min/1.73m2) (**Supplemental Table 3**). Predictors of severe eGFR discrepancy were similar to eGFR discrepancy and are shown in **Supplemental Table 4**. The rate of eGFR discrepancy and severe eGFR discrepancy varied by cancer type (**Supplemental Figure 3**). ![Supplemental Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/01/18/2023.01.18.23284656/F9.medium.gif) [Supplemental Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/18/2023.01.18.23284656/F9) Supplemental Figure 3. Rate of eGFR discrepancies by cancer type Rate of eGFR discrepancy and severe eGFR discrepancy by cancer type. eGFR discrepancy is defined by an eGFRCYS more than 30% lower than eGFRCRE. Severe eGFR discrepancy was defined as an eGFRCYS more than 50% lower than eGFRCRE and eGFRCYS < 30mL/min/1.73m2. ![Supplemental Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/01/18/2023.01.18.23284656/F10.medium.gif) [Supplemental Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/18/2023.01.18.23284656/F10) Supplemental Figure 4. Changes in potassium levels among patients who received trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. **Supplemental Figure S4A**. Mean change in potassium levels with standard deviations among trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole recipients; error bars show standard deviation. **S4B**. Rate of ≥0.5mEq/L rise in potassium levels among trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole recipients. eGFR discrepancy is defined by an eGFRCYS more than 30% lower than eGFRCRE. Severe eGFR discrepancy was defined as an eGFRCYS more than 50% lower than eGFRCRE and eGFRCYS < 30mL/min/1.73m2. View this table: [Supplemental Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/18/2023.01.18.23284656/T4) Supplemental Table 3. Characteristics of patients with severe eGFR discrepancy Severe eGFR discrepancy was defined as eGFRCYS more than 50% lower than eGFRCRE and eGFRCYS < 30mL/min/1.73m2. Count and percent or mean and standard deviations are shown. Body mass index was missing for 479 participants, serum albumin was missing for 72 participants, hemoglobin was missing for 46 participants. The remaining data was complete. The cohort median was imputed for missing data. Cancer type was determined by the most common cancer-related diagnosis code appearing prior to the baseline date. Abbreviations: eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate, ACEi/ARB = Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor/Angiotensin Receptor Blocker. View this table: [Supplemental Table 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/18/2023.01.18.23284656/T5) Supplemental Table 4. Predictors of severe eGFR discrepancy Univariable and multivariable logistic regression model for severe group defined as eGFRCYS more than 50% lower than eGFRCRE and eGFRCYS <30 ml/min/1.73m2. *Chronic medication use was defined within 1 year prior to baseline; corticosteroid use was defined within 30 days of baseline. Abbreviations: eGFRCRE-CYS = estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate calculated using the 2021 race-free combined serum creatinine and cystatin C equation, ACEi/ARB = Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor/Angiotensin Receptor Blocker. ### Medication-related Adverse Events #### Vancomycin There were 447 patients who received vancomycin within 90 days of the baseline date, of whom 286 (64%) had a vancomycin trough measured (**Figure 1**). Patients with eGFR discrepancy were more likely to have significantly elevated vancomycin trough levels than the reference group: 129 of 193 (67%) vs. 37 of 93 (40%) of the reference group had a vancomycin level above the therapeutic range (*P* < 0.001); 46 of 193 (24%) vs. 9 of 93 (10%) had trough level >30 μcg/mL (*P* = 0.004); 15 of 193 (8%) vs. 0 of 93 (0%) had a trough level >40 μcg/mL (*P* = 0.003) (**Figure 4A**). The rate of elevated vancomycin trough levels was even higher in patients with severe eGFR discrepancy (**Figure 4A)**. After adjustment for baseline demographics, comorbidities, and baseline laboratory studies, patients with eGFR discrepancy had a 2.30-fold adjusted OR (95% CI 1.05 – 5.51) of having a significantly elevated vancomycin trough level >30 μg/mL (**Supplemental Table 5**). View this table: [Supplemental Table 5.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/18/2023.01.18.23284656/T6) Supplemental Table 5. Predictors of Vancomycin level > 30μg/dL Univariable and multivariable logistic regression model predicting Vancomycin trough level > 30 μg/dL. eGFR discrepancy defined as eGFRCYS > 30% lower than eGFRCRE. Abbreviations: eGFRCRE-CYS = estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate calculated using the 2021 race-free combined serum creatinine and cystatin C equation, ACEi/ARB = Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor/Angiotensin Receptor Blocker. ![Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/01/18/2023.01.18.23284656/F4.medium.gif) [Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/18/2023.01.18.23284656/F4) Figure 4. Rate of supratherapeutic vancomycin levels and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole-related hyperkalemia in patients with eGFR discrepancy **Figure 4A**. Highest trough vancomycin levels obtained within 30 days of starting vancomycin in patients with eGFR discrepancy (eGFRCYS more than 30% lower than eGFRCRE), severe eGFR discrepancy (eGFRCYS more than 50% lower than eGFRCRE and eGFRCYS < 30mL/min/1.73m2), and the reference group. We excluded any vancomycin level obtained less than 6 hours after the last administered vancomycin dose. **Figure 4B**. Rate of Grade 2 or 3 hyperkalemia in patients receiving trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. ### Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole There were 280 patients who received trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole within 90 days of the baseline date. We excluded 30 (11%) who did not have a serum potassium level checked within 30 days of starting trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (**Figure 1**). Patients with eGFR discrepancy were more likely to experience hyperkalemia (potassium >5.5mEq/L) after starting trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole compared to the reference group 33 of 135 (24%) vs. 14 of 115 (12%), *P* = 0.013 (**Figure 4B**). The rate of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole-related hyperkalemia was even greater in patients with severe eGFR discrepancy, affecting 15 of 45 (33%) of patients (*P* = 0.0018) (**Figure 4B**). A similar trend was found when evaluating the rate of grade 3 hyperkalemia (defined by a potassium level > 6.0mEq) (**Figure 4B**). ### Baclofen There were 32 patients newly prescribed baclofen within 90 days of baseline (**Figure 1**). Five of the 20 patients (25%) with eGFR discrepancy developed clinical evidence of baclofen toxicity which prompted discontinuation of the medication compared to none of the 12 patients in the reference group (*P* = 0.13) (**Figure 5A**). Among those with severe eGFR discrepancy, 3 out of 8 (37.5%) developed baclofen toxicity. The most common symptom of baclofen toxicity was somnolence/depressed level of consciousness (3 cases). Two additional patients developed severe orthostatic hypotension. ![Figure 5.](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/01/18/2023.01.18.23284656/F5.medium.gif) [Figure 5.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/18/2023.01.18.23284656/F5) Figure 5. Rate of baclofen toxicity and digoxin toxicity in patients with eGFR discrepancy **Figure 5A**. Rate of baclofen toxicity in patients with eGFR discrepancy, severe eGFR, discrepancy and the reference group. **Figure 5B**. Rate of supratherapeutic digoxin level defined by >2.0μg/dL. Both cases of clinical digoxin toxicity occurred in patients with severe eGFR discrepancy (eGFRCYS more than 50% lower than eGFRCRE and eGFRCYS < 30mL/min/1.73m2). There were no cases of supratherapeutic digoxin levels or digoxin toxicity in the reference group. ### Digoxin There were 102 patients who were prescribed digoxin (**Figure 1**), of whom 34 (33%) had at least one digoxin level measured. Out of the 24 patients with eGFR discrepancy, 9 patients (38%) had a digoxin trough level above the therapeutic range (>2.0 ng/mL) compared to none of the 10 patients in the reference group (*P* = 0.034). Two patients (8.3%) were diagnosed with clinical digoxin toxicity, including one who required digoxin immune fab (**Supplemental Table 6**); both patients diagnosed with clinical digoxin toxicity met criteria for severe eGFR discrepancy (**Figure 5B**). View this table: [Supplemental Table 6.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/18/2023.01.18.23284656/T7) Supplemental Table 6. Deidentified case summaries of clinical digoxin toxicity #### Thirty-day survival 132 patients (7%) died within 30 days and 173 (9%) were lost to follow-up prior to 30 days. There was significantly higher 30-day mortality in patients with eGFR discrepancy compared to the reference group (**Figure 6)**. Even after adjustment for age, sex, race, baseline comorbidities, laboratory tests, and medication use, patients with eGFR discrepancy had a 1.97-fold increased hazard of death (95% CI 1.29–3.01), compared to the reference group (**Figure 6, Supplemental Table 7**). View this table: [Supplemental Table 7.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/18/2023.01.18.23284656/T8) Supplemental Table 7. Predictors of 30-day mortality Univariable and multivariable Cox model for 30-day mortality. eGFR discrepancy defined as eGFRCYS > 30% lower than eGFRCRE. *Chronic medication use was defined within 1 year prior to baseline; corticosteroid use was defined within 30 days of baseline. In all cases the population median was imputed for missing variables (body mass index was missing for 479 participants, serum albumin was missing for 72 participants, hemoglobin was missing for 46 participants). Abbreviations: eGFRCRE-CYS = estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate calculated using the 2021 race-free combined serum creatinine and cystatin C equation, ACEi/ARB = Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor/Angiotensin Receptor Blocker. ![Figure 6.](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/01/18/2023.01.18.23284656/F6.medium.gif) [Figure 6.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/18/2023.01.18.23284656/F6) Figure 6. Kaplan-Meier curve of 30-day survival Survival analysis using Kaplan Meier method comparing 30-day survival between reference group and those who had eGFR discrepancy. Unadjusted and adjusted model is shown in Supplemental Table 7. ## Discussion Our study showed that in a cohort of patients with a history of cancer who have concurrent creatinine and cystatin C measurement, almost 1 out of 3 had an eGFRCYS more than 30% lower than eGFRCRE. The high rate of eGFR discrepancy in patients with cancer poses a challenge for clinical decision making and signifies an important knowledge gap in appropriate dose adjustment of medications that primarily undergo renal clearance. We found a considerably higher rate of adverse events associated with select renally-cleared medications in patients with eGFR discrepancy compared to our reference group. Accurate dosing of renally-cleared medications is a challenge in patients with cancer, among whom sarcopenia is common and overestimation of GFR by creatinine-based equations has been a major concern in clinical practice.10, 26-28 Cystatin C, which is produced by all nucleated cells and is not dependent on diet or muscle mass, has been validated as an alternative marker to estimate kidney function. However, Cystatin C levels may be falsely increased in patients with obesity, inflammation, current smoking, and corticosteroid therapy.29-32 In 2021, the National Kidney Foundation and the American Society of Nephrology Task Force recommended that clinicians estimate GFR using a combined equation incorporating both cystatin C and serum creatinine.33 A recent study of 1200 patients with solid tumors who underwent measured GFR found that eGFRCRE overestimated measured GFR, eGFRCYS underestimated measured GFR, and that the most accurate and precise eGFR was obtained using the combined equation incorporating both cystatin C and serum creatinine.9 We note that risk factors for eGFR underestimation with cystatin C is greater in patients with higher BMI, current and former smokers, low albumin, higher C-reactive protein, and metastatic disease. It is important to note the overlap with the predictors of eGFR discrepancy we identified in this study. Because we lacked measured GFR, we are unable to determine the accuracy of eGFRCRE and eGFRCYS, however, we found that when a large eGFR discrepancy exists, patients with cancer are at higher risk of adverse events from renally-cleared medications. Our study demonstrated a higher rate of supratherapeutic vancomycin levels in patients with eGFR discrepancy. Vancomycin is a very commonly used intravenous antibiotic in hospitalized patients that is predominantly eliminated by the kidney (>90%). Several studies have demonstrated that vancomycin clearance and target trough achievement may be more accurately predicted by eGFRCYS than eGFRCRE.34-38 A previously published quality improvement initiative that included 399 patients found that a vancomycin dosing algorithm using eGFR estimated by both creatinine and cystatin C (N = 135) was more likely to achieve therapeutic vancomycin trough levels (50% vs. 28%, p< 0.001) compared to an algorithm using eGFRCRE alone (N = 264).36 Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole is another commonly used antibiotic in the inpatient and outpatient setting. Trimethoprim can have an “amiloride-like” effect by inhibiting potassium secretion in the distal convoluted tubule; patients with impaired kidney function are much more likely to develop clinically significant hyperkalemia when treated with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.39 Hyperkalemia occurred more commonly in patients with eGFR discrepancy compared to the reference group. Digoxin is a cardiac glycoside medication approved to treat atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure that has a narrow therapeutic index. Digoxin is cleared by the kidneys and its toxicity is dose dependent. There have been conflicting reports regarding use of creatinine versus cystatin C to predict digoxin clearance.40-44 Here, we found that patients with eGFR discrepancy were significantly more likely to have supratherapeutic digoxin trough levels compared to the reference group, and both cases of symptomatic digoxin toxicity occurred in patients with eGFR discrepancy. Baclofen is a muscle relaxant that is commonly prescribed in patients with cancer to inhibit the hiccup reflex. Baclofen is primarily eliminated by the kidney. In patients with impaired kidney function, baclofen accumulation can occur after just a single dose, and can lead to profound central nervous system suppression, ranging from encephalopathy, coma, areflexia, hypotension, and cardiac arrest.45, 46 Our study showed that symptomatic baclofen toxicity is common in patients with eGFR discrepancy (affecting 25% of patients), whereas no events occurred in the reference group, suggesting that the eGFRCYS should be considered when prescribing baclofen to patients with cancer. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate eGFRCYS and eGFRCRE in patients receiving baclofen. Taken together, our findings suggest that relying on creatinine-based eGFR alone for medication dosing may be inadequate in patients with cancer and highlights the need to consider eGFRCYS as well. Finally, consistent with prior knowledge that incorporation of cystatin C adds precision to the eGFR equation in patients with malnutrition, sarcopenia, and cirrhosis,9, 47, 48 we note that hypoalbuminemia and anemia are important predictors of eGFR discrepancy in patients with cancer. It is likely that these laboratory abnormalities that signify chronic illness are associated with cancer-related sarcopenia. Future prospective studies that include measured GFR are needed to validate this finding. In addition, we found that eGFR discrepancy is associated with significantly higher 30-day mortality even after adjustment for demographics, comorbidities, baseline laboratory studies, and medication use. Although higher serum creatinine and cystatin C have each been shown to be associated with increased mortality in multiple clinical settings,49-54 our finding suggests that discrepancy between creatinine and cystatin C, in addition to the absolute values of either marker, adds further information and potentially serves as an independent predictor of death. Our study has several limitations. First, cystatin C was only available on select patients, where it has been ordered as a part of routine care. Since cystatin C is not routinely used in clinical practice, our population was likely enriched for patients in whom clinicians suspected an eGFR discrepancy or kidney injury might exist, this likely an overestimate of the rate of eGFR discrepancy in the oncology population in general. However, the selection bias should be balanced between the eGFR discrepancy group and the reference group, which preserves the validity of comparison of medication-related adverse events between the two groups. Second, we only used a one-time assessment of creatinine and cystatin C, which may not reflect a steady state at the time of measurement. Third, we were not able to determine cancer stage from our dataset, which may be an important non-GFR determinant of cystatin C and creatinine.55, 56 Fourth, it is possible that clinician knowledge of the eGFRCYS could have influenced medication dosing; however, such practice would have biased our results toward the null. Accordingly, the magnitude of association between eGFR discrepancy and medication-related adverse events that we report here is likely an underestimate. Finally, our study lacks gold standard GFR measurement given the retrospective design; however, comparing adverse outcomes of renally-dosed medications serves as surrogate marker for accuracy of eGFR. In conclusion, we found that a >30% eGFR discrepancy is common in patients with cancer and is associated with an increase in adverse events related to commonly used, renally-cleared medications. Future prospective studies are needed to improve and personalize the approach to GFR estimation and medication dosing in patients with cancer. ## Data Availability All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors ## Conflicts of interest S. Gupta reports research support from BTG International and GE Healthcare. She is a member of GlaxoSmithKline’s Global Anemia Council, a consultant for Secretome, and president and founder of the American Society of Onconephrology. MES: Reports research funding from Gilead, Merck, EMD Serono, and Angion. She has served as a scientific advisory board member to Mallinckrodt, Travere, and Novartis. DEL reports research support from BioPorto, BTG International, and Metro International Biotech LLC. All remaining authors have no conflict of interest. ## Disclaimers The results presented in this report have been presented at the American Society of Onconephrology Symposium in a poster format, however they have not been published previously in whole or part. ## Funding MES is funded by NIH grant R01DK130839 SG is funded by NIH grant K23DK125672 DEL is funded by NIH grants R01HL144566, R01DK125786, and R01DK126685 * Received January 18, 2023. * Revision received January 18, 2023. * Accepted January 18, 2023. * © 2023, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.Soveri I, Berg UB, Bjork J, Elinder CG, Grubb A, Mejare I, Sterner G, Back SE, Group SGR. Measuring GFR: a systematic review. Am J Kidney Dis. 2014;64(3):411–24. Epub 20140517. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2014.04.010. PubMed PMID: 24840668. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1053/j.ajkd.2014.04.010&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24840668&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 2. 2.Levey AS, Bosch JP, Lewis JB, Greene T, Rogers N, Roth D. A more accurate method to estimate glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine: a new prediction equation. Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Group. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130(6):461–70. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-130-6-199903160-00002. PubMed PMID: 10075613. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/0003-4819-130-6-199903160-00002&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10075613&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000079165500001&link_type=ISI) 3. 3.Levey AS, Coresh J, Greene T, Stevens LA, Zhang YL, Hendriksen S, Kusek JW, Van Lente F, Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology C. Using standardized serum creatinine values in the modification of diet in renal disease study equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145(4):247–54. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-145-4-200608150-00004. PubMed PMID: 16908915. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/0003-4819-145-4-200608150-00004&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16908915&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000239858800002&link_type=ISI) 4. 4.Cockcroft DW, Gault MH. Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine. Nephron. 1976;16(1):31–41. doi: 10.1159/000180580. PubMed PMID: 1244564. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1159/000180580&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=1244564&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1976AV14200003&link_type=ISI) 5. 5.Inker LA, Eneanya ND, Coresh J, Tighiouart H, Wang D, Sang Y, Crews DC, Doria A, Estrella MM, Froissart M, Grams ME, Greene T, Grubb A, Gudnason V, Gutierrez OM, Kalil R, Karger AB, Mauer M, Navis G, Nelson RG, Poggio ED, Rodby R, Rossing P, Rule AD, Selvin E, Seegmiller JC, Shlipak MG, Torres VE, Yang W, Ballew SH, Couture SJ, Powe NR, Levey AS, Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology C. New Creatinine- and Cystatin C-Based Equations to Estimate GFR without Race. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(19):1737–49. Epub 20210923. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2102953. PubMed PMID: 34554658; PMCID: PMC8822996. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa2102953&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=34554658&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 6. 6.Shafi T, Zhu X, Lirette ST, Rule AD, Mosley T, Butler KR, Hall ME, Vaitla P, Wynn JJ, Tio MC, Dossabhoy NR, Guallar E, Butler J. Quantifying Individual-Level Inaccuracy in Glomerular Filtration Rate Estimation : A Cross-Sectional Study. Ann Intern Med. 2022;175(8):1073–82. Epub 20220705. doi: 10.7326/M22-0610. PubMed PMID: 35785532. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/M22-0610&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=35785532&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 7. 7.Stevens LA, Schmid CH, Greene T, Li L, Beck GJ, Joffe MM, Froissart M, Kusek JW, Zhang YL, Coresh J, Levey AS. Factors other than glomerular filtration rate affect serum cystatin C levels. Kidney Int. 2009;75(6):652–60. Epub 20081231. doi: 10.1038/ki.2008.638. PubMed PMID: 19119287; PMCID: PMC4557800. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/ki.2008.638&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19119287&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000263723200013&link_type=ISI) 8. 8.Inker LA, Schmid CH, Tighiouart H, Eckfeldt JH, Feldman HI, Greene T, Kusek JW, Manzi J, Van Lente F, Zhang YL, Coresh J, Levey AS, Investigators C-E. Estimating glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine and cystatin C. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(1):20–9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1114248. PubMed PMID: 22762315; PMCID: PMC4398023. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa1114248&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22762315&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000305979400002&link_type=ISI) 9. 9.Costa ESVT, Gil LA, Jr.., Inker LA, Caires RA, Costalonga E, Coura-Filho G, Sapienza MT, Castro G, Jr.., Estevez-Diz MD, Zanetta DMT, Antonangelo L, Marcal L, Tighiouart H, Miao S, Mathew P, Levey AS, Burdmann EA. A prospective cross-sectional study estimated glomerular filtration rate from creatinine and cystatin C in adults with solid tumors. Kidney Int. 2022;101(3):607–14. Epub 20220112. doi: 10.1016/j.kint.2021.12.010. PubMed PMID: 35032521. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.kint.2021.12.010&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=35032521&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 10. 10.Williams GR, Dunne RF, Giri S, Shachar SS, Caan BJ. Sarcopenia in the Older Adult With Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(19):2068–78. Epub 2021/05/28. doi: 10.1200/jco.21.00102. PubMed PMID: 34043430; PMCID: PMC8260902 DunneConsulting or Advisory Role: Exelixis Smith GiriHonoraria: CareVive, OncLiveResearch Funding: Carevive Systems, Pack Health Shlomit S. ShacharConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, LillyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, RocheNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1200/jco.21.00102&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=34043430&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 11. 11.Chute DF, Zhao S, Strohbehn IA, Rusibamayila N, Seethapathy H, Lee M, Zubiri L, Gupta S, Leaf DE, Rahma O, Drobni ZD, Neilan TG, Reynolds KL, Sise ME. Incidence and Predictors of CKD and Estimated GFR Decline in Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors. Am J Kidney Dis. 2022;79(1):134–7. Epub 20210624. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2021.05.012. PubMed PMID: 34174363; PMCID: PMC8855486. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1053/j.ajkd.2021.05.012&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=34174363&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 12. 12.Seethapathy H, Zhao S, Chute DF, Zubiri L, Oppong Y, Strohbehn I, Cortazar FB, Leaf DE, Mooradian MJ, Villani AC, Sullivan RJ, Reynolds K, Sise ME. The Incidence, Causes, and Risk Factors of Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;14(12):1692–700. Epub 20191031. doi: 10.2215/CJN.00990119. PubMed PMID: 31672794; PMCID: PMC6895474. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoiY2xpbmphc24iO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTA6IjE0LzEyLzE2OTIiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMy8wMS8xOC8yMDIzLjAxLjE4LjIzMjg0NjU2LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 13. 13.Inker LA, Eckfeldt J, Levey AS, Leiendecker-Foster C, Rynders G, Manzi J, Waheed S, Coresh J. Expressing the CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration) cystatin C equations for estimating GFR with standardized serum cystatin C values. Am J Kidney Dis. 2011;58(4):682–4. Epub 20110819. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2011.05.019. PubMed PMID: 21855190; PMCID: PMC4421875. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1053/j.ajkd.2011.05.019&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21855190&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000295379600031&link_type=ISI) 14. 14.Stevens LA, Coresh J, Schmid CH, Feldman HI, Froissart M, Kusek J, Rossert J, Van Lente F, Bruce RD, 3rd., Zhang YL, Greene T, Levey AS. Estimating GFR using serum cystatin C alone and in combination with serum creatinine: a pooled analysis of 3,418 individuals with CKD. Am J Kidney Dis. 2008;51(3):395–406. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2007.11.018. PubMed PMID: 18295055; PMCID: PMC2390827. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1053/j.ajkd.2007.11.018&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18295055&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000254799900010&link_type=ISI) 15. 15.Levin A, Stevens PE, Bilous RW, Coresh J, De Francisco AL, De Jong PE, Griffith KE, Hemmelgarn BR, Iseki K, Lamb EJ. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD Work Group. KDIGO 2012 clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease. Kidney international supplements. 2013;3(1):1–150. 16. 16.Delgado C, Baweja M, Crews DC, Eneanya ND, Gadegbeku CA, Inker LA, Mendu ML, Miller WG, Moxey-Mims MM, Roberts GV, St Peter WL, Warfield C, Powe NR. A Unifying Approach for GFR Estimation: Recommendations of the NKF-ASN Task Force on Reassessing the Inclusion of Race in Diagnosing Kidney Disease. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2021;32(12):2994–3015. Epub 2021/09/25. doi: 10.1681/asn.2021070988. PubMed PMID: 34556489; PMCID: PMC8638402. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoiam5lcGhyb2wiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTA6IjMyLzEyLzI5OTQiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMy8wMS8xOC8yMDIzLjAxLjE4LjIzMjg0NjU2LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 17. 17.Rybak MJ, L. J, Lodise TP, Levine DP, Bradley JS, Liu C, Mueller BA, Pai MP, Wong-Beringer A, Rotschafer JC, Rodvold KA, Maples HD, Lomaestro BM. Therapeutic monitoring of vancomycin for serious methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: A revised consensus guideline and review by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2020;77(11):835–64. doi: 10.1093/ajhp/zxaa036. PubMed PMID: 32191793. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/ajhp/zxaa036&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 18. 18.van Hal SJ, Paterson DL, Lodise TP. Systematic review and meta-analysis of vancomycininduced nephrotoxicity associated with dosing schedules that maintain troughs between 15 and 20 milligrams per liter. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57(2):734–44. Epub 20121119. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01568-12. PubMed PMID: 23165462; PMCID: PMC3553731. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYWFjIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjU3LzIvNzM0IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMDEvMTgvMjAyMy4wMS4xOC4yMzI4NDY1Ni5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 19. 19.Tuon FF, Romero R, Gasparetto J, Cieslinski J. Vancomycin trough level and loading dose. Infect Drug Resist. 2018;11:2393–6. Epub 20181123. doi: 10.2147/IDR.S184897. PubMed PMID: 30538506; PMCID: PMC6260187. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2147/IDR.S184897&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30538506&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 20. 20.Vandecasteele SJ, De Vriese AS. Recent changes in vancomycin use in renal failure. Kidney Int. 2010;77(9):760–4. Epub 20100224. doi: 10.1038/ki.2010.35. PubMed PMID: 20182415. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/ki.2010.35&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20182415&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000276662000005&link_type=ISI) 21. 21.Zonozi R, Wu A, Shin JI, Secora A, Coresh J, Inker LA, Chang AR, Grams ME. Elevated Vancomycin Trough Levels in a Tertiary Health System: Frequency, Risk Factors, and Prognosis. Mayo Clin Proc. 2019;94(1):17–26. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.08.034. PubMed PMID: 30611444; PMCID: PMC6341482. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.08.034&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30611444&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 22. 22.Chen KS, Bullard MJ, Chien YY, Lee SY. Baclofen toxicity in patients with severely impaired renal function. Ann Pharmacother. 1997;31(11):1315–20. doi: 10.1177/106002809703101108. PubMed PMID: 9391686. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/106002809703101108&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9391686&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 23. 23.Cheong M, Lee J, Lee TY, Kim SB. Prevalence and risk factors of baclofen neurotoxicity in patients with severely impaired renal function. Nefrologia (Engl Ed). 2020;40(5):543–51. Epub 20200724. doi: 10.1016/j.nefro.2020.03.004. PubMed PMID: 32718544. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.nefro.2020.03.004&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32718544&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 24. 24.Critchley JA, Critchley LA. Digoxin toxicity in chronic renal failure: treatment by multiple dose activated charcoal intestinal dialysis. Hum Exp Toxicol. 1997;16(12):733–5. doi: 10.1177/096032719701601207. PubMed PMID: 9429088. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/096032719701601207&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9429088&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000071314100007&link_type=ISI) 25. 25.Aronson JK, Grahame-Smith DG. Altered distribution of digoxin in renal failure--a cause of digoxin toxicity? Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1976;3(6):1045–51. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.1976.tb00356.x. PubMed PMID: 22216528; PMCID: PMC1428967. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1365-2125.1976.tb00356.x&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22216528&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 26. 26.Hudson JQ, Nolin TD. Pragmatic Use of Kidney Function Estimates for Drug Dosing: The Tide Is Turning. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2018;25(1):14–20. Epub 2018/03/04. doi: 10.1053/j.ackd.2017.10.003. PubMed PMID: 29499882. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1053/j.ackd.2017.10.003&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29499882&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 27. 27.Yoshida S, Suda G, Ohara M, Fu Q, Yang Z, Hosoda S, Kimura M, Akinori K, Tokuchi Y, Yamada R, Kitagataya T, Suzuki K, Kawagishi N, Nakai M, Sho T, Natsuizaka M, Morikawa K, Ogawa K, Maehara O, Ohnishi S, Sakamoto N. Frequency and Characteristics of Overestimated Renal Function in Japanese Patients with Chronic Liver Disease and Its Relation to Sarcopenia. Nutrients. 2021;13(7). Epub 2021/08/11. doi: 10.3390/nu13072415. PubMed PMID: 34371925; PMCID: PMC8308887. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3390/nu13072415&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=34371925&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 28. 28.Baracos VE, Arribas L. Sarcopenic obesity: hidden muscle wasting and its impact for survival and complications of cancer therapy. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(suppl_2):ii1–ii9. Epub 2018/03/06. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx810. PubMed PMID: 29506228. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/annonc/mdx810&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29506228&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 29. 29.Shlipak MG, Matsushita K, Arnlov J, Inker LA, Katz R, Polkinghorne KR, Rothenbacher D, Sarnak MJ, Astor BC, Coresh J, Levey AS, Gansevoort RT, Consortium CKDP. Cystatin C versus creatinine in determining risk based on kidney function. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(10):932–43. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1214234. PubMed PMID: 24004120; PMCID: PMC3993094. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa1214234&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24004120&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000323906900010&link_type=ISI) 30. 30.Levey AS, Titan SM, Powe NR, Coresh J, Inker LA. Kidney Disease, Race, and GFR Estimation. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2020;15(8):1203–12. Epub 20200511. doi: 10.2215/CJN.12791019. PubMed PMID: 32393465; PMCID: PMC7409747. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoiY2xpbmphc24iO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6OToiMTUvOC8xMjAzIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMDEvMTgvMjAyMy4wMS4xOC4yMzI4NDY1Ni5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 31. 31.Ebert N, Shlipak MG. Cystatin C is ready for clinical use. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2020;29(6):591–8. doi: 10.1097/MNH.0000000000000638. PubMed PMID: 32868529. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/MNH.0000000000000638&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32868529&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 32. 32.Shlipak MG, Tummalapalli SL, Boulware LE, Grams ME, Ix JH, Jha V, Kengne AP, Madero M, Mihaylova B, Tangri N, Cheung M, Jadoul M, Winkelmayer WC, Zoungas S, Conference P. The case for early identification and intervention of chronic kidney disease: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference. Kidney Int. 2021;99(1):34–47. Epub 20201027. doi: 10.1016/j.kint.2020.10.012. PubMed PMID: 33127436. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.kint.2020.10.012&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 33. 33.Delgado C, Baweja M, Crews DC, Eneanya ND, Gadegbeku CA, Inker LA, Mendu ML, Miller WG, Moxey-Mims MM, Roberts GV, St Peter WL, Warfield C, Powe NR. A Unifying Approach for GFR Estimation: Recommendations of the NKF-ASN Task Force on Reassessing the Inclusion of Race in Diagnosing Kidney Disease. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2021. Epub 20210923. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2021070988. PubMed PMID: 34556489; PMCID: PMC8638402. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoiam5lcGhyb2wiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTA6IjMyLzEyLzI5OTQiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMy8wMS8xOC8yMDIzLjAxLjE4LjIzMjg0NjU2LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 34. 34.Oh Y, Park S, Park E, Lee J, Lee H, Kim J, Cho J. Correlation between vancomycin clearance and cystatin C-based glomerular filtration rate in paediatric patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2021;87(8):3190–6. Epub 20210126. doi: 10.1111/bcp.14733. PubMed PMID: 33496976. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/bcp.14733&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33496976&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 35. 35.Teaford HR, Stevens RW, Rule AD, Mara KC, Kashani KB, Lieske JC, O’Horo J, Barreto EF. Prediction of Vancomycin Levels Using Cystatin C in Overweight and Obese Patients: a Retrospective Cohort Study of Hospitalized Patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020;65(1). Epub 20201216. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01487-20. PubMed PMID: 33106257; PMCID: PMC7927827. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYWFjIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE0OiI2NS8xL2UwMTQ4Ny0yMCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzAxLzE4LzIwMjMuMDEuMTguMjMyODQ2NTYuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 36. 36.Frazee E, Rule AD, Lieske JC, Kashani KB, Barreto JN, Virk A, Kuper PJ, Dierkhising RA, Leung N. Cystatin C-Guided Vancomycin Dosing in Critically Ill Patients: A Quality Improvement Project. Am J Kidney Dis. 2017;69(5):658–66. Epub 20170125. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2016.11.016. PubMed PMID: 28131530. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1053/j.ajkd.2016.11.016&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28131530&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 37. 37.Frazee EN, Rule AD, Herrmann SM, Kashani KB, Leung N, Virk A, Voskoboev N, Lieske JC. Serum cystatin C predicts vancomycin trough levels better than serum creatinine in hospitalized patients: a cohort study. Crit Care. 2014;18(3):R110. Epub 20140529. doi: 10.1186/cc13899. PubMed PMID: 24887089; PMCID: PMC4075252. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/cc13899&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24887089&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 38. 38.Barreto EF, Rule AD, Murad MH, Kashani KB, Lieske JC, Erwin PJ, Steckelberg JM, Gajic O, Reid JM, Kane-Gill SL. Prediction of the Renal Elimination of Drugs With Cystatin C vs Creatinine: A Systematic Review. Mayo Clin Proc. 2019;94(3):500–14. Epub 20190131. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.08.002. PubMed PMID: 30713050. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.08.002&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30713050&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 39. 39.Alappan R, Perazella MA, Buller GK. Hyperkalemia in hospitalized patients treated with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124(3):316–20. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-124-3-199602010-00006. PubMed PMID: 8554227. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/0003-4819-124-3-199602010-00006&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8554227&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1996TR59600006&link_type=ISI) 40. 40.Hallberg P, Melhus H, Hansson LO, Larsson A. Cystatin C vs creatinine as markers of renal function in patients on digoxin treatment. Ups J Med Sci. 2004;109(3):247–53. doi: 10.3109/2000-1967-087. PubMed PMID: 15508527. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3109/2000-1967-087&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15508527&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000224290500005&link_type=ISI) 41. 41.Nakamura T, Ioroi T, Sakaeda T, Horinouchi M, Hayashi N, Saito K, Kosaka M, Okamura N, Kadoyama K, Kumagai S, Okumura K. Serum cystatin C levels to predict serum concentration of digoxin in Japanese patients. Int J Med Sci. 2006;3(3):92–6. Epub 20060517. doi: 10.7150/ijms.3.92. PubMed PMID: 16761077; PMCID: PMC1475426. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7150/ijms.3.92&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16761077&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 42. 42.O’Riordan S, Ouldred E, Brice S, Jackson SH, Swift CG. Serum cystatin C is not a better marker of creatinine or digoxin clearance than serum creatinine. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2002;53(4):398–402. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2125.2002.01549.x. PubMed PMID: 11966673; PMCID: PMC1874275. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1046/j.1365-2125.2002.01549.x&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11966673&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000175115100011&link_type=ISI) 43. 43.Garcia A, Hermida J, Tutor JC. Estimation of the glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine and cystatin C with regard to therapeutic digoxin monitoring. J Clin Pharmacol. 2007;47(11):1450–5. Epub 20070813. doi: 10.1177/0091270007305503. PubMed PMID: 17698593. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/0091270007305503&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17698593&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 44. 44.Salek T, Vodicka M, Griva M. Cystatin C may be better than creatinine for digoxin dosing in older adults with atrial fibrillation. J Clin Lab Anal. 2020;34(10):e23427. Epub 20200617. doi: 10.1002/jcla.23427. PubMed PMID: 32716587; PMCID: PMC7595907. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/jcla.23427&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32716587&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 45. 45.Leung NY, Whyte IM, Isbister GK. Baclofen overdose: Defining the spectrum of toxicity. Emergency Medicine Australasia. 2006;18(1):77–82. doi: [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-6723.2006.00805.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-6723.2006.00805.x). 46. 46.Norouzi S, Farouk SS, Sparks MA. Back off baclofen when the kidneys don’t work. Kidney Int. 2020;98(4):829–31. doi: 10.1016/j.kint.2020.05.026. PubMed PMID: 32998812. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.kint.2020.05.026&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32998812&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 47. 47.Mindikoglu AL, Dowling TC, Weir MR, Seliger SL, Christenson RH, Magder LS. Performance of chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration creatinine-cystatin C equation for estimating kidney function in cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2014;59(4):1532–42. doi: [https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.26556](https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.26556). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/hep.26556&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23744636&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 48. 48.Mindikoglu AL, Opekun AR, Mitch WE, Magder LS, Christenson RH, Dowling TC, Weir MR, Seliger SL, Howell CD, Raufman JP, Rana A, Goss JA, Khaderi SA, Vierling JM. Cystatin C Is a Gender-Neutral Glomerular Filtration Rate Biomarker in Patients with Cirrhosis. Dig Dis Sci. 2018;63(3):665–75. Epub 2018/02/03. doi: 10.1007/s10620-017-4897-z. PubMed PMID: 29392554; PMCID: PMC5994910. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s10620-017-4897-z&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29392554&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 49. 49.Krolewski AS, Warram JH, Forsblom C, Smiles AM, Thorn L, Skupien J, Harjutsalo V, Stanton R, Eckfeldt JH, Inker LA, Groop PH. Serum concentration of cystatin C and risk of end-stage renal disease in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(11):2311–6. Epub 20120730. doi: 10.2337/dc11-2220. PubMed PMID: 22851596; PMCID: PMC3476893. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiZGlhY2FyZSI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMDoiMzUvMTEvMjMxMSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzAxLzE4LzIwMjMuMDEuMTguMjMyODQ2NTYuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 50. 50.Shlipak MG, Wassel Fyr CL, Chertow GM, Harris TB, Kritchevsky SB, Tylavsky FA, Satterfield S, Cummings SR, Newman AB, Fried LF. Cystatin C and mortality risk in the elderly: the health, aging, and body composition study. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;17(1):254–61. Epub 20051102. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2005050545. PubMed PMID: 16267155. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoiam5lcGhyb2wiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiMTcvMS8yNTQiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMy8wMS8xOC8yMDIzLjAxLjE4LjIzMjg0NjU2LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 51. 51.Ix JH, Shlipak MG, Chertow GM, Whooley MA. Association of cystatin C with mortality, cardiovascular events, and incident heart failure among persons with coronary heart disease: data from the Heart and Soul Study. Circulation. 2007;115(2):173–9. Epub 20061226. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.644286. PubMed PMID: 17190862; PMCID: PMC2771187. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTQ6ImNpcmN1bGF0aW9uYWhhIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjExNS8yLzE3MyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzAxLzE4LzIwMjMuMDEuMTguMjMyODQ2NTYuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 52. 52.Vigil A, Condes E, Vigil L, Gallar P, Oliet A, Ortega O, Rodriguez I, Ortiz M, Herrero JC, Mon C, Cobo G, Jimenez J. Cystatin C as a predictor of mortality and cardiovascular events in a population with chronic kidney disease. Int J Nephrol. 2014;2014:127943. Epub 20140211. doi: 10.1155/2014/127943. PubMed PMID: 24672725; PMCID: PMC3942201. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1155/2014/127943&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24672725&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 53. 53.Helmersson-Karlqvist J, Lipcsey M, Arnlov J, Bell M, Ravn B, Dardashti A, Larsson A. Cystatin C predicts long term mortality better than creatinine in a nationwide study of intensive care patients. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):5882. Epub 20210315. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-85370-8. PubMed PMID: 33723337; PMCID: PMC7961058. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41598-021-85370-8&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33723337&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 54. 54.Bell M, Granath F, Martensson J, Lofberg E, Ekbom A, Martling CR, King. Cystatin C is correlated with mortality in patients with and without acute kidney injury. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2009;24(10):3096–102. Epub 20090425. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfp196. PubMed PMID: 19395727. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/ndt/gfp196&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19395727&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 55. 55.Demirtaş S, Akan O, Can M, Elmali E, Akan H. Cystatin C can be affected by nonrenal factors: a preliminary study on leukemia. Clin Biochem. 2006;39(2):115–8. Epub 2005/12/13. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2005.10.009. PubMed PMID: 16337174. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2005.10.009&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16337174&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom) 56. 56.Oc MA, Demir H, Cekmen MB, Isgoren S, Gorur GD, Bilgili U. Correlation of Cystatin-C and radionuclidic measurement method of glomerular filtration rate in patients with lung cancer receiving cisplatin treatment. Ren Fail. 2014;36(7):1043–50. Epub 2014/05/23. doi: 10.3109/0886022x.2014.918813. PubMed PMID: 24846459. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3109/0886022X.2014.918813&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24846459&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F01%2F18%2F2023.01.18.23284656.atom)