Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Plasma and Urine Biomarkers for CKD Outcomes

被引:33
|
作者
Liu, Caroline [1 ]
Debnath, Neha [2 ]
Mosoyan, Gohar [3 ]
Chauhan, Kinsuk [3 ]
Vasquez-Rios, George [3 ]
Soudant, Celine [4 ]
Menez, Steve [5 ]
Parikh, Chirag R. [5 ]
Coca, Steven G. [3 ]
机构
[1] Icahn Sch Med Mt Sinai, Dept Med Educ, New York, NY 10029 USA
[2] Icahn Sch Med Mt Sinai Morningside West, Dept Med, New York, NY USA
[3] Icahn Sch Med Mt Sinai, Dept Med, New York, NY 10029 USA
[4] Mem Sloan Kettering Canc Ctr Med Lib, Div Technol, New York, NY USA
[5] Johns Hopkins Univ, Sch Med, Dept Med, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA
来源
关键词
chronic kidney disease; chronic allograft failure; TNF RECEPTORS 1; KIDNEY-DISEASE; FUNCTION DECLINE; ASSOCIATION; FIBROSIS; INJURY; INFLAMMATION; PROGRESSION; ESRD;
D O I
10.1681/ASN.2022010098
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
BackgroundSensitive and specific biomarkers are needed to provide better biologic insight into the risk of incident and progressive CKD. However, studies have been limited by sample size and design heterogeneity. MethodsIn this assessment of the prognostic value of preclinical plasma and urine biomarkers for CKD outcomes, we searched Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE ALL (Ovid), and Scopus up to November 30, 2020, for studies exploring the association between baseline kidney biomarkers and CKD outcomes (incident CKD, CKD progression, or incident ESKD). We used random-effects meta-analysis. ResultsAfter screening 26,456 abstracts and 352 full-text articles, we included 129 studies in the meta-analysis for the most frequently studied plasma biomarkers (TNFR1, FGF23, TNFR2, KIM-1, suPAR, and others) and urine biomarkers (KIM-1, NGAL, and others). For the most frequently studied plasma biomarkers, pooled RRs for CKD outcomes were 2.17 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.91 to 2.47) for TNFR1 (31 studies); 1.21 (95% CI, 1.15 to 1.28) for FGF-23 (30 studies); 2.07 (95% CI, 1.82 to 2.34) for TNFR2 (23 studies); 1.51 (95% CI, 1.38 to 1.66) for KIM-1 (18 studies); and 1.42 (95% CI, 1.30 to 1.55) for suPAR (12 studies). For the most frequently studied urine biomarkers, pooled RRs were 1.10 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.16) for KIM-1 (19 studies) and 1.12 (95% CI, 1.06 to 1.19) for NGAL (19 studies). ConclusionsStudies of preclinical biomarkers for CKD outcomes have considerable heterogeneity across study cohorts and designs, limiting comparisons of prognostic performance across studies. Plasma TNFR1, FGF23, TNFR2, KIM-1, and suPAR were among the most frequently investigated in the setting of CKD outcomes. Significance StatementBiomarker studies in the setting of CKD have increased considerably within the past 15 years, but vary significantly by design and clinical context. The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the prognostic value of preclinical plasma and urine biomarkers for CKD outcomes (incident CKD, CKD progression, or incident ESKD), including 129 studies in the meta-analysis. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals among some of the most studied CKD biomarkers were 2.17 (95% CI, 1.91 to 2.47) for plasma TNFR1, 1.21 (95% CI, 1.15 to 1.28) for plasma FGF23, 2.07 (95% CI, 1.82 to 2.34) for plasma TNFR2, 1.10 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.16) for urine KIM-1, and 1.12 (95% CI, 1.06 to 1.19) for urine NGAL. The study?s findings suggest these biomarkers merit assessment of their performance in clinical practice.
引用
收藏
页码:1657 / 1672
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Diagnosing tuberculosis with urine lipoarabinomannan: systematic review and meta-analysis
    Minion, J.
    Leung, E.
    Talbot, E.
    Dheda, K.
    Pai, M.
    Menzies, D.
    EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL, 2011, 38 (06) : 1398 - 1405
  • [42] Use of Liver Fibrosis biomarkers to predict clinical outcomes- A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Corbett, Christopher
    Armstrong, Matthew J.
    Bayliss, Susan E.
    Moore, David
    Riley, Richard
    Newsome, Philip N.
    HEPATOLOGY, 2013, 58 : 1196A - 1197A
  • [43] Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Biomarkers for Pediatric Pneumonia
    Gunaratnam, Lourdes Cynthia
    Robinson, Joan L.
    Hawkes, Michael T.
    JOURNAL OF THE PEDIATRIC INFECTIOUS DISEASES SOCIETY, 2021, 10 (09) : 891 - 900
  • [44] Diagnostic biomarkers and aortic dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Chen, Hongjian
    Li, Yunjie
    Li, Zheqian
    Shi, Yanli
    Zhu, Haobo
    BMC CARDIOVASCULAR DISORDERS, 2023, 23 (01)
  • [45] MOLECULAR BIOMARKERS IN PERIPARTUM CARDIOMYOPATHY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
    Cherubin, S.
    Peoples, T.
    Gillard, J.
    Lakhal-Littleton, S.
    Kurinczuk, J.
    Nair, M.
    JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, 2020, 74 : A25 - A25
  • [46] Astrocyte Biomarkers in Alzheimer Disease A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Bellaver, Bruna
    Ferrari-Souza, Joao Pedro
    da Ros, Lucas Uglione
    Carter, Stephen F.
    Rodriguez-Vieitez, Elena
    Nordberg, Agneta
    Pellerin, Luc
    Rosa-Neto, Pedro
    Leffa, Douglas Teixeira
    Zimmer, Eduardo R.
    NEUROLOGY, 2021, 96 (24) : E2944 - E2955
  • [47] Biomarkers for post thrombotic syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Bouman, A. C.
    Atalay, S.
    Ten Cate, H.
    Ten Wolde, M.
    Ten Cate-Hoet, A. J.
    JOURNAL OF THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS, 2013, 11 : 1159 - 1159
  • [48] Biomarkers of gastrointestinal functionality in dogs: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Felix, Ananda Portella
    Souza, Camilla Mariane Menezes
    de Oliveira, Simone Gisele
    ANIMAL FEED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2022, 283
  • [49] Biomarkers and anthracycline induced cardiotoxicity, a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Kastora, Stavroula L.
    Pana, Tiberiu A.
    Sarwar, Yusuf
    Myint, Phyo K.
    Mamas, Mamas A.
    JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY, 2024, 264 : S19 - S19
  • [50] Prognostic Biomarkers in Endometrial Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Coll-de la Rubia, Eva
    Martinez-Garcia, Elena
    Dittmar, Gunnar
    Gil-Moreno, Antonio
    Cabrera, Silvia
    Colas, Eva
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2020, 9 (06) : 1 - 20