Evidence Hub

Comparative CKD risk prediction using homocitrulline and carbamylated albumin: two circulating markers of protein carbamylation

Aya Awwad, Eugene P. Rhee, Morgan E. Grams, H. Choles, J. Sondheimer, Jiang He, Jing Chen, Chi-Yuan Hsu et al.

BMC Nephrology, 2024

1,632 participants · 8 citations

Abstract

Protein carbamylation, a post-translational protein modification primarily driven by urea, independently associates with adverse clinical outcomes in patients with CKD. Biomarkers used to quantify carbamylation burden have mainly included carbamylated albumin (C-Alb) and homocitrulline (HCit, carbamylated lysine). In this study, we aimed to compare the prognostic utility of these two markers in order to facilitate comparisons of existing studies employing either marker alone, and to inform future carbamylation studies. Both serum C-Alb and free HCit levels were assayed from the same timepoint in 1632 individuals with CKD stages 2–4 enrolled in the prospective Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) study. Adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess risks for the outcomes of death (primary) and end stage kidney disease (ESKD) using each marker. C-statistics, net reclassification improvement, and integrated discrimination improvement were used to compare the prognostic value of each marker. Participant demographics included mean (SD) age 59 (11) years; 702 (43%) females; 700 (43%) white. C-Alb and HCit levels were positively correlated with one another (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.64). Higher C-Alb and HCit levels showed similar increased risk of death (e.g., the adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for death in the 4th carbamylation quartile compared to the 1st was 1.90 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35–2.66) for C-Alb, and 1.89 [1.27–2.81] for HCit; and on a…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 1,632 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free