Evidence Hub

The Difference Between Cystatin C- and Creatinine-Based Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate and Risk of Diabetic Microvascular Complications Among Adults With Diabetes: A Population-Based Cohort Study

D. He, B. Gao, Jin-Wei Wang, Chao Yang, Ming-Hui Zhao, Lu-Xia Zhang

Diabetes Care, 2024

25,825 participants · 40 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE The impact of the difference between cystatin C- and creatinine-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFRdiff) on diabetic microvascular complications (DMCs) remains unknown. We investigated the associations of eGFRdiff with overall DMCs and subtypes, including diabetic retinopathy (DR), diabetic kidney disease (DKD), and diabetic neuropathy (DN). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This prospective cohort study included 25,825 participants with diabetes free of DMCs at baseline (2006 to 2010) from the UK Biobank. eGFRdiff was calculated using both absolute difference (eGFRabdiff) and the ratio (eGFRrediff) between cystatin C- and creatinine-based calculations. Incidence of DMCs was ascertained using electronic health records. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate the associations of eGFRdiff with overall DMCs and subtypes. RESULTS During a median follow-up of 13.6 years, DMCs developed in 5,753 participants, including 2,752 cases of DR, 3,203 of DKD, and 1,149 of DN. Each SD decrease of eGFRabdiff was associated with a 28% higher risk of overall DMCs, 14% higher risk of DR, 56% higher risk of DKD, and 29% higher risk of DN. For each 10% decrease in eGFRrediff, the corresponding hazard ratios (95% CIs) were 1.16 (1.14, 1.18) for overall DMCs, 1.08 (1.05, 1.11) for DR, 1.29 (1.26, 1.33) for DKD, and 1.17 (1.12, 1.22) for DN. The magnitude of associations was not materially altered in any of the sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS Large…

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: 25,825 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