4.2 Article

Biomarkers of impaired renal function

Journal

CURRENT OPINION IN HIV AND AIDS
Volume 5, Issue 6, Pages 524-530

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/COH.0b013e32833f203e

Keywords

biomarkers; estimated glomerular filtration rate; proteinuria; renal disease; tubular dysfunction

Funding

  1. GlaxoSmithKline
  2. ViiV healthcare
  3. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  4. Jansen-Cilag
  5. Merck
  6. Roche
  7. Gilead Sciences
  8. Higher Education Funding Council for England
  9. Pfizer
  10. Boehringer-Ingelheim

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose of review Renal disease is increasingly common as life expectancy of HIV-infected persons continues to improve. Several biomarkers are available for monitoring renal function, although no consensus exists on how best to apply these tools in HIV infection. This review describes recent findings for the more common renal biomarkers. Recent findings Although widely used in clinical practice, creatinine-based estimates of glomerular filtration rate have not been validated in HIV infection. Serum cystatin C has been proposed as a more sensitive marker of renal dysfunction in HIV infection, although it may also reflect systemic inflammation. Screening for proteinuria and albuminuria allows identification of patients at higher risk of kidney disease and other adverse outcomes. Fanconi syndrome, which has been associated with tenofovir use, is associated with severe tubular proteinuria, and several low molecular weight proteins, including retinol-binding protein, beta(2)-microglobulin, and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin have been studied as markers of tubular dysfunction. Studies have reported a high prevalence of subclinical proximal tubular dysfunction in patients receiving antiretroviral therapy. Summary Future studies are needed to determine the optimal biomarkers for the detection and monitoring of renal disease in HIV.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available