4.6 Review Book Chapter

Biomarkers of acute kidney injury

期刊

出版社

ANNUAL REVIEWS
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.48.113006.094615

关键词

acute renal failure; clusterin; cystatin-C; cysteine-rich protein-61 (CYR-61); ELISA; interleukin-18 (IL-18); kidney injury molecule-1 (Kim-1); microfluidics; nanotechnology; neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL)

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [R33DK074099, R01DK072381, R01DK039773, R37DK039773, R21DK074099] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES [R00ES016723, K99ES016723] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NIDDK NIH HHS [R37 DK039773, DK 74099, DK 39773, R21 DK074099, DK 72381, R33 DK074099, R01 DK072381, R01 DK039773] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIEHS NIH HHS [K99 ES016723, R00 ES016723-02, R00 ES016723, K99 ES016723-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common condition with a high risk of death. The standard metrics used to define and monitor the progression of AKI, such as serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen levels, are insensitive, nonspecific, and change significantly only after significant kidney injury and then with a substantial time delay. This delay in diagnosis not only prevents timely patient management decisions, including administration of putative therapeutic agents, but also significantly affects the preclinical evaluation of toxicity thereby allowing potentially nephrotoxic drug candidates to pass the preclinical safety criteria only to be found to be clinically nephrotoxic with great human costs. Studies to establish effective therapies for AKI will be greatly facilitated by two factors: (a) development of sensitive, specific, and reliable biomarkers for early diagnosis/prognosis of AKI in preclinical and clinical studies, and (b) development and validation of high-throughput innovative technologies that allow rapid multiplexed detection of multiple markers at the bedside.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据