@entity2890 and XXXX nephrotoxicity. Value of serum @entity1011 versus urinary concentration of @entity2262 .

@entity1 @entity2890 @entity2262 @entity4509 @entity177 @entity1011 @entity4028
108 @entity1 who received @entity2890 or @entity4509 could be evaluated for nephrotoxicity in a prospective randomized trial. Both groups had similar illnesses, and causative agents, concurrent drug administration, ages, sex ratios, initial serum @entity1011 and @entity4028 levels and total dose and duration of therapy. Using urinary concentration of @entity2262 ( @entity2262 ) as a marker, nephrotoxicity was detected in 13 (22.4%) of 58 @entity1 given @entity2890 and 13 (26%) of 50 given @entity4509 (n.s.). Using serum @entity1011 as a marker, nephrotoxicity was detected in 3 (5.2%) of 58 @entity1 given @entity2890 and in 7 (14%) of 50 given @entity4509 (n.s.). The whole group of 108 @entity1 was used to compare the usefulness of serum @entity1011 levels versus urinary concentration of @entity2262 . An elevation of serum @entity1011 was detected in 10 of 108 @entity1 (9.3%). In 5 of these 10 @entity1 the @entity2262 remained normal, suggesting a functional @entity177 . In 21 of the 108 @entity1 (19.4%) the @entity2262 increased while the serum @entity1011 remained normal, suggesting an @entity4028 nephrotoxicity which would have remained undetected if only serum @entity1011 had been measured. In the remaining @entity1 (77 of the 108; 71.3%) serum @entity1011 and urinary concentration of @entity2262 both remained normal throughout the treatment. In conclusion no statistically significant differences were found between @entity2890 and @entity4509 nephrotoxicity. Urinary @entity2262 is more sensitive than serum @entity1011 and furthermore it allows one to differentiate @entity4028 nephrotoxicity from functional @entity177 .
