Skip to main content
. 2022 Sep 20;4(1):23–31. doi: 10.34067/KID.0004172022

Table 3.

Solute clearances favoring furosemide clearance compared with iGFR (above 90th percentile regression line)

−log(P): Furosemide −log(P): iGFR Compound Protein Binding (%) CoV CLr-to-CrCl Ratio
7.9 4.6 L-Homocitrulline 11 0.3 3.0
7.5 5.6 2-[(4-Aminobenzoyl)amino]acetic acid 19 0.3 10.9
7.2 5.7 (2R)-3-Hydroxyisovaleroylcarnitine 21 0.1 3.0
7.1 5.0 3′-Sialyllactose 21 0.3 5.7
6.6 5.7 Galactonic acid 16 0.5 0.8
6.4 5.2 1,4-Cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid 15 0.3 2.4
6.3 4.2 Gentisic acid 64 0.4 2.3
6.1 2.4 o-Hydroxyhippuric acid 72 1.8 5.7
6.1 4.5 Inosine 18 0.4 1.0
6.0 1.5 7-Methyluric acid 34 0.9 5.8
5.5 4.4 Ribose-5-phosphate 7 0.2 1.9
5.1 3.3 3-Methylhistidine 17 0.7 1.0
5.0 2.9 Phenylalanine 31 0.5 0.0
4.4 3.0 4-Acetamidobutyric acid 18 0.4 6.1
4.4 3.3 N-α-methylhistamine 26 0.2 13.2
4.3 2.7 Betonicine 14 0.5 1.0
4.3 1.4 Nialamide 47 0.3 0.2
4.3 3.0 N-Methylleucine 40 2.7 0.2

Candidate solutes are ordered by the kidney clearance association with furosemide clearance. iGFR, iohexol GFR; CoV, coefficient of variation; CLr-to-CrCl ratio, solute clearance-to-creatinine clearance ratio.