A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate.
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Equations to estimate glomerular filtration rate (GFR) are routinely used to assess kidney function. Current equations have limited precision and systematically underestimate measured GFR at higher values. OBJECTIVE:To develop a new estimating equation for GFR: the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation. DESIGN:Cross-sectional analysis with separate pooled data sets for equation development and validation and a representative sample of the U.S. population for prevalence estimates. SETTING:Research studies and clinical populations ("studies") with measured GFR and NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey), 1999 to 2006. PARTICIPANTS:8254 participants in 10 studies (equation development data set) and 3896 participants in 16 studies (validation data set). Prevalence estimates were based on 16,032 participants in NHANES. MEASUREMENTS:GFR, measured as the clearance of exogenous filtration markers (iothalamate in the development data set; iothalamate and other markers in the validation data set), and linear regression to estimate the logarithm of measured GFR from standardized creatinine levels, sex, race, and age. RESULTS:In the validation data set, the CKD-EPI equation performed better than the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study equation, especially at higher GFR (P < 0.001 for all subsequent comparisons), with less bias (median difference between measured and estimated GFR, 2.5 vs. 5.5 mL/min per 1.73 m(2)), improved precision (interquartile range [IQR] of the differences, 16.6 vs. 18.3 mL/min per 1.73 m(2)), and greater accuracy (percentage of estimated GFR within 30% of measured GFR, 84.1% vs. 80.6%). In NHANES, the median estimated GFR was 94.5 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) (IQR, 79.7 to 108.1) vs. 85.0 (IQR, 72.9 to 98.5) mL/min per 1.73 m(2), and the prevalence of chronic kidney disease was 11.5% (95% CI, 10.6% to 12.4%) versus 13.1% (CI, 12.1% to 14.0%). LIMITATION:The sample contained a limited number of elderly people and racial and ethnic minorities with measured GFR. CONCLUSION:The CKD-EPI creatinine equation is more accurate than the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study equation and could replace it for routine clinical use. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE:National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
Project description:BACKGROUND:The Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guideline recommends use of a cystatin C-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) to confirm creatinine-based eGFR between 45 and 59 mL · min(-1) · (1.73 m(2))(-1). Prior studies have demonstrated that comorbidities such as solid-organ transplant strongly influence the relationship between measured GFR, creatinine, and cystatin C. Our objective was to evaluate the performance of cystatin C-based eGFR equations compared with creatinine-based eGFR and measured GFR across different clinical presentations. METHODS:We compared the performance of the CKD-EPI 2009 creatinine-based estimated GFR equation (eGFRCr) and the newer CKD-EPI 2012 cystatin C-based equations (eGFRCys and eGFRCr-Cys) with measured GFR (iothalamate renal clearance) across defined patient populations. Patients (n = 1652) were categorized as transplant recipients (n = 568 kidney; n = 319 other organ), known chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients (n = 618), or potential kidney donors (n = 147). RESULTS:eGFRCr-Cys showed the most consistent performance across different clinical populations. Among potential kidney donors without CKD [stage 2 or higher; eGFR >60 mL · min(-1) · (1.73 m(2))(-1)], eGFRCys and eGFRCr-Cys demonstrated significantly less bias than eGFRCr; however, all 3 equations substantially underestimated GFR when eGFR was <60 mL · min(-1) · (1.73 m(2))(-1). Among transplant recipients with CKD stage 3B or greater [eGFR <45 mL · min(-1) · (1.73 m(2))(-1)], eGFRCys was significantly more biased than eGFRCr. No clear differences in eGFR bias between equations were observed among known CKD patients regardless of eGFR range or in any patient group with a GFR between 45 and 59 mL · min(-1) · (1.73 m(2))(-1). CONCLUSIONS:The performance of eGFR equations depends on patient characteristics that are readily apparent on presentation. Among the 3 CKD-EPI equations, eGFRCr-Cys performed most consistently across the studied patient populations.
Project description:The glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimating equation incorporating both cystatin C and creatinine perform better than those using creatinine or cystatin C alone in patients with reduced GFR. Whether this equation performs well in kidney transplant recipients cross-sectionally, and more importantly, over time has not been addressed.We analyzed four GFR estimating equations in participants of the Angiotensin II Blockade for Chronic Allograft Nephropathy Trial (NCT 00067990): Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equations based on serum cystatin C and creatinine (eGFR (CKD-EPI-Creat+CysC)), cystatin C alone (eGFR (CKD-EPI-CysC)), creatinine alone (eGFR (CKD-EPI-Creat)) and the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease study equation (eGFR (MDRD)). Iothalamate GFR served as a standard (mGFR).mGFR, serum creatinine, and cystatin C shortly after transplant were 56.1 ± 17.0 ml/min/1.73 m(2), 1.2 ± 0.4 mg/dl, and 1.2 ± 0.3 mg/l respectively. eGFR (CKD-EPI-Creat+CysC) was most precise (R(2) = 0.50) but slightly more biased than eGFR (MDRD); 9.0 ± 12.7 versus 6.4 ± 15.8 ml/min/1.73 m(2), respectively. This improved precision was most evident in recipients with mGFR >60 ml/min/1.73 m(2). For relative accuracy, eGFR (MDRD) and eGFR (CKD-EPI-Creat+CysC) had the highest percentage of estimates falling within 30% of mGFR; 75.8 and 68.9%, respectively. Longitudinally, equations incorporating cystatin C most closely paralleled the change in mGFR.eGFR (CKD-EPI-Creat+CysC) is more precise and reflects GFR change over time reasonably well. eGFR (MDRD) had superior performance in recipients with mGFR between 30 and 60 ml/min/1.73 m(2).
Project description:The Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study equation underestimates measured glomerular filtration rate (GFR) at levels>60 mL/min/1.73 m2, with variable accuracy among subgroups; consequently, estimated GFR (eGFR)>or=60 mL/min/1.73 m2 is not reported by clinical laboratories. Here, performance of a more accurate GFR-estimating equation, the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation, is reported by level of GFR and clinical characteristics.Test of diagnostic accuracy.Pooled data set of 3,896 people from 16 studies with measured GFR (not used for the development of either equation). Subgroups were defined by eGFR, age, sex, race, diabetes, prior solid-organ transplant, and body mass index.eGFR from the CKD-EPI and MDRD Study equations and standardized serum creatinine.Measured GFR using urinary or plasma clearance of exogenous filtration markers.Mean measured GFR was 68+/-36 (SD) mL/min/1.73 m2. For eGFR<30 mL/min/1.73 m2, both equations have similar bias (median difference compared with measured GFR). For eGFR of 30-59 mL/min/1.73 m2, bias was decreased from 4.9 to 2.1 mL/min/1.73 m2 (57% improvement). For eGFR of 60-89 mL/min/1.73 m2, bias was decreased from 11.9 to 4.2 mL/min/1.73 m2 (61% improvement). For eGFR of 90-119 mL/min/1.73 m2, bias was decreased from 10.0 to 1.9 mL/min/1.73 m2 (75% improvement). Similar or improved performance was noted for most subgroups with eGFR<90 mL/min/1.73 m2, other than body mass index<20 kg/m2, with greater variation noted for some subgroups with eGFR>or=90 mL/min/1.73 m2.Limited number of elderly people and racial and ethnic minorities with measured GFR.The CKD-EPI equation is more accurate than the MDRD Study equation overall and across most subgroups. In contrast to the MDRD Study equation, eGFR>or=60 mL/min/1.73 m2 can be reported using the CKD-EPI equation.
Project description:Estimating kidney glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is of utmost importance in many clinical conditions. However, very few studies have evaluated the performance of GFR estimating equations over all ages and degrees of kidney impairment. We evaluated the reliability of two major equations for GFR estimation, the CKD-EPI and Schwartz equations, with urinary clearance of inulin as gold standard.The study included 10,610 participants referred to the Renal and Metabolic Function Exploration Unit of Edouard Herriot Hospital (Lyon, France). GFR was measured by urinary inulin clearance (only first measurement kept for analysis) then estimated with isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS)-traceable CKD-EPI and Schwartz equations. The participants' ages ranged from 3 to 90 y, and the measured GFRs from 3 to 160 ml/min/1.73 m2. A linear mixed-effects model was used to model the bias (mean ratio of estimated GFR to measured GFR). Equation reliability was also assessed using precision (interquartile range [IQR] of the ratio) and accuracy (percentage of estimated GFRs within the 10% [P10] and 30% [P30] limits above and below the measured GFR). In the whole sample, the mean ratio with the CKD-EPI equation was significantly higher than that with the Schwartz equation (1.17 [95% CI 1.16; 1.18] versus 1.08 [95% CI 1.07; 1.09], p < 0.001, t-test). At GFR values of 60-89 ml/min/1.73 m2, the mean ratios with the Schwartz equation were closer to 1 than the mean ratios with the CKD-EPI equation whatever the age class (1.02 [95% CI 1.01; 1.03] versus 1.15 [95% CI 1.13; 1.16], p < 0.001, t-test). In young adults (18-40 y), the Schwartz equation had a better precision and was also more accurate than the CKD-EPI equation at GFR values under 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 (IQR: 0.32 [95% CI 0.28; 0.33] versus 0.40 [95% CI 0.36; 0.44]; P30: 81.4 [95% CI 78.1; 84.7] versus 63.8 [95% CI 59.7; 68.0]) and also at GFR values of 60-89 ml/min/1.73 m2. In all patients aged ?65 y, the CKD-EPI equation performed better than the Schwartz equation (IQR: 0.33 [95% CI 0.31; 0.34] versus 0.40 [95% CI 0.38; 0.41]; P30: 77.6 [95% CI 75.7; 79.5] versus 67.5 [95% CI 65.4; 69.7], respectively). In children and adolescents (2-17 y), the Schwartz equation was superior to the CKD-EPI equation (IQR: 0.23 [95% CI 0.21; 0.24] versus 0.33 [95% CI 0.31; 0.34]; P30: 88.6 [95% CI 86.7; 90.4] versus 29.4 [95% CI 26.8; 32.0]). This study is limited by its retrospective design, single-center setting with few non-white patients, and small number of patients with severe chronic kidney disease.The results from this study suggest that the Schwartz equation may be more reliable than the CKD-EPI equation for estimating GFR in children and adolescents and in adults with mild to moderate kidney impairment up to age 40 y.
Project description:Background:The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) creatinine equation is routinely used to assess renal function but exhibits varying accuracy depending on patient characteristics and clinical presentation. The overall aim of the present study was to assess if and to what extent glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimation based on creatinine can be improved. Methods:In a cross-sectional analysis covering the years 2003-17, CKD-EPI was validated against measured GFR (mGFR; using various tracer methods) in patients with high likelihood of chronic kidney disease (CKD; five CKD cohorts, n?=?8365) and in patients with low likelihood of CKD (six community cohorts, n?=?6759). Comparisons were made with the Lund-Malmö revised equation (LMR) and the Full Age Spectrum equation. Results:7In patients aged 18-39 years old, CKD-EPI overestimated GFR with 5.0-16?mL/min/1.73?m2 in median in both cohort types at mGFR levels <120?mL/min/1.73?m2. LMR had greater accuracy than CKD-EPI in the CKD cohorts (P30, the percentage of estimated GFR within 30% of mGFR, 83.5% versus 76.6%). CKD-EPI was generally the most accurate equation in the community cohorts, but all three equations reached P30 above the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative benchmark of 90%. Conclusions:None of the evaluated equations made optimal use of available data. Prospects for improved GFR estimation procedures based on creatinine exist, particularly in young adults and in settings where patients with suspected or manifest CKD are investigated.
Project description:<h4>Importance</h4>Estimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is useful in many clinical conditions. However, very few studies have evaluated the performance of GFR-estimating equations in older adults at various degrees of kidney impairment.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine the performance of plasma-creatinine-based equations Chronic Kidney Disease-Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI), Lund-Malmö Revised, (LMR), full age spectrum (FAS), and Berlin Initiative Study (BIS) 1 in older adults across a broad spectrum of GFRs.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>Single-center cross-sectional study performed in France including 2247 participants aged 65 to 90 years who underwent inulin GFR measurements from July 1, 2003, to July 30, 2017, for suspected or established renal dysfunction, for renal risk, before kidney donation, or after kidney transplant.<h4>Main outcomes and measures</h4>The main outcome measure was GRF measured by inulin clearance. Equation performance criteria considered bias (difference between estimated and measured GFR), precision (interquartile range of the median difference), and accuracy P30 (percentage of estimated GFRs lying between [measured GFR - 30% of measured GFR] and [measured GFR + 30% of measured GFR]).<h4>Results</h4>The mean (SD) age of the 2247 participants was 71.5 (5) years and 1192 (53.0%) were male. The difference in median (95% CI) bias was significant between CKD-EPI vs LMR (-4.0 [-4.0 to -3.5 mL/min/1.73 m2; P?<?.001]) and CKD-EPI vs FAS (-2.0 [-3.5 to -2.5] mL/min/1.73 m2, P?<?.001) but not significant between CKD-EPI vs BIS 1 (0.0 [-1.5 to 0.5], P?=?.07, Mood test). In patients aged 65 to 74 years with measured GFR<45 mL/min/1.73 m2, the difference in median P30 (95% CI) was not significant between CKD-EPI vs LMR (P?=?.08) and CKD-EPI vs FAS (P?=?.48) but significant vs BIS 1 (P?=?.004, McNemar test). In subjects 75 years and older, with measured GFR less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m2, LMR and BIS 1 were more accurate than CKD-EPI and FAS (P30?=?74.5 [70.0-79.5] and 73.0 [68.0-78.0] vs 69.0 [64.5-74.0] and 69.0 [65.5-72.0]). In all patients, despite small statistical differences, the performance of CKD-EPI equation was not clinically different from that of LMR, FAS, or BIS 1.<h4>Conclusions and relevance</h4>In a referral group of patients 65 years and older who had GFR estimated using CDK-EPI, LMR, BIS 1, and FAS equations, a comparison with renal inulin clearance found that none of the equations had a superior diagnostic performance. Each had limitations regarding accuracy.
Project description:<h4>Importance</h4>Kidney transplant is associated with improved survival and quality of life among patients with kidney failure; however, significant racial disparities have been noted in transplant access. Common equations that estimate glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) include adjustment for Black race; however, how inclusion of the race coefficient in common eGFR equations corresponds with measured GFR and whether it is associated with delayed eligibility for kidney transplant listing are unknown.<h4>Objective</h4>To compare eGFR with measured GFR and evaluate the association between eGFR calculated with vs without a coefficient for race and time to eligibility for kidney transplant.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>This prospective cohort study used data from the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort, a multicenter cohort study of participants with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Self-identified Black participants from that study were enrolled between April 2003 and September 2008, with follow-up through December 2018. Statistical analyses were completed on November 11, 2020.<h4>Exposure</h4>Estimated GFR, measured annually and estimated using the creatinine-based Chronic Kidney Disease-Epidemiology (CKD-EPI) equation with and without a race coefficient.<h4>Main outcomes and measures</h4>Iothalamate GFR (iGFR) measured in a subset of participants (n?=?311) and time to achievement of an eGFR less than 20 mL/min/1.73 m2, an established threshold for kidney transplant referral and listing.<h4>Results</h4>Among 1658 self-identified Black participants, mean (SD) age was 58 (11) years, 848 (51%) were female, and mean (SD) eGFR was 44 (15) mL/min/1.73 m2. The CKD-EPI eGFR with the race coefficient overestimated iGFR by a mean of 3.1 mL/min/1.73 m2 (95% CI, 2.2-3.9 mL/min/1.73 m2; P?<?.001). The mean difference between CKD-EPI eGFR without the race coefficient and iGFR was of smaller magnitude (-1.7 mL/min/1.73 m2; 95% CI, -2.5 to -0.9 mL/min/1.73 m2). For participants with an iGFR of 20 to 25 mL/min/1.73 m2, the mean difference in eGFR with vs without the race coefficient and iGFR was 5.1 mL/min/1.73 m2 (95% CI, 3.3-6.9 mL/min/1.73 m2) vs 1.3 mL/min/1.73 m2 (95% CI, -0.3 to 2.9 mL/min/1.73 m2). Over a median follow-up time of 4 years (interquartile range, 1-10 years), use of eGFR calculated without vs with the race coefficient was associated with a 35% (95% CI, 29%-41%) higher risk of achieving an eGFR less than 20 mL/min/1.73 m2 and a shorter median time to this end point of 1.9 years.<h4>Conclusions and relevance</h4>In this cohort study, inclusion of the race coefficient in the estimation of GFR was associated with greater bias in GFR estimation and with delayed achievement of a clinical threshold for kidney transplant referral and eligibility. These findings suggest that nephrologists and transplant programs should be cautious when using current estimating equations to determine kidney transplant eligibility.
Project description:Accurate assessment of kidney function is important for the management of solid-organ transplant recipients. In other clinical populations, glomerular filtration rate (GFR) most commonly is estimated using the CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration) creatinine or the 4-variable MDRD (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease) Study equation. The accuracy of these equations compared with other GFR estimating equations in transplant recipients has not been carefully studied.Diagnostic test study.Solid-organ transplant recipients longer than 6 months posttransplantation from 5 clinical populations (N=3,622, including recipients of kidney [53%], liver [35%], and other or multiple organs [12%]).Estimated GFR (eGFR) using creatinine-based GFR estimating equations identified from a systematic review of the literature. Performance of the CKD-EPI creatinine and the MDRD Study equations was compared with alternative equations.Measured GFR (mGFR) from urinary clearance of iothalamate or plasma clearance of iohexol.Error (difference between mGFR and eGFR) expressed as P30 (proportion of absolute percent error <30%) and mean absolute error.We identified 26 GFR estimating equations. Mean mGFR was 55.1±22.7 (SD) mL/min/1.73 m(2). P30 and mean absolute error for the CKD-EPI and the MDRD Study equations were 78.9% (99.6% CI, 76.9%-80.8%) for both and 10.6 (99.6% CI, 10.1-11.1) versus 11.0 (99.6% CI, 10.5-11.5) mL/min/1.73 m(2), respectively; these equations were more accurate than any of the alternative equations (P <0.001 for all pairwise comparisons for both measures). They performed better than or as well as the alternative equations in most subgroups defined by demographic and clinical characteristics, including type of transplanted organ.Study population included few nonwhites and people with solid-organ transplants other than liver and kidneys.The CKD-EPI creatinine and the MDRD Study equations perform better than the alternative creatinine-based estimating equations in solid-organ transplant recipients. They can be used for clinical management.
Project description:South Asians are at high risk for chronic kidney disease. However, unlike those in the United States and United Kingdom, laboratories in South Asian countries do not routinely report estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) when serum creatinine is measured. The objectives of the study were to: (1) evaluate the performance of existing GFR estimating equations in South Asians, and (2) modify the existing equations or develop a new equation for use in this population.Cross-sectional population-based study.581 participants 40 years or older were enrolled from 10 randomly selected communities and renal clinics in Karachi.eGFR, age, sex, serum creatinine level.Bias (the median difference between measured GFR [mGFR] and eGFR), precision (the IQR of the difference), accuracy (P30; percentage of participants with eGFR within 30% of mGFR), and the root mean squared error reported as cross-validated estimates along with bootstrapped 95% CIs based on 1,000 replications.The CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration) creatinine equation performed better than the MDRD (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease) Study equation in terms of greater accuracy at P30 (76.1% [95% CI, 72.7%-79.5%] vs 68.0% [95% CI, 64.3%-71.7%]; P < 0.001) and improved precision (IQR, 22.6 [95% CI, 19.9-25.3] vs 28.6 [95% CI, 25.8-31.5] mL/min/1.73 m(2); P < 0.001). However, both equations overestimated mGFR. Applying modification factors for slope and intercept to the CKD-EPI equation to create a CKD-EPI Pakistan equation (such that eGFRCKD-EPI(PK) = 0.686 × eGFRCKD-EPI(1.059)) in order to eliminate bias improved accuracy (P30, 81.6% [95% CI, 78.4%-84.8%]; P < 0.001) comparably to new estimating equations developed using creatinine level and additional variables.Lack of external validation data set and few participants with low GFR.The CKD-EPI creatinine equation is more accurate and precise than the MDRD Study equation in estimating GFR in a South Asian population in Karachi. The CKD-EPI Pakistan equation further improves the performance of the CKD-EPI equation in South Asians and could be used for eGFR reporting.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the performance of Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) creatinine, cystatin C, and creatinine-cystatin C estimating equations in HIV-positive patients. METHODS:We evaluated the performance of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study and CKD-EPI creatinine 2009, CKD-EPI cystatin C 2012, and CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C 2012 glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimating equations compared with GFR measured using plasma clearance of iohexol in 200 HIV-positive patients on stable antiretroviral therapy. Creatinine and cystatin C assays were standardized to certified reference materials. RESULTS:Of the 200 participants, median (IQR) CD4 count was 536 (421) and 61% had an undetectable HIV viral load. Mean (SD) measured GFR (mGFR) was 87 (26) mL/min per 1.73 m. All CKD-EPI equations performed better than the MDRD Study equation. All 3 CKD-EPI equations had similar bias and precision. The cystatin C equation was not more accurate than the creatinine equation. The creatinine-cystatin C equation was significantly more accurate than the cystatin C equation, and there was a trend toward greater accuracy than the creatinine equation. Accuracy was equal or better in most subgroups with the combined equation compared to either alone. CONCLUSIONS:The CKD-EPI cystatin C equation does not seem to be more accurate than the CKD-EPI creatinine equation in patients who are HIV-positive, supporting the use of the CKD-EPI creatinine equation for routine clinical care for use in North American populations with HIV. The use of both filtration markers together as a confirmatory test for decreased estimated GFR based on creatinine in individuals who are HIV-positive requires further study.