Publishes on Chronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes, Dialysis and Renal Disease Management, Renal Diseases and Glomerulopathies. 92 papers and 53.2k citations.
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.
BACKGROUND: Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimates facilitate detection of chronic kidney disease but require calibration of the serum creatinine assay to the laboratory that developed the equation. The 4-variable equation from the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study has been reexpressed for use with a standardized assay. OBJECTIVE: To describe the performance of the revised 4-variable MDRD Study equation and compare it with the performance of the 6-variable MDRD Study and Cockcroft-Gault equations. DESIGN: Comparison of estimated and measured GFR. SETTING: 15 clinical centers participating in a randomized, controlled trial. PATIENTS: 1628 patients with chronic kidney disease participating in the MDRD Study. MEASUREMENTS: Serum creatinine levels were calibrated to an assay traceable to isotope-dilution mass spectrometry. Glomerular filtration rate was measured as urinary clearance of 125I-iothalamate. RESULTS: Mean measured GFR was 39.8 mL/min per 1.73 m2 (SD, 21.2). Accuracy and precision of the revised 4-variable equation were similar to those of the original 6-variable equation and better than in the Cockcroft-Gault equation, even when the latter was corrected for bias, with 90%, 91%, 60%, and 83% of estimates within 30% of measured GFR, respectively. Differences between measured and estimated GFR were greater for all equations when the estimated GFR was 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or greater. LIMITATIONS: The MDRD Study included few patients with a GFR greater than 90 mL/min per 1.73 m2. Equations were not compared in a separate study sample. CONCLUSIONS: The 4-variable MDRD Study equation provides reasonably accurate GFR estimates in patients with chronic kidney disease and a measured GFR of less than 90 mL/min per 1.73 m2. By using the reexpressed MDRD Study equation with the standardized serum creatinine assay, clinical laboratories can report more accurate GFR estimates.
CONTEXT: The prevalence and incidence of kidney failure treated by dialysis and transplantation in the United States have increased from 1988 to 2004. Whether there have been changes in the prevalence of earlier stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD) during this period is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To update the estimated prevalence of CKD in the United States. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional analysis of the most recent National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES 1988-1994 and NHANES 1999-2004), a nationally representative sample of noninstitutionalized adults aged 20 years or older in 1988-1994 (n = 15,488) and 1999-2004 (n = 13,233). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Chronic kidney disease prevalence was determined based on persistent albuminuria and decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Persistence of microalbuminuria (>30 mg/g) was estimated from repeat visit data in NHANES 1988-1994. The GFR was estimated using the abbreviated Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study equation reexpressed to standard serum creatinine. RESULTS: The prevalence of both albuminuria and decreased GFR increased from 1988-1994 to 1999-2004. The prevalence of CKD stages 1 to 4 increased from 10.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.2%-10.9%) in 1988-1994 to 13.1% (95% CI, 12.0%-14.1%) in 1999-2004 with a prevalence ratio of 1.3 (95% CI, 1.2-1.4). The prevalence estimates of CKD stages in 1988-1994 and 1999-2004, respectively, were 1.7% (95% CI, 1.3%-2.2%) and 1.8% (95% CI, 1.4%-2.3%) for stage 1; 2.7% (95% CI, 2.2%-3.2%) and 3.2% (95% CI, 2.6%-3.9%) for stage 2; 5.4% (95% CI, 4.9%-6.0%) and 7.7% (95% CI, 7.0%-8.4%) for stage 3; and 0.21% (95% CI, 0.15%-0.27%) and 0.35% (0.25%-0.45%) for stage 4. A higher prevalence of diagnosed diabetes and hypertension and higher body mass index explained the entire increase in prevalence of albuminuria but only part of the increase in the prevalence of decreased GFR. Estimation of GFR from serum creatinine has limited precision and a change in mean serum creatinine accounted for some of the increased prevalence of CKD. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of CKD in the United States in 1999-2004 is higher than it was in 1988-1994. This increase is partly explained by the increasing prevalence of diabetes and hypertension and raises concerns about future increased incidence of kidney failure and other complications of CKD.
In the coming years, estimates of the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) may replace the measurement of serum creatinine as the primary tool for the assessment of kidney function. Indeed, many clinical laboratories already report estimated GFR values whenever serum creatinine is measured. This review considers current methods of measuring GFR and GFR-estimating equations and their strengths and weaknesses as applied to chronic kidney disease.
PURPOSE: We sought to reexpress the 4-variable Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study equation for estimation of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) using serum creatinine (S(cr)) standardized to reference methods. METHODS: Serum specimens included creatinine reference materials prepared by the College of American Pathologists (CAP), traceable to primary reference material at the NIST, with assigned values traceable to isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS), a calibration panel prepared by the Cleveland Clinic Research Laboratory (CCRL), and frozen samples from the MDRD Study. Split specimens were measured at the CCRL using the Roche enzymatic and Beckman CX3 kinetic alkaline picrate assays. RESULTS: Roche enzymatic assay results on CAP samples were comparable to IDMS-assigned values. Beckman CX3 assay results in 2004-2005 were significantly higher than but highly correlated with simultaneous Roche enzymatic assay results (r(2) = 0.9994 on 40 CCRL samples) and showed minimal but significant upward drift from Beckman CX3 assay results during the MDRD Study in 1989-1991 (r(2) = 0.9987 in 253 samples). Combining these factors, standardized S(cr) = 0.95 x original MDRD Study S(cr). The reexpressed 4-variable MDRD Study equation for S(cr) (mg/dL) is GFR = 175 x standardized S(cr)(-1.154) x age(-0.203) x 1.212 (if black) x 0.742 (if female), and for S(cr) (micromol/L) is GFR = 30849 x standardized S(cr)(-1.154) x age(-0.203) x 1.212 (if black) x 0.742 (if female) [GFR in mL x min(-1) x (1.73 m(2))(-1)]. CONCLUSION: When the calibration of S(cr) methods is traceable to the S(cr) reference system, GFR should be estimated using the MDRD Study equation that has been reexpressed for standardized S(cr).