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: 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.
Authors: J Lewis; L Agodoa; D Cheek; T Greene; J Middleton; D O'Connor; A Ojo; R Phillips; M Sika; J Wright Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Michael Mauer; Bernard Zinman; Robert Gardiner; Keith N Drummond; Samy Suissa; Sandra M Donnelly; Trudy D Strand; Michael S Kramer; Ronald Klein; Alan R Sinaiko Journal: J Renin Angiotensin Aldosterone Syst Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 1.636
Authors: Arlene B Chapman; Lisa M Guay-Woodford; Jared J Grantham; Vicente E Torres; Kyongtae T Bae; Deborah A Baumgarten; Philip J Kenney; Bernard F King; James F Glockner; Louis H Wetzel; Marijn E Brummer; W Charles O'Neill; Michelle L Robbin; William M Bennett; Saulo Klahr; Gladys H Hirschman; Paul L Kimmel; Paul A Thompson; J Philip Miller Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Harold I Feldman; Lawrence J Appel; Glenn M Chertow; Denise Cifelli; Borut Cizman; John Daugirdas; Jeffrey C Fink; Eunice D Franklin-Becker; Alan S Go; L Lee Hamm; Jiang He; Tom Hostetter; Chi-Yuan Hsu; Kenneth Jamerson; Marshall Joffe; John W Kusek; J Richard Landis; James P Lash; Edgar R Miller; Emile R Mohler; Paul Muntner; Akinlolu O Ojo; Mahboob Rahman; Raymond R Townsend; Jackson T Wright Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Nasser A Dhayat; Michael W Gradwell; Ganesh Pathare; Manuel Anderegg; Lisa Schneider; David Luethi; Cedric Mattmann; Orson W Moe; Bruno Vogt; Daniel G Fuster Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Michele F Eisenga; Marco van Londen; David E Leaf; Ilja M Nolte; Gerjan Navis; Stephan J L Bakker; Martin H de Borst; Carlo A J M Gaillard Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Adrienne Tin; Robert Scharpf; Michelle M Estrella; Bing Yu; Megan L Grove; Patricia P Chang; Kunihiro Matsushita; Anna Köttgen; Dan E Arking; Eric Boerwinkle; Thu H Le; Josef Coresh; Morgan E Grams Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-07-18 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Rebecca S B Fischer; Sreedhar Mandayam; Denis Chavarria; Chandan Vangala; Melissa S Nolan; Linda L Garcia; Lesbia Palma; Felix Garcia; Ramón García-Trabanino; Kristy O Murray Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Rey R Acedillo; Ron Wald; Eric McArthur; Danielle Marie Nash; Samuel A Silver; Matthew T James; Michael J Schull; Edward D Siew; Michael E Matheny; Andrew A House; Amit X Garg Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Sushrut S Waikar; Casey M Rebholz; Zihe Zheng; Shelley Hurwitz; Chi-Yuan Hsu; Harold I Feldman; Dawei Xie; Kathleen D Liu; Theodore E Mifflin; John H Eckfeldt; Paul L Kimmel; Ramachandran S Vasan; Joseph V Bonventre; Lesley A Inker; Josef Coresh Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 8.860