BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a significant public health problem whose diagnosis and staging relies upon GFR-estimating equations, including the new CKD-EPI equation. CKD-EPI demonstrated superior performance compared with the existing MDRD equation but has not been applied to a healthcare system. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We identified 53,759 patients with stages 3 to 5 CKD on the basis of either MDRD or CKD-EPI equations using two eGFR values <60 ml/min per 1.73 m² > 90 days apart from an outpatient setting. We compared patient characteristics, presence of related diagnosis codes, and time CKD classification between equations. RESULTS: The number of patients identified with CKD decreased 10% applying CKD-EPI versus MDRD. Changes varied substantially by patient characteristics including a 35% decrease among patients < 60 years and a 10% increase among patients > 90 years. Women, non-African Americans, nondiabetics, and obese patients were less likely to be classified on the basis of CKD-EPI. Time to CKD classification was significantly longer with CKD-EPI among younger patients. 14% of patients identified with CKD on the basis of either estimating equation also had a related ICD-9 diagnosis, ranging from 19% among patients < 60 years to 7% among patients > 90 years. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with findings in the general population, CKD-EPI resulted in substantial declines in equation-based CKD diagnoses in a large healthcare system. Further research is needed to determine whether widespread use of CKD-EPI with current guidelines could lead to delayed needed care among younger patients or excessive referrals among older patients.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a significant public health problem whose diagnosis and staging relies upon GFR-estimating equations, including the new CKD-EPI equation. CKD-EPI demonstrated superior performance compared with the existing MDRD equation but has not been applied to a healthcare system. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We identified 53,759 patients with stages 3 to 5 CKD on the basis of either MDRD or CKD-EPI equations using two eGFR values <60 ml/min per 1.73 m² > 90 days apart from an outpatient setting. We compared patient characteristics, presence of related diagnosis codes, and time CKD classification between equations. RESULTS: The number of patients identified with CKD decreased 10% applying CKD-EPI versus MDRD. Changes varied substantially by patient characteristics including a 35% decrease among patients < 60 years and a 10% increase among patients > 90 years. Women, non-African Americans, nondiabetics, and obesepatients were less likely to be classified on the basis of CKD-EPI. Time to CKD classification was significantly longer with CKD-EPI among younger patients. 14% of patients identified with CKD on the basis of either estimating equation also had a related ICD-9 diagnosis, ranging from 19% among patients < 60 years to 7% among patients > 90 years. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with findings in the general population, CKD-EPI resulted in substantial declines in equation-based CKD diagnoses in a large healthcare system. Further research is needed to determine whether widespread use of CKD-EPI with current guidelines could lead to delayed needed care among younger patients or excessive referrals among older patients.
Authors: Rajiv Saran; Elizabeth Hedgeman; Laura Plantinga; Nilka Rios Burrows; Brenda W Gillespie; Eric W Young; Josef Coresh; Meda Pavkov; Desmond Williams; Neil R Powe Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2009-12-03 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Sankar D Navaneethan; Stacey E Jolly; Jesse D Schold; Susana Arrigain; Welf Saupe; John Sharp; Jennifer Lyons; James F Simon; Martin J Schreiber; Anil Jain; Joseph V Nally Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2010-11-04 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Andrew S Levey; Josef Coresh; Ethan Balk; Annamaria T Kausz; Adeera Levin; Michael W Steffes; Ronald J Hogg; Ronald D Perrone; Joseph Lau; Garabed Eknoyan Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-07-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Andrew S Levey; Lesley A Stevens; Christopher H Schmid; Yaping Lucy Zhang; Alejandro F Castro; Harold I Feldman; John W Kusek; Paul Eggers; Frederick Van Lente; Tom Greene; Josef Coresh Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-05-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Vincent A van Gelder; Nynke D Scherpbier-de Haan; Wim J C de Grauw; Christopher A O'Callaghan; Jack F M Wetzels; Daniel S Lasserson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-09-25 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jennifer A Hirst; Maria Dla Vazquez Montes; Clare J Taylor; José M Ordóñez-Mena; Emma Ogburn; Vanshika Sharma; Brian Shine; Tim James; Fd Richard Hobbs Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2018-07-02 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Sankar D Navaneethan; Stacey E Jolly; John Sharp; Anil Jain; Jesse D Schold; Martin J Schreiber; Joseph V Nally Journal: Clin Nephrol Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 0.975