INTRODUCTION: Most UK laboratories use the MDRD4 formula to estimate glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), but this may exaggerate chronic kidney disease (CKD) prevalence. In a large adult population, we examined the impact of the more accurate CKD-EPI formulae on prevalence estimates, and on secular trends in prevalence. METHODS: We extracted all serum creatinine (SCr) results for adults, processed in our laboratory during two 1-year periods (2004, 2009-10). To minimize the effect of acute illness, a patient's lowest SCr was used for each period. eGFR (traceable to isotope dilution mass spectrometry value) was calculated using the MDRD4 and CKD-EPI formulae. Prevalence estimates were compared, with sub-group analysis by age and sex. RESULTS: In 2004, 102 322 patients had SCr tested (35.4% of the adult population), rising to 123 121 (42.3%) in 2009-10. The proportion tested rose with age to 86% of 85- to 89-year olds. The prevalence of CKD stages 3-5 was lower with the CKD-EPI formulae than the MDRD4 formula. The CKD-EPI formulae reclassified 17 014 patients (5.8%) to milder stages of CKD, most commonly from eGFR 60-89 ml/min/1.73m(2) and CKD stage 3A, in women, and in those <70 years old. 5172 patients (1.8%), mostly elderly women, were reclassified to more severe stages of CKD. Between the two time periods, the prevalence of CKD stages 3-5 rose from 5.44% to 5.63% of the population using MDRD4, but was static at 4.94% with CKD-EPI. CONCLUSION: The CKD-EPI formulae, which are more accurate than the MDRD4 formula at higher GFR, reduced the estimated prevalence of CKD stages 3-5 by 0.5% in 2004 and 0.7% in 2009-10. The greatest reclassification was seen in CKD 3A, particularly amongst middle-aged females. The minor rise in CKD prevalence between 2004 and 2009-10 seen with the MDRD4 formula was not confirmed with the CKD-EPI formulae. The CKD-EPI formulae may reduce overdiagnosis of CKD, but further assessment in the elderly is required before widespread implementation.
INTRODUCTION: Most UK laboratories use the MDRD4 formula to estimate glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), but this may exaggerate chronic kidney disease (CKD) prevalence. In a large adult population, we examined the impact of the more accurate CKD-EPI formulae on prevalence estimates, and on secular trends in prevalence. METHODS: We extracted all serum creatinine (SCr) results for adults, processed in our laboratory during two 1-year periods (2004, 2009-10). To minimize the effect of acute illness, a patient's lowest SCr was used for each period. eGFR (traceable to isotope dilution mass spectrometry value) was calculated using the MDRD4 and CKD-EPI formulae. Prevalence estimates were compared, with sub-group analysis by age and sex. RESULTS: In 2004, 102 322 patients had SCr tested (35.4% of the adult population), rising to 123 121 (42.3%) in 2009-10. The proportion tested rose with age to 86% of 85- to 89-year olds. The prevalence of CKD stages 3-5 was lower with the CKD-EPI formulae than the MDRD4 formula. The CKD-EPI formulae reclassified 17 014 patients (5.8%) to milder stages of CKD, most commonly from eGFR 60-89 ml/min/1.73m(2) and CKD stage 3A, in women, and in those <70 years old. 5172 patients (1.8%), mostly elderly women, were reclassified to more severe stages of CKD. Between the two time periods, the prevalence of CKD stages 3-5 rose from 5.44% to 5.63% of the population using MDRD4, but was static at 4.94% with CKD-EPI. CONCLUSION: The CKD-EPI formulae, which are more accurate than the MDRD4 formula at higher GFR, reduced the estimated prevalence of CKD stages 3-5 by 0.5% in 2004 and 0.7% in 2009-10. The greatest reclassification was seen in CKD 3A, particularly amongst middle-aged females. The minor rise in CKD prevalence between 2004 and 2009-10 seen with the MDRD4 formula was not confirmed with the CKD-EPI formulae. The CKD-EPI formulae may reduce overdiagnosis of CKD, but further assessment in the elderly is required before widespread implementation.
Authors: Meera N Harhay; Michael O Harhay; Fernando Coto-Yglesias; Luis Rosero Bixby Journal: Trop Med Int Health Date: 2015-11-12 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: Danielle E Robinson; M Sanni Ali; Victoria Y Strauss; Leena Elhussein; Bo Abrahamsen; Nigel K Arden; Yoav Ben-Shlomo; Fergus Caskey; Cyrus Cooper; Daniel Dedman; Antonella Delmestri; Andrew Judge; Muhammad Kassim Javaid; Daniel Prieto-Alhambra Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2021-03 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Nathan R Hill; Samuel T Fatoba; Jason L Oke; Jennifer A Hirst; Christopher A O'Callaghan; Daniel S Lasserson; F D Richard Hobbs Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-07-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ajay K Singh; Youssef M K Farag; Bharati V Mittal; Kuyilan Karai Subramanian; Sai Ram Keithi Reddy; Vidya N Acharya; Alan F Almeida; Anil Channakeshavamurthy; H Sudarshan Ballal; Gaccione P; Rajan Issacs; Sanjiv Jasuja; Ashok L Kirpalani; Vijay Kher; Gopesh K Modi; Georgy Nainan; Jai Prakash; Devinder Singh Rana; Rajanna Sreedhara; Dilip Kumar Sinha; Shah Bharat V; Sham Sunder; Raj K Sharma; Sridevi Seetharam; Tatapudi Ravi Raju; Mohan M Rajapurkar Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Jason Oke; Brian Shine; Emily McFadden; Richard Stevens; Daniel Lasserson; Rafael Perera Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Hilda O Hounkpatin; S Harris; Simon D S Fraser; Julie Day; Jennifer S Mindell; Maarten W Taal; Donal O'Donoghue; Paul J Roderick Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-08-13 Impact factor: 2.692