BACKGROUND: The new Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) creatinine-based equation was developed to address the systematic underestimation of the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) by the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study equation in patients with a relatively well-preserved kidney function. The performance of the new equation for kidney transplant recipients is discussed. METHODS: We analyzed the performances of the CKD-EPI equation in comparison with the MDRD Study equation in 825 stable kidney transplant recipients. Bias, precision, and accuracy within 30% of true GFR were determined. GFR was measured by urinary clearance of inulin (n=488) and plasma clearance of Cr-EDTA (n=337). RESULTS: Mean measured GFR (mGFR) was 50±19 mL/min/1.73 m. On the whole cohort, bias was significantly lower for MDRD Study equation compared with CKD-EPI creatinine. This superiority translates into a better accuracy (80% and 74% for the MDRD and CKD-EPI creatinine, respectively). The best performance of the MDRD Study equation is confirmed both in the subgroups of patients with mGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m and between 60 and 90 mL/min/1.73 m. For mGFR >90 mL/min/1.73 m, there were no significant differences between the two equations in terms of performance. CONCLUSIONS: The CKD-EPI creatinine equation does not offer a better GFR prediction in renal transplant patients compared with the MDRD Study equation, even in the earlier CKD stages.
BACKGROUND: The new Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) creatinine-based equation was developed to address the systematic underestimation of the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) by the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study equation in patients with a relatively well-preserved kidney function. The performance of the new equation for kidney transplant recipients is discussed. METHODS: We analyzed the performances of the CKD-EPI equation in comparison with the MDRD Study equation in 825 stable kidney transplant recipients. Bias, precision, and accuracy within 30% of true GFR were determined. GFR was measured by urinary clearance of inulin (n=488) and plasma clearance of Cr-EDTA (n=337). RESULTS: Mean measured GFR (mGFR) was 50±19 mL/min/1.73 m. On the whole cohort, bias was significantly lower for MDRD Study equation compared with CKD-EPI creatinine. This superiority translates into a better accuracy (80% and 74% for the MDRD and CKD-EPI creatinine, respectively). The best performance of the MDRD Study equation is confirmed both in the subgroups of patients with mGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m and between 60 and 90 mL/min/1.73 m. For mGFR >90 mL/min/1.73 m, there were no significant differences between the two equations in terms of performance. CONCLUSIONS: The CKD-EPI creatinine equation does not offer a better GFR prediction in renal transplant patients compared with the MDRD Study equation, even in the earlier CKD stages.
Authors: Mira T Keddis; Hatem Amer; Nikolay Voskoboev; Walter K Kremers; Andrew D Rule; John C Lieske Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Meghan E Sise; David S Goldberg; Jens J Kort; Douglas E Schaubel; Rita R Alloway; Christine M Durand; Robert J Fontana; Robert S Brown; John J Friedewald; Stacey Prenner; J Richard Landis; Melissa Fernando; Caitlin C Phillips; E Steve Woodle; Adele Rike-Shields; Kenneth E Sherman; Nahel Elias; Winfred W Williams; Jenna L Gustafson; Niraj M Desai; Brittany Barnaba; Silas P Norman; Mona Doshi; Samuel T Sultan; Meredith J Aull; Josh Levitsky; Dianne S Belshe; Raymond T Chung; Peter P Reese Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2020-08-25 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Hoon Young Choi; Dong Jin Joo; Mi Kyung Song; Myoung Soo Kim; Hyeong Cheon Park; Yu Seun Kim; Beom Seok Kim Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 1.889