BACKGROUND: The new estimated glomerular filtration (eGFR) equation, Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation, was recently introduced. We compared the prevalence of CKD examined by the CKD-EPI equation with that by the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation. METHODS: We analyzed the data from a total of 14,605 Korean adults (age ≥20 years), who were enrolled in the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 2007, 2009, and 2010. CKD stages 1 and 2 were defined as eGFR ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) with proteinuria measured by dipstick. CKD stages 3-5 were defined as eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) . RESULTS: The eGFRs calculated by the CKD-EPI equation were higher than those calculated by the MDRD equation (P < 0.001), especially in women and young people. The prevalence of CKD stages 3-5 calculated by the MDRD equation was 6.8%, 3.0%, and 3.0% in 2007, 2009, and 2010, respectively. The prevalence of CKD stages 3-5 calculated by CKD-EPI equation was 7.7%, 2.7%, and 2.6% in 2007, 2009, and 2010, respectively. When defining the CKD using the CKD-EPI equation, 55 (32.7%) of 350 cases were reclassified into more advanced stages and 295 cases (67.3%) were reclassified into less-advanced stages. CONCLUSION: The CKD-EPI equation caused an overall low prevalence of CKD compared to the MDRD. Therefore, CKD-EPI equation might be helpful to prevent an overestimation of CKD.
BACKGROUND: The new estimated glomerular filtration (eGFR) equation, Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation, was recently introduced. We compared the prevalence of CKD examined by the CKD-EPI equation with that by the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation. METHODS: We analyzed the data from a total of 14,605 Korean adults (age ≥20 years), who were enrolled in the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 2007, 2009, and 2010. CKD stages 1 and 2 were defined as eGFR ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) with proteinuria measured by dipstick. CKD stages 3-5 were defined as eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) . RESULTS: The eGFRs calculated by the CKD-EPI equation were higher than those calculated by the MDRD equation (P < 0.001), especially in women and young people. The prevalence of CKD stages 3-5 calculated by the MDRD equation was 6.8%, 3.0%, and 3.0% in 2007, 2009, and 2010, respectively. The prevalence of CKD stages 3-5 calculated by CKD-EPI equation was 7.7%, 2.7%, and 2.6% in 2007, 2009, and 2010, respectively. When defining the CKD using the CKD-EPI equation, 55 (32.7%) of 350 cases were reclassified into more advanced stages and 295 cases (67.3%) were reclassified into less-advanced stages. CONCLUSION: The CKD-EPI equation caused an overall low prevalence of CKD compared to the MDRD. Therefore, CKD-EPI equation might be helpful to prevent an overestimation of CKD.
Authors: Susan Vickery; Paul E Stevens; R Neil Dalton; Frederick van Lente; Edmund J Lamb Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2006-05-23 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Andrew S Levey; Josef Coresh; Tom Greene; Jane Marsh; Lesley A Stevens; John W Kusek; Frederick Van Lente Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2007-03-01 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Jan A J G van den Brand; Gerben A J van Boekel; Hans L Willems; Lambertus A L M Kiemeney; Martin den Heijer; Jack F M Wetzels Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2011-02-16 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Josef Coresh; Brad C Astor; Geraldine McQuillan; John Kusek; Tom Greene; Frederick Van Lente; Andrew S Levey Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 8.860
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: Young Jin Kim; Jung Hwan Yoon; Hong Sang Choi; Chang Seong Kim; Eun Hui Bae; Seong Kwon Ma; Soo Wan Kim Journal: Nutrients Date: 2020-01-27 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Misuk Ji; Yoon Hee Lee; Mina Hur; Hyesun Kim; Han Ik Cho; Hyun Suk Yang; Silvia Navarin; Salvatore Di Somma Journal: Ann Lab Med Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 3.464