Kamran Shaffi1, Katrin Uhlig2, Ronald D Perrone2, Robin Ruthazer3, Andrew Rule4, John C Lieske4, Gerjan Navis5, Emilio D Poggio6, Lesley A Inker2, Andrew S Levey7. 1. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM. 2. William B. Schwartz Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA. 3. Research Design Center/Biostatistics Research Center, Tufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Tufts University, Boston, MA. 4. Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 5. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. 6. Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. 7. William B. Schwartz Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA. Electronic address: alevey@tuftsmedicalcenter.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment of kidney function is important for the management of solid-organ transplant recipients. In other clinical populations, glomerular filtration rate (GFR) most commonly is estimated using the CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration) creatinine or the 4-variable MDRD (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease) Study equation. The accuracy of these equations compared with other GFR estimating equations in transplant recipients has not been carefully studied. STUDY DESIGN: Diagnostic test study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Solid-organ transplant recipients longer than 6 months posttransplantation from 5 clinical populations (N=3,622, including recipients of kidney [53%], liver [35%], and other or multiple organs [12%]). INDEX TEST: Estimated GFR (eGFR) using creatinine-based GFR estimating equations identified from a systematic review of the literature. Performance of the CKD-EPI creatinine and the MDRD Study equations was compared with alternative equations. REFERENCE TEST: Measured GFR (mGFR) from urinary clearance of iothalamate or plasma clearance of iohexol. MEASUREMENTS: Error (difference between mGFR and eGFR) expressed as P30 (proportion of absolute percent error <30%) and mean absolute error. RESULTS: We identified 26 GFR estimating equations. Mean mGFR was 55.1±22.7 (SD) mL/min/1.73 m(2). P30 and mean absolute error for the CKD-EPI and the MDRD Study equations were 78.9% (99.6% CI, 76.9%-80.8%) for both and 10.6 (99.6% CI, 10.1-11.1) versus 11.0 (99.6% CI, 10.5-11.5) mL/min/1.73 m(2), respectively; these equations were more accurate than any of the alternative equations (P <0.001 for all pairwise comparisons for both measures). They performed better than or as well as the alternative equations in most subgroups defined by demographic and clinical characteristics, including type of transplanted organ. LIMITATIONS: Study population included few nonwhites and people with solid-organ transplants other than liver and kidneys. CONCLUSIONS: The CKD-EPI creatinine and the MDRD Study equations perform better than the alternative creatinine-based estimating equations in solid-organ transplant recipients. They can be used for clinical management.
BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment of kidney function is important for the management of solid-organ transplant recipients. In other clinical populations, glomerular filtration rate (GFR) most commonly is estimated using the CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration) creatinine or the 4-variable MDRD (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease) Study equation. The accuracy of these equations compared with other GFR estimating equations in transplant recipients has not been carefully studied. STUDY DESIGN: Diagnostic test study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Solid-organ transplant recipients longer than 6 months posttransplantation from 5 clinical populations (N=3,622, including recipients of kidney [53%], liver [35%], and other or multiple organs [12%]). INDEX TEST: Estimated GFR (eGFR) using creatinine-based GFR estimating equations identified from a systematic review of the literature. Performance of the CKD-EPI creatinine and the MDRD Study equations was compared with alternative equations. REFERENCE TEST: Measured GFR (mGFR) from urinary clearance of iothalamate or plasma clearance of iohexol. MEASUREMENTS: Error (difference between mGFR and eGFR) expressed as P30 (proportion of absolute percent error <30%) and mean absolute error. RESULTS: We identified 26 GFR estimating equations. Mean mGFR was 55.1±22.7 (SD) mL/min/1.73 m(2). P30 and mean absolute error for the CKD-EPI and the MDRD Study equations were 78.9% (99.6% CI, 76.9%-80.8%) for both and 10.6 (99.6% CI, 10.1-11.1) versus 11.0 (99.6% CI, 10.5-11.5) mL/min/1.73 m(2), respectively; these equations were more accurate than any of the alternative equations (P <0.001 for all pairwise comparisons for both measures). They performed better than or as well as the alternative equations in most subgroups defined by demographic and clinical characteristics, including type of transplanted organ. LIMITATIONS: Study population included few nonwhites and people with solid-organ transplants other than liver and kidneys. CONCLUSIONS: The CKD-EPI creatinine and the MDRD Study equations perform better than the alternative creatinine-based estimating equations in solid-organ transplant recipients. They can be used for clinical management.
Authors: Lesley A Inker; Christopher H Schmid; Hocine Tighiouart; John H Eckfeldt; Harold I Feldman; Tom Greene; John W Kusek; Jane Manzi; Frederick Van Lente; Yaping Lucy Zhang; Josef Coresh; Andrew S Levey Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-07-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bertram L Kasiske; Ajay K Israni; Jon J Snyder; Melissa A Skeans; Yi Peng; Eric D Weinhandl Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Vishnu S Potluri; David S Goldberg; Sumit Mohan; Roy D Bloom; Deirdre Sawinski; Peter L Abt; Emily A Blumberg; Chirag R Parikh; James Sharpe; K Rajender Reddy; Miklos Z Molnar; Meghan Sise; Peter P Reese Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2019-09-12 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Basma Merhi; Theresa Shireman; Myra A Carpenter; John W Kusek; Paul Jacques; Marc Pfeffer; Madhumathi Rao; Meredith C Foster; S Joseph Kim; Todd E Pesavento; Stephen R Smith; Clifton E Kew; Andrew A House; Reginald Gohh; Daniel E Weiner; Andrew S Levey; Joachim H Ix; Andrew Bostom Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2017-06-02 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Daniel E Weiner; Meyeon Park; Hocine Tighiouart; Alin A Joseph; Myra A Carpenter; Nitender Goyal; Andrew A House; Chi-Yuan Hsu; Joachim H Ix; Paul F Jacques; Clifton E Kew; S Joseph Kim; John W Kusek; Todd E Pesavento; Marc A Pfeffer; Stephen R Smith; Matthew R Weir; Andrew S Levey; Andrew G Bostom Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2018-07-20 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Lisa B VanWagner; Samantha Montag; Lihui Zhao; Norrina B Allen; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Arighno Das; Anton I Skaro; Samuel Hohmann; John J Friedewald; Josh Levitsky Journal: Transplantation Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 4.939
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