Angharad Marks1, Nicholas Fluck2, Gordon J Prescott3, Lynn Robertson3, William G Simpson2, William Cairns Smith3, Corri Black1. 1. Aberdeen Applied Renal Research Collaboration, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK. 2. NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK. 3. Aberdeen Applied Renal Research Collaboration, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is common and important due to poor outcomes. An ability to stratify CKD care based on outcome risk should improve care for all. Our objective was to develop and validate 5-year outcome prediction tools in a large population-based CKD cohort. Model performance was compared with the recently reported 'kidney failure risk equation' (KFRE) models. METHODS: Those with CKD in the Grampian Laboratory Outcomes Mortality and Morbidity Study-I (3396) and -II (18 687) cohorts were used to develop and validate a renal replacement therapy (RRT) prediction tool. The discrimination, calibration and overall performance were assessed. The net reclassification index compared performance of the developed model and the 3- and 4-variable KFRE model to predict RRT in the validation cohort. RESULTS: The developed model (with measures of age, sex, excretory renal function and proteinuria) performed well with a C-statistic of 0.938 (0.918-0.957) and Hosmer-Lemeshow (HL) χ(2) statistic 4.6. In the validation cohort (18 687), the developed model falsely identified fewer as high risk (414 versus 3278 individuals) compared with the KFRE 3-variable model (measures of age, sex and excretory renal function), but had more false negatives (58 versus 21 individuals). The KFRE 4-variable model could only be applied to 2274 individuals because of a lack of baseline urinary albumin creatinine ratio data, thus limiting its use in routine clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: CKD outcome prediction tools have been developed by ourselves and others. These tools could be used to stratify care, but identify both false positives and -negatives. Further refinement should optimize the balance between identifying those at increased risk with clinical utility for stratifying care.
BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is common and important due to poor outcomes. An ability to stratify CKD care based on outcome risk should improve care for all. Our objective was to develop and validate 5-year outcome prediction tools in a large population-based CKD cohort. Model performance was compared with the recently reported 'kidney failure risk equation' (KFRE) models. METHODS: Those with CKD in the Grampian Laboratory Outcomes Mortality and Morbidity Study-I (3396) and -II (18 687) cohorts were used to develop and validate a renal replacement therapy (RRT) prediction tool. The discrimination, calibration and overall performance were assessed. The net reclassification index compared performance of the developed model and the 3- and 4-variable KFRE model to predict RRT in the validation cohort. RESULTS: The developed model (with measures of age, sex, excretory renal function and proteinuria) performed well with a C-statistic of 0.938 (0.918-0.957) and Hosmer-Lemeshow (HL) χ(2) statistic 4.6. In the validation cohort (18 687), the developed model falsely identified fewer as high risk (414 versus 3278 individuals) compared with the KFRE 3-variable model (measures of age, sex and excretory renal function), but had more false negatives (58 versus 21 individuals). The KFRE 4-variable model could only be applied to 2274 individuals because of a lack of baseline urinary albumin creatinine ratio data, thus limiting its use in routine clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: CKD outcome prediction tools have been developed by ourselves and others. These tools could be used to stratify care, but identify both false positives and -negatives. Further refinement should optimize the balance between identifying those at increased risk with clinical utility for stratifying care.
Authors: Navdeep Tangri; Morgan E Grams; Andrew S Levey; Josef Coresh; Lawrence J Appel; Brad C Astor; Gabriel Chodick; Allan J Collins; Ognjenka Djurdjev; C Raina Elley; Marie Evans; Amit X Garg; Stein I Hallan; Lesley A Inker; Sadayoshi Ito; Sun Ha Jee; Csaba P Kovesdy; Florian Kronenberg; Hiddo J Lambers Heerspink; Angharad Marks; Girish N Nadkarni; Sankar D Navaneethan; Robert G Nelson; Stephanie Titze; Mark J Sarnak; Benedicte Stengel; Mark Woodward; Kunitoshi Iseki Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Kenneth J Woodside; Sarah Bell; Purna Mukhopadhyay; Kaitlyn J Repeck; Ian T Robinson; Ashley R Eckard; Sudipta Dasmunshi; Brett W Plattner; Jeffrey Pearson; Douglas E Schaubel; Ronald L Pisoni; Rajiv Saran Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Claudia S Lennartz; John William Pickering; Sarah Seiler-Mußler; Lucie Bauer; Kathrin Untersteller; Insa E Emrich; Adam M Zawada; Jörg Radermacher; Navdeep Tangri; Danilo Fliser; Gunnar H Heine Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Noel Engels; Gretchen N de Graav; Paul van der Nat; Marinus van den Dorpel; Anne M Stiggelbout; Willem Jan Bos Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-09-21 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Chava L Ramspek; Marie Evans; Christoph Wanner; Christiane Drechsler; Nicholas C Chesnaye; Maciej Szymczak; Magdalena Krajewska; Claudia Torino; Gaetana Porto; Samantha Hayward; Fergus Caskey; Friedo W Dekker; Kitty J Jager; Merel van Diepen Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2021-03-08 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Simon Sawhney; Nick Fluck; Simon D Fraser; Angharad Marks; Gordon J Prescott; Paul J Roderick; Corri Black Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2016-04-07 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Simon Sawhney; Angharad Marks; Nick Fluck; Adeera Levin; Gordon Prescott; Corri Black Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2016-08-21 Impact factor: 8.860