Marieke H C van Rijn1,2, Marie Metzger2, Martin Flamant3,4, Pascal Houillier5,6,7, Jean-Philippe Haymann8,9, Jan A J G van den Brand1, Marc Froissart10, Benedicte Stengel2. 1. Department of Nephrology, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 2. CESP, INSERM, Université Paris-Sud, UVSQ, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France. 3. AP-HP, Hôpital Bichat, Paris, France. 4. Centre de Recherche sur l'Inflammation, INSERM, Université Paris-Diderot, Paris, France. 5. AP-HP, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France. 6. INSERM UMRS, Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Paris, France. 7. Faculté de Médecine, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France. 8. AP-HP, Hôpital Tenon, Paris, France. 9. INSERM UMRS, Université Pierre et Marie-Curie, Paris, France. 10. Clinical Research Center, Education and Research Department, CHUV - Unil, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is commonly used to monitor chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression, but its validity for evaluating kidney function changes over time has not been comprehensively evaluated. We assessed the performance of creatinine-based equations for estimating GFR slope according to patient characteristics and specific CKD diagnosis. METHODS: In the NephroTest cohort study, we measured GFR 5324 times by chromium 51-labeled ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid renal clearance in 1955 adult patients with CKD Stages 1-4 referred to nephrologists (Stages 1-2, 19%) and simultaneously estimated GFR with both the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equations for isotope dilution mass spectrometry traceable creatinine; absolute and relative GFR slopes were calculated using a linear mixed model. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 3.4 [interquartile range (IQR) 2.0-5.6] years, the decline in mean absolute and relative measured GFR (mGFR) and CKD-EPI and MDRD estimated GFR (eGFR) was 1.6 ± 1.2, 1.5 ± 1.4 and 1.3 ± 1.3 mL/min/1.73 m2/year and 5.9 ± 5.3, 5.3 ± 5.3 and 4.8 ± 5.2%/year, respectively; 52% and 55% of the patients had MDRD and CKD-EPI eGFR slopes within 30% of mGFR slopes. Both equations tended to overestimate the GFR slope in the youngest patients and underestimate it in the oldest, thus producing inverse associations between age and mGFR versus eGFR slope. Other patient characteristics and specific CKD diagnoses had little effect on the performance of the equations in estimating associations. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows little bias, but poor precision in GFR slope estimation for both MDRD and CKD-EPI equations. Importantly, bias strongly varied with age, possibly due to variations in muscle mass over time, with implications for clinical care and research.
BACKGROUND: Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is commonly used to monitor chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression, but its validity for evaluating kidney function changes over time has not been comprehensively evaluated. We assessed the performance of creatinine-based equations for estimating GFR slope according to patient characteristics and specific CKD diagnosis. METHODS: In the NephroTest cohort study, we measured GFR 5324 times by chromium 51-labeled ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid renal clearance in 1955 adult patients with CKD Stages 1-4 referred to nephrologists (Stages 1-2, 19%) and simultaneously estimated GFR with both the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equations for isotope dilution mass spectrometry traceable creatinine; absolute and relative GFR slopes were calculated using a linear mixed model. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 3.4 [interquartile range (IQR) 2.0-5.6] years, the decline in mean absolute and relative measured GFR (mGFR) and CKD-EPI and MDRD estimated GFR (eGFR) was 1.6 ± 1.2, 1.5 ± 1.4 and 1.3 ± 1.3 mL/min/1.73 m2/year and 5.9 ± 5.3, 5.3 ± 5.3 and 4.8 ± 5.2%/year, respectively; 52% and 55% of the patients had MDRD and CKD-EPI eGFR slopes within 30% of mGFR slopes. Both equations tended to overestimate the GFR slope in the youngest patients and underestimate it in the oldest, thus producing inverse associations between age and mGFR versus eGFR slope. Other patient characteristics and specific CKD diagnoses had little effect on the performance of the equations in estimating associations. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows little bias, but poor precision in GFR slope estimation for both MDRD and CKD-EPI equations. Importantly, bias strongly varied with age, possibly due to variations in muscle mass over time, with implications for clinical care and research.
Authors: Elke S Schaeffner; Natalie Ebert; Martin K Kuhlmann; Peter Martus; Nina Mielke; Alice Schneider; Markus van der Giet; Dörte Huscher Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2022-07-18 Impact factor: 10.614
Authors: Megumi Oshima; Min Jun; Toshiaki Ohkuma; Tadashi Toyama; Takashi Wada; Mark E Cooper; Samy Hadjadj; Pavel Hamet; Stephen Harrap; Giuseppe Mancia; Michel Marre; Bryan Williams; John Chalmers; Mark Woodward; Vlado Perkovic Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2019-07-13 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Inger T Enoksen; Dmitri Svistounov; Jon V Norvik; Vidar T N Stefansson; Marit D Solbu; Bjørn O Eriksen; Toralf Melsom Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2022-08-22 Impact factor: 7.186
Authors: Joanna Kamińska; Marek Stopiński; Krzysztof Mucha; Michał Pac; Marek Gołębiowski; Monika A Niewczas; Leszek Pączek; Bartosz Foroncewicz Journal: Int J Gen Med Date: 2021-06-09