Jenna M Norton1, Kaltun Ali2, Claudine T Jurkovitz3, Krzysztof Kiryluk4, Meyeon Park5, Kensaku Kawamoto6, Ning Shang7, Sankar D Navaneethan8,9, Andrew S Narva2, Paul Drawz10. 1. National Kidney Disease Education Program, Division of Kidney, Urologic, and Hematologic Diseases, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; jenna.norton@nih.gov. 2. National Kidney Disease Education Program, Division of Kidney, Urologic, and Hematologic Diseases, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 3. Value Institute, Christiana Care Health System, Newark, Delaware. 4. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine and. 5. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California. 6. Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 7. Department of Bioinformatics, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York. 8. Section of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Selzman Institute for Kidney Health, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. 9. Section of Nephrology, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas; and. 10. Division of Renal Diseases and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Poor identification of individuals with CKD is a major barrier to research and appropriate clinical management of the disease. We aimed to develop and validate a pragmatic electronic (e-) phenotype to identify patients likely to have CKD. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: The e-phenotype was developed by an expert working group and implemented among adults receiving in- or outpatient care at five healthcare organizations. To determine urine albumin (UA) dipstick cutoffs for CKD to enable use in the e-phenotype when lacking urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), we compared same day UACR and UA results at four sites. A sample of patients, spanning no CKD to ESKD, was randomly selected at four sites for validation via blinded chart review. RESULTS: The CKD e-phenotype was defined as most recent eGFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 with at least one value <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 >90 days prior and/or a UACR of ≥30 mg/g in the most recent test with at least one positive value >90 days prior. Dialysis and transplant were identified using diagnosis codes. In absence of UACR, a sensitive CKD definition would consider negative UA results as normal to mildly increased (KDIGO A1), trace to 1+ as moderately increased (KDIGO A2), and ≥2+ as severely increased (KDIGO A3). Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of the CKD e-phenotype were 99%, 99%, and 98%, respectively. For dialysis sensitivity was 94% and specificity was 89%. For transplant, sensitivity was 97% and specificity was 91%. CONCLUSIONS: The CKD e-phenotype provides a pragmatic and accurate method for EHR-based identification of patients likely to have CKD.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Poor identification of individuals with CKD is a major barrier to research and appropriate clinical management of the disease. We aimed to develop and validate a pragmatic electronic (e-) phenotype to identify patients likely to have CKD. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: The e-phenotype was developed by an expert working group and implemented among adults receiving in- or outpatient care at five healthcare organizations. To determine urine albumin (UA) dipstick cutoffs for CKD to enable use in the e-phenotype when lacking urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), we compared same day UACR and UA results at four sites. A sample of patients, spanning no CKD to ESKD, was randomly selected at four sites for validation via blinded chart review. RESULTS: The CKD e-phenotype was defined as most recent eGFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 with at least one value <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 >90 days prior and/or a UACR of ≥30 mg/g in the most recent test with at least one positive value >90 days prior. Dialysis and transplant were identified using diagnosis codes. In absence of UACR, a sensitive CKD definition would consider negative UA results as normal to mildly increased (KDIGO A1), trace to 1+ as moderately increased (KDIGO A2), and ≥2+ as severely increased (KDIGO A3). Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of the CKD e-phenotype were 99%, 99%, and 98%, respectively. For dialysis sensitivity was 94% and specificity was 89%. For transplant, sensitivity was 97% and specificity was 91%. CONCLUSIONS: The CKD e-phenotype provides a pragmatic and accurate method for EHR-based identification of patients likely to have CKD.
Authors: Morgan E Grams; Laura C Plantinga; Elizabeth Hedgeman; Rajiv Saran; Gary L Myers; Desmond E Williams; Neil R Powe Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2010-08-06 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Lorin M Bachmann; Goran Nilsson; David E Bruns; Matthew J McQueen; John C Lieske; Jack J Zakowski; W Greg Miller Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2013-11-26 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Paul E Drawz; Patrick Archdeacon; Clement J McDonald; Neil R Powe; Kimberly A Smith; Jenna Norton; Desmond E Williams; Uptal D Patel; Andrew Narva Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Girish N Nadkarni; Omri Gottesman; James G Linneman; Herbert Chase; Richard L Berg; Samira Farouk; Rajiv Nadukuru; Vaneet Lotay; Steve Ellis; George Hripcsak; Peggy Peissig; Chunhua Weng; Erwin P Bottinger Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2014-11-14
Authors: W Greg Miller; Gary L Myers; Edward R Ashwood; Anthony A Killeen; Edward Wang; Linda M Thienpont; Lothar Siekmann Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Delphine S Tuot; Yunnuo Zhu; Alexandra Velasquez; Juan Espinoza; C Damaris Mendez; Tanushree Banerjee; Chi-Yuan Hsu; Neil R Powe Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Andrew S Levey; Lesley A Stevens; Christopher H Schmid; Yaping Lucy Zhang; Alejandro F Castro; Harold I Feldman; John W Kusek; Paul Eggers; Frederick Van Lente; Tom Greene; Josef Coresh Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-05-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: L Parker Gregg; Peter A Richardson; Julia Akeroyd; Michael E Matheny; Salim S Virani; Sankar D Navaneethan Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2021-11-19 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: L Parker Gregg; S Susan Hedayati; Hui Yang; Peter N Van Buren; Subhash Banerjee; Sankar D Navaneethan; Salim S Virani; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer; Carlos A Alvarez Journal: Hypertension Date: 2021-01-11 Impact factor: 10.190