BACKGROUND: Obesity is an established risk factor for renal disease and for disease progression. Therefore, an accurate determination of renal function is necessary in this population. Renal function is currently evaluated by estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) by formulas, a procedure with a proven high variability. Moreover, the adjustment of GFR by body surface area (BSA) confounds the evaluation of renal function. However, the error of using estimated GFR adjusted by BSA has not been properly evaluated in overweight and obese subjects. METHODS: We evaluated the error of 56 creatinine- and/or cystatin-C-based equations and the adjustment of GFR by BSA in 944 subjects with overweight or obesity with or without chronic kidney disease (CKD). The error between estimated (eGFR) and measured GFR (mGFR) was evaluated with statistics of agreement: the total deviation index (TDI), the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and the coverage probability (cp). RESULTS: The error of eGFR by any equation was common and wide: TDI averaged 55%, meaning that 90% of estimations ranged from -55 to 55% of mGFR. CCC and cp averaged 0.8 and 26, respectively. This error was comparable between creatinine and cystatin-C-based formulas both in obese or overweight subjects. The error of eGFR was larger in formulas that included weight or height. The adjustment of mGFR or eGFR led to a relevant underestimation of renal function, reaching at least 10 mL/min in 25% of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: In overweight and obese patients, formulas failed in reflecting real renal function. In addition, the adjustment for BSA led to a relevant underestimation of GFR. Both errors may have important clinical consequences. Thus, whenever possible, the use of a gold standard method to measure renal function is recommended. Moreover, the sense of indexing for BSA should be re-considered and probably abandoned.
BACKGROUND:Obesity is an established risk factor for renal disease and for disease progression. Therefore, an accurate determination of renal function is necessary in this population. Renal function is currently evaluated by estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) by formulas, a procedure with a proven high variability. Moreover, the adjustment of GFR by body surface area (BSA) confounds the evaluation of renal function. However, the error of using estimated GFR adjusted by BSA has not been properly evaluated in overweight and obese subjects. METHODS: We evaluated the error of 56 creatinine- and/or cystatin-C-based equations and the adjustment of GFR by BSA in 944 subjects with overweight or obesity with or without chronic kidney disease (CKD). The error between estimated (eGFR) and measured GFR (mGFR) was evaluated with statistics of agreement: the total deviation index (TDI), the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and the coverage probability (cp). RESULTS: The error of eGFR by any equation was common and wide: TDI averaged 55%, meaning that 90% of estimations ranged from -55 to 55% of mGFR. CCC and cp averaged 0.8 and 26, respectively. This error was comparable between creatinine and cystatin-C-based formulas both in obese or overweight subjects. The error of eGFR was larger in formulas that included weight or height. The adjustment of mGFR or eGFR led to a relevant underestimation of renal function, reaching at least 10 mL/min in 25% of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: In overweight and obesepatients, formulas failed in reflecting real renal function. In addition, the adjustment for BSA led to a relevant underestimation of GFR. Both errors may have important clinical consequences. Thus, whenever possible, the use of a gold standard method to measure renal function is recommended. Moreover, the sense of indexing for BSA should be re-considered and probably abandoned.
Authors: F Iliadis; T Didangelos; A Ntemka; A Makedou; E Moralidis; A Gotzamani-Psarakou; T Kouloukourgiotou; D Grekas Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2011-09-23 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Renate J Bosma; Carolien R C Doorenbos; Coen A Stegeman; Jaap J Homan van der Heide; Gerjan Navis Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Sara-Joan Pinto-Sietsma; Gerjan Navis; Wilbert M T Janssen; Dick de Zeeuw; Reinhold O B Gans; Paul E de Jong Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Smita Padala; Hocine Tighiouart; Lesley A Inker; Gabriel Contreras; Gerald J Beck; Julia Lewis; Michael Steffes; Roger A Rodby; Christopher H Schmid; Andrew S Levey Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2012-04-10 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Meredith C Foster; Shih-Jen Hwang; Martin G Larson; Judith H Lichtman; Nisha I Parikh; Ramachandran S Vasan; Daniel Levy; Caroline S Fox Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2008-04-28 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Lesley A Inker; Hocine Tighiouart; Josef Coresh; Meredith C Foster; Amanda H Anderson; Gerald J Beck; Gabriel Contreras; Tom Greene; Amy B Karger; John W Kusek; James Lash; Julia Lewis; Jeffrey R Schelling; Sankar D Navaneethan; James Sondheimer; Tariq Shafi; Andrew S Levey Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2015-09-09 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Manuela Abbate; Catalina M Mascaró; Sofía Montemayor; María Barbería-Latasa; Miguel Casares; Cristina Gómez; Escarlata Angullo-Martinez; Silvia Tejada; Itziar Abete; Maria Angeles Zulet; Antoni Sureda; J Alfredo Martínez; Josep A Tur Journal: Nutrients Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Emma J Bouman; Mark M Smits; Erik J van Bommel; Marcel H A Muskiet; Anne C Hesp; Erik H Serné; Jaap A Joles; Daniël H van Raalte Journal: Microcirculation Date: 2021-05-06 Impact factor: 2.628
Authors: Euan N Paterson; Alexander P Maxwell; Frank Kee; Sharon Cruise; Ian S Young; Bernadette McGuinness; Gareth J McKay Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2021-07-23 Impact factor: 5.992