Søren Viborg Vestergaard1, Christian Fynbo Christiansen2, Reimar Wernich Thomsen2, Henrik Birn3,4, Uffe Heide-Jørgensen2. 1. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark sovi@clin.au.dk. 2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 3. Department of Renal Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 4. Department of Biomedicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite CKD consensus definitions, epidemiologic studies use multiple different algorithms to identify CKD. We aimed to elucidate if this affects the patient characteristics and the estimated prevalence and prognosis of CKD by applying six different algorithms to identify CKD in population-based medical databases and compare the cohorts. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Patients with CKD in Northern Denmark (2009-2016) were identified using six different algorithms: five were laboratory based defined by (1) one measured outpatient eGFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 (single test, n=103,435), (2) two such findings ≥90 days apart (Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes, n=84,688), (3) two such findings ≥90 days apart with no eGFR >60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 observed in-between (Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes, persistent, n=68,994), (4) two such findings ≥90 and <365 days apart (Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes, time limited, n=75,031), and (5) two eGFRs <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 or two urine albumin-creatinine ratios >30 mg/g ≥90 days apart (Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes, eGFR/albuminuria, n=100,957). The sixth included patients identified by reported in- and outpatient hospital International Classification of Diseases diagnoses of CKD (hospital-diagnosed, n=27,947). For each cohort, we estimated baseline eGFR, CKD prevalence, and 1-year mortality using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: The five different laboratory-based algorithms resulted in large differences in the estimated prevalence of CKD from 4637-8327 per 100,000 population. In contrast, 1-year mortality varied only slightly (7%-9%). Baseline eGFR levels at diagnosis were comparable (53-56 ml/min per 1.73 m2), whereas median time since first recorded eGFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 varied from 0 months (single-test) to 17 months (Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes, persistent). The hospital-diagnosed algorithm yielded markedly lower CKD prevalence (775 per 100,000 population), a lower baseline eGFR (47 ml/min per 1.73 m2), longer time since first eGFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 (median 70 months), and much higher 1-year mortality (22%). CONCLUSIONS: Population prevalence of CKD identified in medical databases greatly depends on the applied algorithm to define CKD. Despite these differences, laboratory-based algorithms produce cohorts with similar prognosis. PODCAST: This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2021_03_11_CJN15691020_final.mp3.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite CKD consensus definitions, epidemiologic studies use multiple different algorithms to identify CKD. We aimed to elucidate if this affects the patient characteristics and the estimated prevalence and prognosis of CKD by applying six different algorithms to identify CKD in population-based medical databases and compare the cohorts. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Patients with CKD in Northern Denmark (2009-2016) were identified using six different algorithms: five were laboratory based defined by (1) one measured outpatient eGFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 (single test, n=103,435), (2) two such findings ≥90 days apart (Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes, n=84,688), (3) two such findings ≥90 days apart with no eGFR >60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 observed in-between (Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes, persistent, n=68,994), (4) two such findings ≥90 and <365 days apart (Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes, time limited, n=75,031), and (5) two eGFRs <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 or two urine albumin-creatinine ratios >30 mg/g ≥90 days apart (Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes, eGFR/albuminuria, n=100,957). The sixth included patients identified by reported in- and outpatient hospital International Classification of Diseases diagnoses of CKD (hospital-diagnosed, n=27,947). For each cohort, we estimated baseline eGFR, CKD prevalence, and 1-year mortality using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: The five different laboratory-based algorithms resulted in large differences in the estimated prevalence of CKD from 4637-8327 per 100,000 population. In contrast, 1-year mortality varied only slightly (7%-9%). Baseline eGFR levels at diagnosis were comparable (53-56 ml/min per 1.73 m2), whereas median time since first recorded eGFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 varied from 0 months (single-test) to 17 months (Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes, persistent). The hospital-diagnosed algorithm yielded markedly lower CKD prevalence (775 per 100,000 population), a lower baseline eGFR (47 ml/min per 1.73 m2), longer time since first eGFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 (median 70 months), and much higher 1-year mortality (22%). CONCLUSIONS: Population prevalence of CKD identified in medical databases greatly depends on the applied algorithm to define CKD. Despite these differences, laboratory-based algorithms produce cohorts with similar prognosis. PODCAST: This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2021_03_11_CJN15691020_final.mp3.
Authors: Paul E Ronksley; Marcello Tonelli; Hude Quan; Braden J Manns; Matthew T James; Fiona M Clement; Susan Samuel; Robert R Quinn; Pietro Ravani; Sony S Brar; Brenda R Hemmelgarn Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2011-10-19 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Marcello Tonelli; Natasha Wiebe; Bruce Culleton; Andrew House; Chris Rabbat; Mei Fok; Finlay McAlister; Amit X Garg Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2006-05-31 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Alessandro Gasparini; Marie Evans; Josef Coresh; Morgan E Grams; Olof Norin; Abdul R Qureshi; Björn Runesson; Peter Barany; Johan Ärnlöv; Tomas Jernberg; Björn Wettermark; Carl G Elinder; Juan-Jesüs Carrero Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2016-10-13 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Jan C van Blijderveen; Sabine M Straus; Robert Zietse; Bruno H Stricker; Miriam C Sturkenboom; Katia M Verhamme Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2013-09-27 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Michelle R Denburg; Kevin Haynes; Justine Shults; James D Lewis; Mary B Leonard Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2011-08-24 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Johan Frederik Håkonsen Arendt; Anette Tarp Hansen; Søren Andreas Ladefoged; Henrik Toft Sørensen; Lars Pedersen; Kasper Adelborg Journal: Clin Epidemiol Date: 2020-05-18 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Julie M Paik; Elisabetta Patorno; Min Zhuo; Lily G Bessette; Cassandra York; Nileesa Gautam; Dae Hyun Kim; Seoyoung C Kim Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2021-12-23 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Patrick Bidulka; Søren Viborg Vestergaard; Admire Hlupeni; Anders Kjærsgaard; Angel Y S Wong; Sinéad M Langan; Sigrun Alba Johannesdottir Schmidt; Susan Lyon; Christian Fynbo Christiansen; Dorothea Nitsch Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-09-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Manfred Hecking; Charlotte Tu; Jarcy Zee; Brian Bieber; Sebastian Hödlmoser; Helmut Reichel; Ricardo Sesso; Friedrich K Port; Bruce M Robinson; Juan Jesus Carrero; Allison Tong; Christian Combe; Bénédicte Stengel; Roberto Pecoits-Filho Journal: Kidney Int Rep Date: 2021-12-01
Authors: Julie Aarestrup; Kim Blond; Dorte Vistisen; Marit E Jørgensen; Marie Frimodt-Møller; Britt W Jensen; Jennifer L Baker Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2022-09-21 Impact factor: 11.613
Authors: Johan Sundström; Johan Bodegard; Andreas Bollmann; Marc G Vervloet; Patrick B Mark; Avraham Karasik; Tiago Taveira-Gomes; Manuel Botana; Kåre I Birkeland; Marcus Thuresson; Levy Jäger; Manish M Sood; Gijs VanPottelbergh; Navdeep Tangri Journal: Lancet Reg Health Eur Date: 2022-06-30