Skip Navigation


NDT Advance Access originally published online on September 22, 2007
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2008 23(2):542-548; doi:10.1093/ndt/gfm599
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
23/2/542    most recent
gfm599v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in NDT
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Quinn, M. P.
Right arrow Articles by Fogarty, D. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Quinn, M. P.
Right arrow Articles by Fogarty, D. G.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2007]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org



The practical implications of using standardized estimation equations in calculating the prevalence of chronic kidney disease

Michael P. Quinn1, Andrea Rainey2, Karen J. Cairns2, Adele H. Marshall2, Gerard Savage1, Frank Kee1, A. Peter Maxwell3, Elizabeth Reaney1 and Damian G. Fogarty3

1Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, 2Centre for Statistical Science and Operational Research (CenSSOR), The Queen's University of Belfast and 3Regional Nephrology Unit, Belfast City Hospital, The Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast, UK

Correspondence to: Michael P. Quinn, Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, The Queen's University of Belfast, Mulhouse Building, The Royal Victoria Hospital, Grosvenor Road, BT126BJ, United Kingdom. Email: mquinn05{at}qub.ac.uk



  Abstract

Background. Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) chronic kidney disease (CKD) guidelines have focused on the utility of using the modified four-variable MDRD equation (now traceable by isotope dilution mass spectrometry IDMS) in calculating estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs). This study assesses the practical implications of eGFR correction equations on the range of creatinine assays currently used in the UK and further investigates the effect of these equations on the calculated prevalence of CKD in one UK region

Methods. Using simulation, a range of creatinine data (30–300 µmol/l) was generated for male and female patients aged 20–100 years. The maximum differences between the IDMS and MDRD equations for all 14 UK laboratory techniques for serum creatinine measurement were explored with an average of individual eGFRs calculated according to MDRD and IDMS <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 and 30 ml/min/1.73 m2. Similar procedures were applied to 712 540 samples from patients ≥18 years (reflecting the five methods for serum creatinine measurement utilized in Northern Ireland) to explore, graphically, maximum differences in assays. CKD prevalence using both estimation equations was compared using an existing cohort of observed data.

Results. Simulated data indicates that the majority of laboratories in the UK have small differences between the IDMS and MDRD methods of eGFR measurement for stages 4 and 5 CKD (where the averaged maximum difference for all laboratory methods was 1.27 ml/min/1.73 m2 for females and 1.59 ml/min/1.73 m2 for males). MDRD deviated furthest from the IDMS results for the Endpoint Jaffe method: the maximum difference of 9.93 ml/min/1.73 m2 for females and 5.42 ml/min/1.73 m2 for males occurred at extreme ages and in those with eGFR >30 ml/min/1.73 m2. Observed data for 93,870 patients yielded a first MDRD eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 in 2001. 66 429 (71%) had a second test >3 months later of which 47 093 (71%) continued to have an eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m2. Estimated crude prevalence was 3.97% for laboratory detected CKD in adults using the MDRD equation which fell to 3.69% when applying the IDMS equation. Over 95% of this difference in prevalence was explained by older females with stage 3 CKD (eGFR 30–59 ml/min/1.73 m2) close to the stage 2 CKD (eGFR 60–90 ml/min/1.73 m2) interface.

Conclusions. Improved accuracy of eGFR is obtainable by using IDMS correction especially in the earlier stages of CKD 1–3. Our data indicates that this improved accuracy could lead to reduced prevalence estimates and potentially a decreased likelihood of onward referral to nephrology services particularly in older females.

Keywords: CKD; creatinine standardization; eGFR; IDMS; MDRD; prevalence

Received for publication: 2. 4.07
Accepted in revised form: 3. 8.07


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Related articles in NDT:

In this issue ...

NDT 2008 23: i. [Extract] [FREE Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
F. Pizzarelli, F. Lauretani, S. Bandinelli, G. B. Windham, A. M. Corsi, S. V. Giannelli, L. Ferrucci, and J. M. Guralnik
Predictivity of survival according to different equations for estimating renal function in community-dwelling elderly subjects
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., April 1, 2009; 24(4): 1197 - 1205.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
QJMHome page
G. Dreyer, S. Hull, Z. Aitken, A. Chesser, and M.M. Yaqoob
The effect of ethnicity on the prevalence of diabetes and associated chronic kidney disease
QJM, April 1, 2009; 102(4): 261 - 269.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
BMJHome page
J Feehally, K E Griffith, E J Lamb, D J O'Donoghue, and C R V Tomson
Early detection of chronic kidney disease
BMJ, October 1, 2008; 337(oct01_1): a1618 - a1618.
[Full Text]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.