The CKDEPI and MDRD equations to estimate GFR. Validation in the Swedish LundMalmo Study cohort
(2011) In Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation 71(2). p.129138 Abstract
 Objective. To compare the recently developed CKDEPI equation to estimate GFR in adult SwedishCaucasians with the MDRD equation. Material and methods. SwedishCaucasians (N = 850, 376 females; median age 60, range 595 years) referred for plasma iohexolclearance (median 55, range 5223 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) constituted the LundMalmo Study cohort. Bias, precision (interquartile range, IQR, of the differences between estimated and measured GFR), accuracy expressed as percentage of estimates +/ 10% (P10) and +/ 30% (P30) of measured GFR, and classification ability for five GFR stages < 15, 1529, 3059, 6089 and >= 90 mL/min/1.73 m(2) were compared. Results. Overall there were no important differences between the equations;... (More)
 Objective. To compare the recently developed CKDEPI equation to estimate GFR in adult SwedishCaucasians with the MDRD equation. Material and methods. SwedishCaucasians (N = 850, 376 females; median age 60, range 595 years) referred for plasma iohexolclearance (median 55, range 5223 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) constituted the LundMalmo Study cohort. Bias, precision (interquartile range, IQR, of the differences between estimated and measured GFR), accuracy expressed as percentage of estimates +/ 10% (P10) and +/ 30% (P30) of measured GFR, and classification ability for five GFR stages < 15, 1529, 3059, 6089 and >= 90 mL/min/1.73 m(2) were compared. Results. Overall there were no important differences between the equations; CKDEPI/MDRD median values of bias +5.4%/+3.4%, IQR both 14 mL/min/1.73 m(2), P10 36%/34%, P30 both 80%, and correctly classified GFR stages 68%/67%. P30 for the CKDEPI equation was substantially higher than for MDRD at GFR >= 90 mL/min/1.73 m(2) (93% versus 79%). The MDRD equation performed better in the GFR interval 3089 mL/min/1.73 m(2), while accuracy was limited for both equations at GFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m(2) (P30 < 75% in both females and males). The CKDEPI/MDRD equations caused a +22%/ +14% bias in the 1839 year interval and the MDRD equation a + 18% bias >= 80 years. Both equations performed poorly in males with BMI < 20 kg/m(2) (CKDEPI/MDRD median bias +36%/46%). Conclusion. Overall the recently developed CKDEPI equation performed well but was not superior to the MDRD equation. The CKDEPI equation may be preferred in screenings of general populations and in the elderly. None of the equations appeared reliable among patients with markedly decreased GFR, young adults and underweight males. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/record/1868216
 author
 Nyman, Ulf; Grubb, Anders ^{LU} ; Sterner, Gunnar ^{LU} and Björk, Jonas ^{LU}
 organization
 publishing date
 2011
 type
 Contribution to journal
 publication status
 published
 subject
 keywords
 Kidney disease, kidney function tests, glomerular filtration rate, renal insufficiency
 in
 Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation
 volume
 71
 issue
 2
 pages
 129  138
 publisher
 Informa Healthcare
 external identifiers

 wos:000288126400010
 scopus:79952424055
 ISSN
 15027686
 DOI
 10.3109/00365513.2010.543143
 language
 English
 LU publication?
 yes
 id
 a96e50c1bc4140549f1031437b90771e (old id 1868216)
 date added to LUP
 20110404 10:26:01
 date last changed
 20180318 04:11:34
@article{a96e50c1bc4140549f1031437b90771e, abstract = {Objective. To compare the recently developed CKDEPI equation to estimate GFR in adult SwedishCaucasians with the MDRD equation. Material and methods. SwedishCaucasians (N = 850, 376 females; median age 60, range 595 years) referred for plasma iohexolclearance (median 55, range 5223 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) constituted the LundMalmo Study cohort. Bias, precision (interquartile range, IQR, of the differences between estimated and measured GFR), accuracy expressed as percentage of estimates +/ 10% (P10) and +/ 30% (P30) of measured GFR, and classification ability for five GFR stages < 15, 1529, 3059, 6089 and >= 90 mL/min/1.73 m(2) were compared. Results. Overall there were no important differences between the equations; CKDEPI/MDRD median values of bias +5.4%/+3.4%, IQR both 14 mL/min/1.73 m(2), P10 36%/34%, P30 both 80%, and correctly classified GFR stages 68%/67%. P30 for the CKDEPI equation was substantially higher than for MDRD at GFR >= 90 mL/min/1.73 m(2) (93% versus 79%). The MDRD equation performed better in the GFR interval 3089 mL/min/1.73 m(2), while accuracy was limited for both equations at GFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m(2) (P30 < 75% in both females and males). The CKDEPI/MDRD equations caused a +22%/ +14% bias in the 1839 year interval and the MDRD equation a + 18% bias >= 80 years. Both equations performed poorly in males with BMI < 20 kg/m(2) (CKDEPI/MDRD median bias +36%/46%). Conclusion. Overall the recently developed CKDEPI equation performed well but was not superior to the MDRD equation. The CKDEPI equation may be preferred in screenings of general populations and in the elderly. None of the equations appeared reliable among patients with markedly decreased GFR, young adults and underweight males.}, author = {Nyman, Ulf and Grubb, Anders and Sterner, Gunnar and Björk, Jonas}, issn = {15027686}, keyword = {Kidney disease,kidney function tests,glomerular filtration rate,renal insufficiency}, language = {eng}, number = {2}, pages = {129138}, publisher = {Informa Healthcare}, series = {Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation}, title = {The CKDEPI and MDRD equations to estimate GFR. Validation in the Swedish LundMalmo Study cohort}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/00365513.2010.543143}, volume = {71}, year = {2011}, }