Adoption of CKD-EPI (2021) for Glomerular Filtration Rate Estimation: Implications for UK Practice.

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Reuben RoyDivision of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Maharajan RamanNorthern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK.

Paul M DarkDivision of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Philip A KalraDivision of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Darren GreenDivision of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRecommendations to move to a race-free estimating equation for glomerular filtration rate (GFR) have gained increasing prominence since 2021. We wished to determine the impact of any future adoption upon the chronic kidney disease (CKD) patient population of a large teaching hospital, with a population breakdown largely similar to that of England as a whole.

methodsWe compared four estimating equations (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease [MDRD], CKD-EPI [2009], CKD-EPI [2021], and European Kidney Function Consortium [EKFC]) using the Bland-Altman method. Bias and precision were calculated (in both figures and percentages) for all patients with CKD and specific subgroups determined by age, ethnic group, CKD stage, and sex. CKD stage was assessed using all four equations.

resultsAll equations studied had a positive bias in South Asian patients and a negative bias in black patients compared to CKD-EPI (2021). Similarly, there was a positive bias in white patients across all equations studied. Comparing CKD-EPI (2009) and EKFC, this positive bias increased as patients aged; the opposite was seen with MDRD. Between 10% and 28% of patients in our dataset changed their CKD staging depending upon the estimating equation used. DISCUSSION: Our work confirms previous findings that the MDRD equation overestimates estimated GFR (eGFR) in South Asians and underestimates eGFR in blacks. The alternative equations also demonstrated similar bias. This may, in part, explain the health inequalities seen in ethnic minority patients in the UK. Applying our findings to the UK CKD population as a whole would result in anywhere from 260,000 to 730,000 patients having their CKD stage reclassified, which in turn will impact secondary care services.

introductionRecommendations to move to a race-free estimating equation for glomerular filtration rate (GFR) have gained increasing prominence since 2021. We wished to determine the impact of any future adoption upon the chronic kidney disease (CKD) patient population of a large teaching hospital, with a population breakdown largely similar to that of England as a whole.

methodsWe compared four estimating equations (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease [MDRD], CKD-EPI [2009], CKD-EPI [2021], and European Kidney Function Consortium [EKFC]) using the Bland-Altman method. Bias and precision were calculated (in both figures and percentages) for all patients with CKD and specific subgroups determined by age, ethnic group, CKD stage, and sex. CKD stage was assessed using all four equations.

resultsAll equations studied had a positive bias in South Asian patients and a negative bias in black patients compared to CKD-EPI (2021). Similarly, there was a positive bias in white patients across all equations studied. Comparing CKD-EPI (2009) and EKFC, this positive bias increased as patients aged; the opposite was seen with MDRD. Between 10% and 28% of patients in our dataset changed their CKD staging depending upon the estimating equation used. DISCUSSION: Our work confirms previous findings that the MDRD equation overestimates estimated GFR (eGFR) in South Asians and underestimates eGFR in blacks. The alternative equations also demonstrated similar bias. This may, in part, explain the health inequalities seen in ethnic minority patients in the UK. Applying our findings to the UK CKD population as a whole would result in anywhere from 260,000 to 730,000 patients having their CKD stage reclassified, which in turn will impact secondary care services.

Indexed as

Glomerular Filtration RateRenal Insufficiency, ChronicAdultAgedAsian PeopleBlack PeopleFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedUnited KingdomWhite PeopleChronic kidney diseaseEstimating equationsGlomerular filtration rateStage