Clinical utility of estimated glomerular filtration rates in predicting renal risk in a district diabetes population

Evaluation of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation (eGFR) against simultaneous, dual-marker multi-sample measurements of glomerular filtration rate

BACKGROUND

Estimation of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) using plasma creatinine remains controversial, especially when GFR approaches normal values. The aim was to re-examine estimated GFR (eGFR) using dual-reference GFR measurements.

METHODS

eGFR (simplified modified Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation) was compared with GFR measured with iohexol for predicting GFR measured with (51)Cr-ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). Dual six-sample GFR (20-240 min postinjection) was measured in 60 patients and 20 normal volunteers with (51)Cr-EDTA (GFR(EDTA)) and iohexol (GFR(iohexol)) injected into separate arms and sampled contralaterally. This was repeated in the normal volunteers under fasting conditions (twice in nine). Percentage bias, imprecision (SD of bias) and disagreement (sign-less difference) between eGFR and GFR(EDTA) were compared with those between GFR(iohexol) and GFR(EDTA).

RESULTS

Changes between fasting and postprandial eGFR correlated significantly with corresponding changes in GFR(iohexol) and GFR(EDTA). eGFR predicted GFR(EDTA) less precisely (SD 19.9%) than GFR(iohexol) (10.5%; P < 0.01). Although eGFR showed a poorer correlation with GFR(EDTA) when GFR(EDTA) > 80 mL/min/1.73 m(2) compared with <80 mL/min/1.73 m(2), there was no significant difference with respect to imprecision or disagreement of >20 or 30%. However, eGFR was closer than GFR(iohexol) to GFR(EDTA) in a higher fraction of studies when GFR(EDTA) > 80 mL/min/1.73 m(2) (28/60) than when it was <80 mL/min/1.73 m(2) (9/37; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

eGFR is inferior to GFR(iohexol) for predicting GFR(EDTA). The disagreement between GFR(iohexol) and GFR(EDTA) illustrates the extent to which uncertainty in GFR(EDTA) contributes to the performance of eGFR. eGFR performs no better at lower, compared with higher levels of GFR.

Reliability of the MDRD method for estimating glomerular filtration rate in relation to gender, body mass index and extracellular fluid volume

BACKGROUND

The accuracy of estimating glomerular filtration rate from plasma creatinine (eGFR) has been questioned but it is unclear how much covert error in several reference methods that have been used has contributed to this perceived inaccuracy. The aim of the study was to evaluate eGFR in comparison with a second 'gold standard' to test the performance of the primary gold standard and to examine the influence of patient demographics (age, body mass index (BMI), extracellular fluid volume (ECV) and gender).

DESIGN

Non-fasting multisample GFR and ECV were measured in 80 subjects simultaneously and independently with Cr-51-EDTA (GFR(EDTA)) and iohexol (GFR(iohexol)). Percentage bias and imprecision in the prediction of, and disagreement with, GFR(EDTA) were compared between eGFR and GFR(iohexol). Another simplified method for measuring GFR, the slope-only method ((SO)GFR), was also evaluated against multisample GFR (measured with the opposing indicator). Accuracies were assessed in all subjects and across age, BMI and ECV boundaries of 65 y, 29 kg m(-2) and 14 L.

RESULTS

eGFR was less precise than GFR(iohexol) (imprecisions of 22.3% and 12.9%; P < 0.01). The precision of (SO)GFR was intermediate between eGFR and GFR(iohexol). Both GFR(iohexol) and eGFR were less precise in the elderly, the obese and men, but minimally influenced by ECV. (SO)GFR was minimally influenced by subject demographics.

CONCLUSION

Although eGFR does not predict GFR (based on a primary gold standard) as accurately as a second gold standard, a significant component of its poor performance is the result of inaccuracy in the primary gold standard. (SO)GFR measured with Cr-51-EDTA is superior to eGFR.

Establishing pragmatic estimated GFR thresholds to guide metformin prescribing

AIMS

Renal impairment is a contraindication to metformin treatment because of the perceived increased risk of lactic acidosis. Current guidelines define renal impairment according to the serum creatinine of the individual, but this measure is being supplanted by the use of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as it gives a closer estimate to true GFR. This study aimed to establish pragmatic eGFR limits for use in patients being considered for metformin treatment.

METHODS

Estimated GFR measurements corresponding to currently used metformin creatinine limits of 130 and 150 micromol/l were derived and then applied to 12 482 patients with diabetes in Hull and East Yorkshire.

RESULTS

Few patients with a serum creatinine of 130 or 150 micromol/l have an eGFR of < 30 ml/min/1.73 m(2)[chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 4 or greater], while most are between 30 and 59 ml/min/1.73 m(2) (CKD stage 3). When applied to the 12 482 patients (median age 67 years, interquartile range 56-75), males predominated when using creatinine cut-offs (13.6% of males and 8.3% of females had creatinine > 130 micromol/l; 8.2% males and 5.2% females > 150 micromol/l), but not using eGFR CKD thresholds (3.3% males and 4.7% females < 30 ml/min/1.73 m(2); 20.8% males and 28.1% females eGFR 30-59 ml/min/1.73 m(2)). Similar proportions of patients as currently would have metformin withheld if using eGFR cut-offs between 30 and 49 ml/min/1.73 m(2).

CONCLUSIONS

We have proposed pragmatic eGFR limits to guide metformin prescribing in patients with renal impairment. CKD stage 4 or greater should be an absolute contraindication to metformin, while CKD stage 3 should alert clinicians to consider other risk factors before initiating or continuing treatment.