Performance of Creatinine Clearance and Estimated GFR in Assessing Kidney Function in Living Donor Candidates

Performance of estimated glomerular filtration rate equations in Black living kidney donor candidates

INTRODUCTION

New estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) equations using serum creatinine and/or cystatin C have been derived to eliminate adjustment by perceived Black ancestry. We sought to analyze the performance of newer eGFR equations among Black living kidney donor candidates.

METHODS

Black candidates (n = 64) who had measured iothalamate GFR between January 2015 and October 2021 were included, and eGFR was calculated using race adjusted (eGFRcr2009 and eGFRcr-cys2012) and race unadjusted (eGFRcys2012, eGFRcr2021, and eGFRcr-cys2021) CKD-EPI equations. Bias and accuracy were calculated.

RESULTS

The eGFRcr2021 equation had a negative bias of 9 mL/min/1.73 m2 , while other equations showed a modest positive bias. Accuracy within 10% and 30% was greatest using the eGFRcr-cys2021 equation. With the eGFRcr2021 equation, 9.4% of donors with an mGFR > 80 mL/min/1.73 m2 were misclassified as having an eGFR < 80 mL/min/1.73 m2 . eGFR was also compared among 18 kidney donors at 6-24 months post-donation. Post-donation, the percentage of donors with an eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 was 44% using the eGFRcr2021 equation compared to 11% using the eGFRcr-cys2021 equation.

CONCLUSION

The CKD-EPICr2021 equation appears to underestimate true GFR in Black living donor candidates. Alternatively, compared to CKD-EPICr2021, the CKD-EPICr-CysC2021 equation appears to perform with less bias and improved accuracy.

Retaining Race in Chronic Kidney Disease Diagnosis and Treatment

The best overall measure of kidney function is glomerular filtration rate (GFR) as commonly estimated from serum creatinine concentrations (eGFRcr) using formulas that correct for the higher average creatinine concentrations in Blacks. After two decades of use, these formulas have come under scrutiny for estimating GFR differently in Blacks and non-Blacks. Discussions of whether to include race (Black vs. non-Black) in the calculation of eGFRcr fail to acknowledge that the original race-based eGFRcr provided the same CKD treatment recommendations for Blacks and non-Blacks based on directly (exogenously) measured GFR. Nevertheless, the National Kidney Foundation and the American Society of Nephrology Task Force on Reassessing the Inclusion of Race in Diagnosing Kidney Disease removed race in CKD treatment guidelines and pushed for the immediate adoption of a race-free eGFRcr formula by physicians and clinical laboratories. This formula is projected to negate CKD in 5.51 million White and other non-Black adults and reclassify CKD to less severe stages in another 4.59 million non-Blacks, in order to expand treatment eligibility to 434,000 Blacks not previously diagnosed and to 584,000 Blacks previously diagnosed with less severe CKD. This review examines: 1) the validity of the arguments for removing the original race correction, and 2) the performance of the proposed replacement formula. Excluding race in the derivation of eGFRcr changed the statistical bias from +3.7 to -3.6 ml/min/1.73m2 in Blacks and from +0.5 to +3.9 in non-Blacks, i.e., promoting CKD diagnosis in Blacks at the cost of restricting diagnosis in non-Blacks. By doing so, the revised eGFRcr greatly exaggerates the purported racial disparity in CKD burden. Claims that the revised formulas identify heretofore undiagnosed CKD in Blacks are not supported when studies that used kidney failure replacement therapy and mortality are interpreted as proxies for baseline CKD. Alternatively, a race-stratified eGFRcr (i.e., separate equations for Blacks and non-Blacks) would provide the least biased eGFRcr for both Blacks and non-Blacks and the best medical treatment for all patients.

Impact of the New Glomerular Filtration Rate Formulas on Kidney Function Assessment in Living Kidney Donors and Candidates

New estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) equations that do not include a race coefficient have been created to better estimate kidney function, reduce inequities in kidney disease care, and improve the historically limited access to transplantation in African Americans. The impact of these new equations on estimated GFR (eGFR) in living donors pre- and postdonation is not known.

Methods

To address this, we conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study of 150 kidney donors and donor candidates. We calculated pre- and postdonation eGFR using the old and new equations and compared them with measured GFR by 2.8 mCi Tc-99m diethylene triamine penta-acetic acid clearance (mGFR_DTPA) and 24-h creatinine clearance (mGFR_CrCl). We evaluated the impact of the new equations on donation eligibility and postdonation eGFR.

Results

We found that using the new eGFR equations resulted in higher predonation eGFR compared with the old equations but remained significantly lower than mGFR_DTPA and mGFR_CrCl. We also found that using the new eGFR equations would not exclude any potential donors based on our center's GFR criteria for donation. At 6 mo postdonation, the new equations resulted in higher eGFR values compared with the old equations.

Conclusions

The new eGFR equations continue to underestimate GFR in healthy donor candidates but would not exclude any potential donors from donation and resulted in higher eGFR predonation and postdonation in a predominantly White population. eGFR equations designed specifically for potential kidney donors are still needed for better kidney function assessment.

Assessing Renal Function for Kidney Donation. How Low Is Too Low?

Kidney transplantation (KT) is the treatment of choice for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) with decreased morbi-mortality, improved life quality, and reduced cost. However, the shortage of organs from deceased donors led to an increase in KT from living donors. Some stipulate that living donors have a higher risk of ESKD after donation compared with healthy non-donors. The reason for this is not clear. It is possible that ESKD is due to the nephrectomy-related reduction in glomerular filtration rate (GFR), followed by an age-related decline that may be more rapid in related donors. It is essential to assess donors properly to avoid rejecting suitable ones and not accepting those with a higher risk of ESKD. GFR is a central aspect of the evaluation of potential donors since there is an association between low GFR and ESKD. The methods for assessing GFR are in continuous debate, and the kidney function thresholds for accepting a donor may vary according to the guidelines. While direct measurements of GFR (mGFR) provide the most accurate evaluation of kidney function, guidelines do not systematically use this measurement as a reference. Also, some studies have shown that the GFR decreases with age and may vary with gender and race, therefore, the lower limit of GFR in patients eligible to donate may vary based on these demographic factors. Finally, it is known that CrCl overestimates mGFR while eGFR underestimates it, therefore, another way to have a reliable GFR could be the combination of two measurement methods.

Limited Evidence for Use of a Black Race Modifier in eGFR Calculations: A Systematic Review

Background

Commonly used estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) equations include a Black race modifier (BRM) that was incorporated during equation derivation. Race is a social construct, and a poorly characterized variable that is applied inconsistently in clinical settings. The BRM results in higher eGFR for any creatinine concentration, implying fundamental differences in creatinine production or excretion in Black individuals compared to other populations. Equations without inclusion of the BRM have the potential to detect kidney disease earlier in patients at the greatest risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD), but also has the potential to over-diagnose CKD or impact downstream clinical interventions. The purpose of this study was to use an evidence- based approach to systematically evaluate the literature relevant to the performance of the eGFR equations with and without the BRM and to examine the clinical impact of the use or removal.

Content

PubMed and Embase databases were searched for studies comparing measured GFR to eGFR in racially diverse adult populations using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease or the 2009-Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration-creatinine equations based on standardized creatinine measurements. Additionally, we searched for studies comparing clinical use of eGFR calculated with and without the BRM. 8,632 unique publications were identified; an additional 3 studies were added post-hoc. In total, 96 studies were subjected to further analysis and 44 studies were used to make a final assessment.

Summary

There is limited published evidence to support the use of a BRM in eGFR equations.

CT-measured Cortical Volume Ratio Is an Accurate Alternative to Nuclear Medicine Split Scan Ratio Among Living Kidney Donors

BACKGROUND

The 125I-iothalamate clearance and 99mTc diethylenetriamine-pentaacetic acid (99mTc-DTPA) split scan nuclear medicine studies are used among living kidney donor candidates to determine measured glomerular filtration rate (mGFR) and split scan ratio (SSR). The computerized tomography-derived cortical volume ratio (CVR) is a novel measurement of split kidney function and can be combined with predonation estimated GFR (eGFR) or mGFR to predict postdonation kidney function. Whether predonation SSR predicts postdonation kidney function better than predonation CVR and whether predonation mGFR provides additional information beyond predonation eGFR are unknown.

METHODS

We performed a single-center retrospective analysis of 204 patients who underwent kidney donation between June 2015 and March 2019. The primary outcome was 1-y postdonation eGFR. Model bases were created from a measure of predonation kidney function (mGFR or eGFR) multiplied by the proportion that each nondonated kidney contributed to predonation kidney function (SSR or CVR). Multivariable elastic net regression with 1000 repetitions was used to determine the mean and 95% confidence interval of R2, root mean square error (RMSE), and proportion overprediction ≥15 mL/min/1.73 m2 between models.

RESULTS

In validation cohorts, eGFR-CVR models performed best (R2, 0.547; RMSE, 9.2 mL/min/1.73 m2, proportion overprediction 3.1%), whereas mGFR-SSR models performed worst (R2, 0.360; RMSE, 10.9 mL/min/1.73 m2, proportion overprediction 7.2%) (P < 0.001 for all comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that predonation CVR may serve as an acceptable alternative to SSR during donor evaluation and furthermore, that a model based on CVR and predonation eGFR may be superior to other methods.

Is Bigger Better? Living Donor Kidney Volume as Measured by the Donor CT Angiogram in Predicting Donor and Recipient eGFR after Living Donor Kidney Transplantation

BACKGROUND

The role of kidney volume measurement in predicting the donor and recipient kidney function is not clear.

METHODS

We measured kidney volume bilaterally in living kidney donors using CT angiography and assessed the association with the donor remaining kidney and recipient kidney (donated kidney) function at 1 year after kidney transplantation. Donor volume was categorized into tertiles based on lowest, middle, and highest volume.

RESULTS

There were 166 living donor and recipient pairs. The mean donor age was 44.8 years (SD ± 10.8), and donor mean BMI was 25.5 (SD ± 2.9). The recipients of living donor kidneys were 64% male and had a mean age of 43.5 years (SD ± 13.3). Six percent of patients experienced an episode of cellular rejection and were maintained on dialysis for a mean of 18 months (13-32) prior to transplant. Kidney volume was divided into tertiles based on lowest, middle, and highest volume. Kidney volume median (range) in tertiles 1, 2, and 3 was 124 (89-135 ml), 155 (136-164 ml), and 184 (165-240 ml) with donor eGFR ml/min (adjusted for body surface area expressed as ml/min/1.73 m2) at the time of donation in each tertile, 109 (93-129), 110 (92-132), and 101 ml/min (84-117). The median (IQR) eGFR in tertiles 1 to 3 in kidney recipients at 1 year after donation was 54 (44-67), 62 (50-75), and 63 ml/min (58-79), respectively. The median (IQR) eGFR in tertiles 1 to 3 in the remaining kidney of donors at 1 year after donation was 59 (53-66), 65 (57-72), and 65 ml/min (56-73), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Bigger kidney volume was associated with better eGFR at 1 year after transplant in the recipient and marginally in the donor remaining kidney.

The Evaluation of Kidney Function in Living Kidney Donor Candidates

Living kidney donors incur a small increased risk of ESKD, of which predonation GFR is an important determinant. As a result, kidney function assessment is central to the donor candidate evaluation and selection process. This article reviews the different methods of GFR assessment, including eGFR, creatinine clearance, and measured GFR, and the current guidelines on GFR thresholds for donor acceptance. eGFR obtained using the 2009 CKD Epidemiology Collaboration equation that, although the best of estimating estimations, tends to underestimate levels and has limited accuracy, especially near-normal GFR values. In the United States, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network policy on living donation mandates either measured GFR or creatinine clearance as part of the evaluation. Measured GFR is considered the gold standard, although there is some variation in performance characteristics, depending on the marker and technique used. Major limitations of creatinine clearance are dependency on accuracy of timed collection, and overestimation as a result of distal tubular creatinine secretion. GFR declines with healthy aging, and most international guidelines recommend use of age-adapted selection criteria. The 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes Guideline for the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors diverges from other guidelines and recommends using absolute cutoff of <60 ml/min per 1.73m² for exclusion and ≥90 ml/min per 1.73m² for acceptance, and determination of candidacy with intermediate GFR on the basis of long-term ESKD risk. However, several concerns exist for this strategy, including inappropriate acceptance of younger candidates due to underestimation of risk, and exclusion of older candidates whose kidney function is in fact appropriate for age. The role of cystatin C and other newer biomarkers, and data on the effect of predonation GFR on not just ESKD risk, but also advanced CKD risk and cardiovascular outcomes are needed.