These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed


  • Title: Comparison of the prevalence and mortality risk of CKD in Australia using the CKD Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study GFR estimating equations: the AusDiab (Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle) Study.
    Author: White SL, Polkinghorne KR, Atkins RC, Chadban SJ.
    Journal: Am J Kidney Dis; 2010 Apr; 55(4):660-70. PubMed ID: 20138414.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) is more accurate than the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study equation. We applied both equations in a cohort representative of the Australian adult population. STUDY DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 11,247 randomly selected noninstitutionalized Australians aged >or= 25 years who attended a physical examination during the baseline AusDiab (Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle) Study survey. PREDICTORS & OUTCOMES: Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was estimated using the MDRD Study and CKD-EPI equations. Kidney damage was defined as urine albumin-creatinine ratio >or= 2.5 mg/mmol in men and >or= 3.5 mg/mmol in women or urine protein-creatinine ratio >or= 0.20 mg/mg. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) was defined as estimated GFR (eGFR) >or= 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) or kidney damage. Participants were classified into 3 mutually exclusive subgroups: CKD according to both equations; CKD according to the MDRD Study equation, but no CKD according to the CKD-EPI equation; and no CKD according to both equations. All-cause mortality was examined in subgroups with and without CKD. MEASUREMENTS: Serum creatinine and urinary albumin, protein, and creatinine measured on a random spot morning urine sample. RESULTS: 266 participants identified as having CKD according to the MDRD Study equation were reclassified to no CKD according to the CKD-EPI equation (estimated prevalence, 1.9%; 95% CI, 1.4-2.6). All had an eGFR >or= 45 mL/min/1.73 m(2) using the MDRD Study equation. Reclassified individuals were predominantly women with a favorable cardiovascular risk profile. The proportion of reclassified individuals with a Framingham-predicted 10-year cardiovascular risk >or= 30% was 7.2% compared with 7.9% of the group with no CKD according to both equations and 45.3% of individuals retained in stage 3a using both equations. There was no evidence of increased all-cause mortality in the reclassified group (age- and sex-adjusted hazard ratio vs no CKD, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.62-1.97). Using the MDRD Study equation, the prevalence of CKD in the Australian population aged >or= 25 years was 13.4% (95% CI, 11.1-16.1). Using the CKD-EPI equation, the prevalence was 11.5% (95% CI, 9.42-14.1). LIMITATIONS: Single measurements of serum creatinine and urinary markers. CONCLUSIONS: The lower estimated prevalence of CKD using the CKD-EPI equation is caused by reclassification of low-risk individuals.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]