No abstract

Background A new Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology equation without race variable has been recently proposed (CKD-EPIAS). This equation has neither been validated outside USA nor compared to the new European Kidney Function Consortium (EKFC) and Lund-Malmö Revised (LMREV) equations, developed in European cohorts. Methods Standardized creatinine and measured glomerular filtration rate (GFR) from the European EKFC cohorts (n = 13 856 including 6031 individuals in the external validation cohort), from France, (n = 4429, including 964 Black Europeans), from Brazil (n = 100), and from Africa (n = 508) were used to test the performances of the equations. A matched analysis between White Europeans and Black Africans or Black Europeans was performed. Results In White Europeans (n = 9496), both the EKFC and LMREV equations outperformed CKD-EPIAS (bias of -0.6 and -3.2, respectively versus 5.0 mL/min/1.73m², and accuracy within 30% of 86.9 and 87.4, respectively versus 80.9%). In Black Europeans and Black Africans, the best performance was observed with the EKFC equation using a specific Q-value ( = concentration of serum creatinine in healthy males and females). These results were confirmed in matched analyses, which showed that serum creatinine concentrations were different in White Europeans, Black Europeans, and Black Africans for the same measured GFR, age, sex and body mass index. Creatinine differences were more relevant in males. Conclusion In a European and African cohort, the performances of CKD-EPIAS remain suboptimal. The EKFC equation, using usual or dedicated, population-specific Q-values presents the best performance in the whole age range in the European and African populations included in this study.

Aim The Cockcroft‐Gault (CG) creatinine‐based equation is still used to estimate glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) for drug dosage adjustment. Incorrect eGFR may lead to hazardous over‐ or underdosing. Methods In a cross‐sectional analysis, CG was validated against measured GFR (mGFR) in 14 804 participants and compared with the Modification‐of‐Diet‐in‐Renal‐Diseases (MDRD), Chronic‐Kidney‐Disease‐Epidemiology (CKD‐EPI), Lund‐Malmö‐Revised (LMR) and European‐Kidney‐Function‐Consortium (EKFC) equations. Validation focused on bias, imprecision and accuracy (percentage of estimates within ±30% of mGFR, P30), overall and stratified for mGFR, age and body mass index at mGFR <60 mL/min, as well as classification in mGFR stages. Results The CG equation performed worse than the other equations, overall and in mGFR, age and BMI subgroups in terms of bias (systematic overestimation), imprecision and accuracy except for patients ≥65 years where bias and P30 were similar to MDRD and CKD‐EPI, but worse than LMR and EKFC. In subjects with mGFR <60 mL/min and at BMI 18.5‐25 kg/m2, all equations performed similarly, and for BMI < 18.5 kg/m2 CG and LMR had the best results though all equations had poor P30‐accuracy. At BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 the bias of the CG increased with increasing BMI (+17.2 mL/min at BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2). The four more recent equations also classified mGFR stages better than CG. Conclusions The CG equation showed poor ability to estimate GFR overall and in analyses stratified for mGFR, age and BMI. CG was inferior to correctly classify the patients in the mGFR staging compared to more recent creatinine‐based equations.

No abstract