The clinician and estimation of glomerular filtration rate by creatinine-based formulas: current limitations and quo vadis.

The GFR has a paramount diagnostic and staging role in the Kidney Disease Outcome Quality Initiative Clinical Practice Guidelines for Chronic Kidney Disease (K/DOQI-CKD). The most widely used serum creatinine-based formulas in adults for estimated GFR (eGFR) are the Cockcroft-Gault (CG) and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study (MDRD). Recently, a new Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation has been developed. Review of the literature revealed that CG and MDRD formulas correctly assigned overall only 64% and 62%, respectively, of the subjects to their actual K/DOQI-CKD classification's GFR groups as determined by measured GFR (mGFR). This suggests that approximately 10 million (38%) subjects may have been misclassified on the basis of estimated CKD prevalence of 26.3 million adults in the United States. The purpose of this review is to help the clinician understand the limitations of using eGFR in daily practice. We also elaborate upon issues such as the differences among markers of mGFR, the validity of adjusting GFR for body surface area in certain populations, the limited data on boundaries for normal mGFR according to age, gender, and race, the need for calibration of a wide spectrum of serum creatinine measurements, the lack of actual eGFR value above 60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) and reference for normal mGFR in the clinical laboratories' reports, and the performance evaluation of the eGFR formulas. Several pitfalls have to be overcome before we can reliably determine health and disease in daily nephrology practice to preserve the first rule of practicing medicine: primum non nocere.

Estimating glomerular filtration rate: Cockcroft-Gault and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formulas compared to renal inulin clearance.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Evaluation of renal function by estimation of the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is very important for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The Cockcroft-Gault (CG) and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) formulas are the most commonly used estimations. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Estimated GFR values by each formula were compared with measured GFR (mGFR) by renal inulin clearance in 2208 European adults (46% women, 1.4% Caribbean blacks), with and without CKD, and mean mGFR 72.4 +/- 39.0 (range 2.2 to 177.2) ml/min/1.73 m(2). RESULTS: Overall, the CG and MDRD formulas showed bias (mean difference) -3.5 ml/min/1.73 m(2) (5.3%), P < 0.001, and -9.8 ml/min/1.73 m(2) (-6.4%), P < 0.001; precision (SD of bias) 21.5 ml/min/1.73 m(2) (43.1%) and 20.0 ml/min/1.73 m(2) (33.0%); limits of agreement (2 SD by Bland-Altman method) 39.5 to -46.5 (range 86.0) ml/min/1.73 m(2) and 30.2 to -49.8 (range 80.0) ml/min/1.73 m(2); and accuracy within +/-30% of mGFR 70.8 and 69.0%, respectively. Both formulas showed a trend for decreasing accuracy with lower mGFR levels. According to the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (K/DOQI)-CKD classification's five GFR groups, the CG and MDRD formulas properly assigned 61.6 and 57.1% of the entire population and had a range of positive predictive values 42.6 to 81.8% and 39.6 to 85.2% and of negative predictive values 81.7 to 96.6% and 76.4 to 97.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The CG and MDRD formulas had some limitations for proper GFR estimation and K/DOQI-CKD classification by GFR levels alone.

Reporting the eGFR and its implication for CKD diagnosis.

The process of diagnosing chronic kidney disease using the estimated GFR involves several pitfalls. The estimated GFR laboratory report should be requested only by practitioners who are familiar with how to interpret the result. Until a more reliable method is available to estimate the GFR, the current chronic kidney disease classification should be revised by reducing the central role of the GFR cutoff levels.