HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: CJN.04381007v1 3/2/616    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Google Scholar Articles by de Jong, P. E. Articles by Zoccali, C. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by de Jong, P. E. Articles by Zoccali, C.

Screening for Chronic Kidney Disease: Where Does Europe Go?

Paul E. de Jong^*, Marije van der Velde^*, Ron T. Gansevoort^*, and Carmine Zoccali

^* Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University Medical Center Groningen, and University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands; and Epidemiologia Clinica delle Malattie Renali e dell’Ipertensione Arteriosa e Unita Operativa di Nefrologia, Dialisi e Trapianto Renale, Ospedali Riuniti, Reggio Cal, Italy

Correspondence: Prof. Paul E. de Jong, Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 EZ Groningen, Netherlands. Phone: 31-50-3613434; Fax: 31-50-3619310; E-mail: p.e.de.jong{at}int.umcg.nl

This review discusses various screening approaches for chronic kidney disease that are used in Europe. The criterion for defining chronic kidney disease in the various programs differs but is frequently limited to estimated glomerular filtration rate, thus offering only data on chronic kidney disease stages 3 and higher; however, screening should not be limited to measuring only estimated glomerular filtration rate but should also include a measure of microalbuminuria, because this will offer identification of chronic kidney disease stages 1 and 2. Defining these earlier stages is of importance because the risk for developing end-stage renal disease that is associated with stages 1 and 2 is nearly equal to the risk that is associated with stage 3. Moreover, the risk for cardiovascular events in stages 1 and 2 is equal to that in stage 3. Various reports argue that costs of screening programs in general practitioner or outpatient offices are high and that they are cost-effective only for preventing end-stage renal disease when they are limited to target groups, such as patients with diabetes or hypertension and elderly. The benefits of screening programs, however, should not be evaluated only with respect to the prevention of renal events but should also include the benefits of preventing cardiovascular events. The use of preselection based on either an impaired estimated glomerular filtration rate or on protein-dipstick positivity or elevated albuminuria in a morning urine void has been found effective in various European countries as an alternative for targeted screening.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. E. de Jong and R. T. Gansevoort Reply Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., June 20, 2008; (2008) gfn335v1. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. E. de Jong and R. T. Gansevoort Fact or fiction of the epidemic of chronic kidney disease--let us not squabble about estimated GFR only, but also focus on albuminuria Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., April 1, 2008; 23(4): 1092 - 1095. [Full Text] [PDF]