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.00960208v1 3/5/1563    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 Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Glassock, R. J. Articles by Winearls, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Glassock, R. J. Articles by Winearls, C.

Screening for CKD with eGFR: Doubts and Dangers

David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, and Oxford Kidney Unit, Oxford, United Kingdom

Correspondence: Dr. Richard J. Glassock, 8 Bethany, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677. Phone: 949-388-8885; Fax: 949-388-8882; E-mail: Glassock{at}cox.net

The early identification of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a legitimate enterprise if it provides meaningful opportunities for effective and safe interventions that reduce the risk of death, end-stage renal disease, or complications of renal dysfunction. The screening of unselected populations not already known to be at risk of CKD has the potential of harm and has not been shown to be cost-effective. The application of formulas for the estimation of GFR (eGFR) to the guidelines for staging of chronic kidney disease (Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative, K/DOQI) as universal screening tools is of dubious value and has inherent dangers. This conclusion is based both on the unreliability of current formulas for determining eGFR and flaws in the K/DOQI schema for staging of CKD. The failure to take into account the normal age- and gender- associated decline in GFR and the lack of a requirement for other evidence of kidney disease in CKD stage 3 leads to an erroneous categorization of large numbers of mostly elderly and female subjects as having an intermediate stage of a lethal disease. Criteria for CKD staging should take into account the percentile distribution of eGFR by age and gender. Targeted screening for CKD is likely to be more cost-effective than universal screening. Whether early identification and treatment of subjects with "reduced" levels of GFR within the normal range for their age/gender, but without any other manifestations of kidney disease, will reduce the subsequent risk of cardiovascular events or progression to end-stage-renal disease is currently unproven.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. D. Poggio, W. E. Braun, and C. Davis The Science of Stewardship: Due Diligence for Kidney Donors and Kidney Function in Living Kidney Donation--Evaluation, Determinants, and Implications for Outcomes Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., October 1, 2009; 4(10): 1677 - 1684. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. P. Reese and H. I. Feldman More Evidence that Cystatin C Predicts Mortality Better than Creatinine J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., October 1, 2009; 20(10): 2088 - 2090. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Levin Predicting outcomes in CKD: the importance of perspectives, populations and practices Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., June 1, 2009; 24(6): 1724 - 1726. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. J. Glassock and C. G. Winearls eGFR: Readjusting Its Rating Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., May 1, 2009; 4(5): 867 - 869. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Ravera, G. Noberasco, M. Re, A. Filippi, A. M. Gallina, U. Weiss, R. Cannavo, G. Ravera, C. Cricelli, and G. Deferrari Chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular risk in hypertensive type 2 diabetics: a primary care perspective Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., May 1, 2009; 24(5): 1528 - 1533. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. R. den Hartog, P. P. Reese, B. Cizman, and H. I. Feldman The Costs and Benefits of Automatic Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate Reporting Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., February 1, 2009; 4(2): 419 - 427. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. K. Cheung and S. Bhandari Perspectives on eGFR reporting from the Interface between Primary and Secondary Care Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., February 1, 2009; 4(2): 258 - 260. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Botev and J.-P. Mallie Reporting the eGFR and Its Implication for CKD Diagnosis Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., November 1, 2008; 3(6): 1606 - 1607. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. J Landray and R. J Haynes Commentary: Controversies in NICE guidance on chronic kidney disease BMJ, September 29, 2008; 337(sep29_2): a1793 - a1793. [Full Text]