CJASN
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published ahead of print on February 6, 2009
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 4: 258-260, 2009
© 2009 American Society of Nephrology
doi: 10.2215/CJN.05151008
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
CJN.05151008v1
4/2/258    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cheung, C. K.
Right arrow Articles by Bhandari, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cheung, C. K.
Right arrow Articles by Bhandari, S.

Commentary in Response to Controversies in Nephrology

Perspectives on eGFR reporting from the Interface between Primary and Secondary Care

Chee Kay Cheung, and Sunil Bhandari

Department of Renal Medicine, Hull Royal Infirmary, Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Hull, United Kingdom

Correspondence: Dr. Chee Kay Cheung, Department of Renal Medicine, Hull Royal Infirmary, Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Anlaby Road, HU3 2JZ, United Kingdom. Phone: +44 1482 674566; Fax: +44 1482 674998; E-mail: chee.cheung{at}hey.nhs.uk


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Disclosures
 References
 
The introduction of estimated GFR (eGFR) reporting based on the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation has caused much debate regarding its value in the wider community. In particular, automated reporting of eGFR by laboratories has led to concern that it is being used as a "covert " screening tool, in populations in which the MDRD equation has known inaccuracies. There is a fear of creating a population of "worried well, " with potential impact on patients and implications for the use of resources. It is established that in certain groups, chronic kidney disease confers a greatly increased risk of cardiovascular disease, yet risk factors remain inadequately managed. We believe that eGFR reporting allows the opportunity to stratify risk and improve outcome among a wide population.


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Disclosures
 References
 
We read with interest the articles regarding eGFR reporting published in a previous issue of Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology (1–3). Since the introduction of the National Kidney Foundation Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) guidelines in 2002, chronic kidney disease (CKD) has been highlighted as a public health concern. Despite increased awareness, CKD remains underdiagnosed, and its complications are poorly recognized in primary care (4). Almost one in four patients in the United Kingdom present to nephrology care within 3 mos of requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT) (5), with poor outcomes in terms of morbidity and mortality, as well as compromised ability to make timely plans regarding access, modality, or appropriateness of RRT (6). The vast majority of patients with CKD are treated solely through primary care, with one study finding that less than 4% of patients with CKD, identified from routine blood tests, were receiving nephrology care (7). We argue that reporting of eGFR improves recognition of CKD and allows risk stratification and timely management of its complications.

A key question that remains is how to best identify those at highest risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and progression of renal disease. It is apparent that a large proportion of patients with CKD will die from CVD rather than progress to end stage renal disease (ESRD; 8). Many others have a low risk of both these complications, comparable to those without CKD. Since their introduction in 2002, the KDOQI guidelines have been embraced globally. However, with their emphasis on eGFR, there is concern that proteinuria may be overlooked (9). It is now established that proteinuria is an important predictor of decline in GFR and development of ESRD (10). Data from the European community-based PREVEND (Prevention of Renal and Vascular Endstage Disease) study showed that patients with CKD stages 1 to 2 and urine albumin excretion >30 mg/d had a greater risk of CVD and accelerated loss of renal function compared with those without CKD, after adjusting for age and gender (11). Importantly, patients with CKD stage 3 and absence of overt proteinuria had no increased risk of cardiovascular events compared with those without CKD (11), comparable to similarly adjusted findings from a general population cohort (12) and from patients with pre-existing coronary disease (13). It should be noted that the number of patients with an eGFR less than 45 ml/min/1.73 m2 in these studies was small. Indeed, the risk of CVD in patients with an eGFR above 45 ml/min/1.73 m2 appears modest, but increases greatly once eGFR falls below this level (14).

Recent guidelines in the United Kingdom published by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) may address these points. They differ from the KDOQI guidelines by recommendations to subdivide CKD stage 3 into stages 3A and 3B (eGFR 45 to 59 ml/min/1.73 m2 and 30 to 44 ml/min/1.73 m2, respectively), and the addition of the suffix "p" to CKD staging for significant proteinuria (15). There is concern that increasing the complexity of CKD staging could obscure guidance for primary care physicians, who may find current guidelines confusing (16). However, we believe that the addition of proteinuria to CKD staging emphasizes its importance alongside eGFR, serves as a prompt for it to be checked, and highlights important risk groups for potential therapeutic intervention. The introduction of financial incentives (Quality and Outcomes Framework; 17) to primary care physicians in the United Kingdom to meet targets for creating registries of patients with CKD, BP monitoring, and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ACE-I/ARB) use in proteinuria may also act as a stimulus, although this remains to be proven.

Another question that remains is how to best manage these patients ’ treatment. Control of BP and use of ACE-I/ARBs in the presence of proteinuria are key to reducing cardiovascular and renal morbidity (18,19). However, studies from primary care are disappointing. Stevens et al. identified patients with CKD stages 3 to 5 from their primary care records, and found that a BP target of 130/80 mmHg was achieved in less than 10% of these patients (20). Patients with an eGFR less than 30 ml/min/1.73 m2 were less likely to receive an ACE-I compared with those with an eGFR of 30 to 60 ml/min/1.73 m2, with the authors concluding that an opportunity to practice preventive medicine was being lost. Evidence for treatment of other traditional cardiovascular risk factors is, at present, lacking. The role of lipid-lowering agents for primary prevention of CVD in the CKD population is unclear, but should be conclusively answered once the Study in Heart and Renal Protection reports in 2009 (21). At present it is recommended that patients should at least receive these agents if already indicated for other reasons (22).

Use of automated eGFR reporting has been shown to increase recognition of CKD in primary care (23,24), but without educational intervention, has made little impact on treatment goals such as BP control, ACE-I/ARB use, and urinalysis testing (24). Richards et al. used eGFR reporting to identify patients with CKD stages 4 to 5 in primary care from routine blood tests. They then enrolled the patients into a disease management program delivered by a multidisciplinary team of nurses, dietician, and social worker, and achieved significant improvements in lipid control and BP control, as well as a reduction in the rate of decline of renal function (25). Although encouraging, evidence that such use of eGFR reporting will lead to a definite improvement in clinical outcomes, including reduction in cardiovascular events or delay in the need for RRT, remains outstanding. Our own experience is that eGFR reporting has led to a reduction in late presentations for dialysis, at the expense of increased referrals to nephrology, some of which are inappropriate when local guidelines are stringently followed. These views have also been reported by others (26,27). eGFR reporting has resulted in a proportion of patients labeled with CKD who are at minimal risk of CVD or progressive renal disease, causing unnecessary concern for the patient as well as affecting resources, a scenario most commonly seen in elderly patients. The number of these patients will, of course, depend on how CKD is defined.

Our local guidance advises that a specialist opinion should be sought if it is felt that this would add value to the patients’ care, giving flexibility to primary care colleagues. As do others, we advise that patients should be referred, regardless of eGFR, in the presence of significant proteinuria, hematoproteinuria, suspected metabolic complications, or rapid decline in renal function. Although we agree with Glassock and Winearls that defining CKD according to a normal eGFR range (adjusted for age and gender) would reduce the number of inappropriate diagnoses, we fear that this practice may prove too complex to be of practical use (2). Locally, we ask our primary care colleagues to consider referral for patients whose eGFR is less than 45 ml/min/1.73 m2, or less than 30 ml/min/1.73 m2 if over the age of 70 yr. We find this cut-off a simple way to identify those patients at risk from complications.

Use of the MDRD equation to estimate GFR has inaccuracies which have been well described (2). We add that there is a demonstrated lack of ethnicity data in primary care, which often precludes the use of a correction factor (20). There will be improvements made in methods to measure renal function, for example Cystatin C may provide a more accurate biomarker, but is not yet widely available. Currently, we believe that eGFR has advantages over serum creatinine, providing an easier interpretation of renal function as long as its inaccuracies are appreciated, and allowing convenient monitoring of renal function over time because of its linear nature.

We agree with Melamed et al. that eGFR reporting must be paired with education to ensure that results are interpreted appropriately (3). As Glassock and Winearls highlight, patients with CKD are often already included in other primary care registries, for example, for hypertension and diabetes (2). However, these patients are often not treated optimally, with failure to meet targets in BP and glycemic and lipid control (20). Redefining CKD staging by subdivision of CKD stage 3 and emphasizing the importance of proteinuria should highlight those at greatest cardiovascular and renal risk. It is evident that patients seen in specialist care are in the minority, and reporting of eGFR provides the opportunity to increase recognition of CKD and to optimize management.


   Disclosures
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Disclosures
References
 
None.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Disclosures
 References
 

  1. Bennett WM: Reporting eGFR. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol3 :1561 –1562,2008[Free Full Text]
  2. Glassock RJ, Winearls C: Screening for CKD with eGFR: Doubts and dangers. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol3 :1563 –1568,2008[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Melamed ML, Bauer C, Hostetter TH: eGFR: Is it ready for early identification of CKD? Clin J Am Soc Nephrol3 :1569 –1572,2008[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Fox CH, Swanson A, Kahn LS, Glaser K, Murray BM: Improving chronic kidney disease care in primary care practices: An Upstate New York Practice-based Research Network (UNYNET) study. J Am Board Fam Med21 :522 –530,2008[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Ansell D, Feehally J, Feest TG, Tomson C, Williams AJ, Warwick G: UK Renal Registry Report 2007. UK Renal Registry, Bristol, UK
  6. Roderick P, Jones C, Tomson C, Mason J: Late referral for dialysis: Improving the management of chronic renal disease QJM95 :363 –370,2002[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Richards N, Harris K, Whitfield M, O'Donoghue D, Lewis R, Mansell M, Thomas S, Townend J, Eames M, Marcelli D: The impact of population-based identification of chronic kidney disease using estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) reporting. Nephrol Dial Transplant23 :556 –561,2008[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Foley RN, Murray AM, Li S, Herzog CA, McBean AM, Eggers PW, Collins AJ: Chronic kidney disease and the risk for cardiovascular disease, renal replacement, and death in the United States Medicare population, 1998 to 1999. J Am Soc Nephrol16 :489 –495,2005[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. de Jong PE, Gansevoort RT: 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 Transplant23 :1092 –1095,2008[Free Full Text]
  10. Taal MW, Brenner BM: Renal risk scores: Progress and prospects. Kidney Int73 :1216 –1219,2008[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Brantsma AH, Bakker SJ, Hillege HL, de Zeeuw D, de Jong PE, Gansevoort RT; for the PREVEND Study Group. Cardiovascular and renal outcome in subjects with K/DOQI stage 1-3 chronic kidney disease: The importance of urinary albumin excretion. Nephrol Dial Transplant2008 doi:10.1093/ndt/gfn356
  12. Foster MC, Hwang SJ, Larson MG, Parikh NI, Meigs JB, Vasan RS, Wang TJ, Levy D, Fox CS: Cross-classification of microalbuminuria and reduced glomerular filtration rate: Associations between cardiovascular disease risk factors and clinical outcomes. Arch Intern Med167 (13):1386 –1392,2007[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Tonelli M, Jose P, Curhan G, Sacks F, Braunwald E, Pfeffer M; Cholesterol and Recurrent Events (CARE) Trial Investigators. Proteinuria, impaired kidney function, and adverse outcomes in people with coronary disease: Analysis of a previously conducted randomised trial. BMJ332 :1426 ,2006[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Go AS, Chertow GM, Fan D, McCulloch CE, Hsu CY: Chronic kidney disease and the risks of death, cardiovascular events, and hospitalization. N Engl J Med351 :1296 –1305,2004[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Crowe E, Halpin D, Stevens P; Guideline Development Group. Early identification and management of chronic kidney disease: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ337 :a1530 ,2008[Free Full Text]
  16. Fox CH, Brooks A, Zayas LE, McClellan W, Murray B: Primary care physicians’ knowledge and practice patterns in the treatment of chronic kidney disease: An Upstate New York Practice-based Research Network (UNYNET) study. J Am Board Fam Med19 :54 –61,2006[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. NHS Employers: Quality and Outcomes Framework. 2008. www.nhsemployers.org/pay-conditions/primary-890.cfm
  18. Bakris GL, Williams M, Dworkin L, Elliott WJ, Epstein M, Toto R, Tuttle K, Douglas J, Hsueh W, Sowers J: Preserving renal function in adults with hypertension and diabetes: A consensus approach. National Kidney Foundation Hypertension and Diabetes Executive Committees Working Group. Am J Kidney Dis36 :646 –661,2000[Medline]
  19. Kent DM, Jafar TH, Hayward RA, Tighiouart H, Landa M, de Jong P, de Zeeuw D, Remuzzi G, Kamper AL, Levey AS: Progression risk, urinary protein excretion, and treatment effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in nondiabetic kidney disease. J Am Soc Nephrol18 :1959 –1965,2007[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Stevens PE, O'Donoghue DJ, de Lusignan S, Van Vlymen J, Klebe B, Middleton R, Hague N, New J, Farmer CK: Chronic kidney disease management in the United Kingdom: NEOERICA project results. Kidney Int72 :92 –99,2007[CrossRef][Medline]
  21. Baigent C, Landry M: Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP). Kidney Int Suppl84 :S207 –S210,2003[Medline]
  22. Clase CM: Statins for people with kidney disease. BMJ336 :624 –625,2008[Free Full Text]
  23. Akbari A, Swedko PJ, Clark HD, Hogg W, Lemelin J, Magner P, Moore L, Ooi D: Detection of chronic kidney disease with laboratory reporting of estimated glomerular filtration rate and an educational program. Arch Intern Med164 :1788 –1792,2004[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Wyatt C, Konduri V, Eng J, Rohatgi R: Reporting of estimated GFR in the primary care clinic. Am J Kidney Dis49 :634 –641,2007[CrossRef][Medline]
  25. Richards N, Harris K, Whitfield M, O'Donoghue D, Lewis R, Mansell M, Thomas S, Townend J, Eames M, Marcelli D: Primary care-based disease management of chronic kidney disease (CKD), based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) reporting, improves patient outcomes. Nephrol Dial Transplant23 :549 –555,2008[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Bebb CE, Burden RP: Glomerular filtration rate: Reporting eGFR has benefits. BMJ334 :1287 ,2007[Free Full Text]
  27. Noble E, Johnson DW, Gray N, Hollett P, Hawley CM, Campbell SB, Mudge DW, Isbel NM: The impact of automated eGFR reporting and education on nephrology service referrals. Nephrol Dial Transplant23 :3845 –3850,2008[Abstract/Free Full Text]




This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
CJN.05151008v1
4/2/258    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cheung, C. K.
Right arrow Articles by Bhandari, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cheung, C. K.
Right arrow Articles by Bhandari, S.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS