TY - JOUR
T1 - Kidney disease, race, and gfr estimation
AU - Levey, Andrew S.
AU - Titan, Silvia M.
AU - Powe, Neil R.
AU - Coresh, Josef
AU - Inker, Lesley A.
N1 - Funding Information:
Dr. Coresh and Dr. Levey have participated in Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes Guideline Work Groups. Dr. Inker reports funding from Retrophin; Omeros; Dialysis Clinics, Inc.; and Reata Pharmaceuticals for research and contracts given to Tufts Medical Center outside of this work. Dr. Levey reports contracts from National Institutes of Health and National Kidney Foundation to Tufts Medical Center and a clinical trial contract with AstraZeneca. All remaining authors have nothing to disclose.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 by the American Society of Nephrology.
PY - 2020/8/7
Y1 - 2020/8/7
N2 - Assessment of GFR is central to clinical practice, research, and public health. Current Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes guidelines recommend measurement of serum creatinine to estimate GFR as the initial step in GFR evaluation. Serum creatinine is influenced by creatinine metabolism as well as GFR; hence, all equations to estimate GFR from serum creatinine include surrogates for muscle mass, such as age, sex, race, height, or weight. The guideline-recommended equation in adults (the 2009 Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration creatinine equation) includes a term for race (specified as black versus nonblack), which improves the accuracy of GFR estimation by accounting for differences in non-GFR determinants of serum creatinine by race in the study populations used to develop the equation. In that study, blacks had a 16% higher average measured GFR compared with nonblacks with the same age, sex, and serum creatinine. The reasons for this difference are only partly understood, and the use of race in GFR estimation has limitations. Some have proposed eliminating the race coefficient, but this would induce a systematic underestimation of measured GFR in blacks, with potential unintended consequences at the individual and population levels. We propose a more cautious approach that maintains and improves accuracy of GFR estimates and avoids disadvantaging any racial group. We suggest full disclosure of use of race in GFR estimation, accommodation of those who decline to identify their race, and shared decision making between health care providers and patients. We also suggest mindful use of cystatin C as a confirmatory test as well as clearance measurements. It would be preferable to avoid specification of race in GFR estimation if there was a superior, evidence-based substitute. The goal of future research should be to develop more accurate methods for GFR estimation that do not require use of race or other demographic characteristics.
AB - Assessment of GFR is central to clinical practice, research, and public health. Current Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes guidelines recommend measurement of serum creatinine to estimate GFR as the initial step in GFR evaluation. Serum creatinine is influenced by creatinine metabolism as well as GFR; hence, all equations to estimate GFR from serum creatinine include surrogates for muscle mass, such as age, sex, race, height, or weight. The guideline-recommended equation in adults (the 2009 Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration creatinine equation) includes a term for race (specified as black versus nonblack), which improves the accuracy of GFR estimation by accounting for differences in non-GFR determinants of serum creatinine by race in the study populations used to develop the equation. In that study, blacks had a 16% higher average measured GFR compared with nonblacks with the same age, sex, and serum creatinine. The reasons for this difference are only partly understood, and the use of race in GFR estimation has limitations. Some have proposed eliminating the race coefficient, but this would induce a systematic underestimation of measured GFR in blacks, with potential unintended consequences at the individual and population levels. We propose a more cautious approach that maintains and improves accuracy of GFR estimates and avoids disadvantaging any racial group. We suggest full disclosure of use of race in GFR estimation, accommodation of those who decline to identify their race, and shared decision making between health care providers and patients. We also suggest mindful use of cystatin C as a confirmatory test as well as clearance measurements. It would be preferable to avoid specification of race in GFR estimation if there was a superior, evidence-based substitute. The goal of future research should be to develop more accurate methods for GFR estimation that do not require use of race or other demographic characteristics.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85088472321&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85088472321&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2215/CJN.12791019
DO - 10.2215/CJN.12791019
M3 - Article
C2 - 32393465
AN - SCOPUS:85088472321
VL - 15
SP - 1203
EP - 1212
JO - Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN
JF - Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN
SN - 1555-9041
IS - 8
ER -