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) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted 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 Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Chudleigh, R. A. Articles by Owens, D. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Chudleigh, R. A. Articles by Owens, D. R. Social Bookmarking                What's this?

How Reliable Is Estimation of Glomerular Filtration Rate at Diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes?

From the Diabetes Research Unit, Llandough Hospital, Cardiff, U.K.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Richard A. Chudleigh, Llandough Hospital, Diabetes Research Unit, Penlan Road Penarth, Cardiff CF64 2XX. E-mail: rachudleigh{at}hotmail.com

OBJECTIVE—The Cockcroft-Gault (CG) and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equations previously have been recommended to estimate glomerular filtration rate (GFR). We compared both estimates with true GFR, measured by the isotopic ⁵¹Cr-EDTA method, in newly diagnosed, treatment-naïve subjects with type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—A total of 292 mainly normoalbuminuric (241 of 292) subjects were recruited. Subjects were classified as having mild renal impairment (group 1, GFR <90 ml/min per 1.73 m²) or normal renal function (group 2, GFR 90 ml/min per 1.73 m²). Estimated GFR (eGFR) was calculated by the CG and MDRD equations. Blood samples drawn at 44, 120, 180, and 240 min after administration of 1 MBq of ⁵¹Cr-EDTA were used to measure isotopic GFR (iGFR).

RESULTS—For subjects in group 1, mean (±SD) iGFR was 83.8 ± 4.3 ml/min per 1.73 m². eGFR was 78.0 ± 16.5 or 73.7 ± 12.0 ml/min per 1.73 m² using CG and MDRD equations, respectively. Ninety-five percent CIs for method bias were –11.1 to –0.6 using CG and –14.4 to –7.0 using MDRD. Ninety-five percent limits of agreement (mean bias ± 2 SD) were –37.2 to 25.6 and –33.1 to 11.7, respectively. In group 2, iGFR was 119.4 ± 20.3 ml/min per 1.73 m². eGFR was 104.4 ± 26.3 or 92.3 ± 18.7 ml/min per 1.73 m² using CG and MDRD equations, respectively. Ninety-five percent CIs for method bias were –17.4 to –12.5 using CG and –29.1 to –25.1 using MDRD. Ninety-five percent limits of agreement were –54.4 to 24.4 and –59.5 to 5.3, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS—In newly diagnosed type 2 diabetic patients, particularly those with a GFR 90 ml/min per 1.73 m², both CG and MDRD equations significantly underestimate iGFR. This highlights a limitation in the use of eGFR in the majority of diabetic subjects outside the setting of chronic kidney disease.

Abbreviations: BSA, body surface area • CG, Cockcroft-Gault • CKD, chronic kidney disease • eGFR, estimated GFR • GFR, glomerular filtration rate • ESRD, end-stage renal disease • iGFR, isotopic GFR • MDRD, Modification of Diet in Renal Disease • RRT, renal replacement therapy

CiteULike    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. A. Chudleigh, G. Dunseath, R. Peter, J. N. Harvey, R. L. Ollerton, S. Luzio, and D. R. Owens Influence of Body Weight on the Performance of Glomerular Filtration Rate Estimators in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Diabetes Care, January 1, 2008; 31(1): 47 - 49. [Full Text] [PDF]