Advertisement

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

  1. Richard A. Chudleigh, MRCP,
  2. Gareth Dunseath, MPHIL,
  3. William Evans, PHD,
  4. John N. Harvey, MD, FRCP,
  5. Philip Evans, MD, FRCP,
  6. Richard Ollerton, PHD and
  7. David R. Owens, MD, FRCP
  1. From the Diabetes Research Unit, Llandough Hospital, Cardiff, U.K.
  1. 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

Abstract

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.

Footnotes

  • A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Système International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances.

    The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked “advertisement” in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

    • Accepted October 25, 2006.
    • Received August 9, 2006.
| Table of Contents
Advertisement