Estimation of glomerular filtration rate by the MDRD study equation modified for Japanese patients with chronic kidney disease
- First Online:
- Cite this article as:
- Imai, E., Horio, M., Nitta, K. et al. Clin Exp Nephrol (2007) 11: 41. doi:10.1007/s10157-006-0453-4
Accurate estimation of the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is crucial for the detection of chronic kidney disease (CKD). In clinical practice, GFR is estimated from serum creatinine using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) study equation or the Cockcroft-Gault (CG) equation instead of the time-consuming method of measured clearance for exogenous markers such as inulin. In the present study, the equations originally developed for a Caucasian population were tested in Japanese CKD patients, and modified with the Japanese coefficient determined by the data.
The abbreviated MDRD study and CG equations were tested in 248 Japanese CKD patients and compared with measured inulin clearance (Cin) and estimated GFR (eGFR). The Japanese coefficient was determined by minimizing the sum of squared errors between eGFR and Cin. Serum creatinine values of the enzyme method in the present study were calibrated to values of the noncompensated Jaffé method by adding 0.207 mg/dl, because the original MDRD study equation was determined by the data for serum creatinine values measured by the noncompensated Jaffé method. The abbreviated MDRD study equation modified with the Japanese coefficient was validated in another set of 269 CKD patients.
There was a significant discrepancy between measured Cin and eGFR by the 1.0 × MDRD or CG equations. The MDRD study equation modified with the Japanese coefficient (0.881 × MDRD) determined for Japanese CKD patients yielded lower mean difference and higher accuracy for GFR estimation. In particular, in Cin 30–59 ml/min per 1.73 m2, the mean difference was significantly smaller with the 0.881 × MDRD equation than that with the 1.0 × MDRD study equation (1.9 vs 7.9 ml/min per 1.73 m2; P <?0.01), and the accuracy was significantly higher, with 60% vs 39% of the points deviating within 15%, and 97% vs 87% of points within 50%, respectively (both P <?0.01). Validation with the different data set showed the correlation between eGFR and Cin was better with the 0.881 × MDRD equation than with the 1.0 × MDRD study equation. In Cin less than 60 ml/min per 1.73 m2, the accuracy was significantly higher, with 85% vs 69% of the points deviating within 50% (P <?0.01), respectively. The mean difference was also significantly smaller (P <?0.01). However, GFR values calculated by the 0.881 × MDRD equation were still underestimated in the range of Cin over 60 ml/min per 1.73 m2.
Although the Japanese coefficient improves the accuracy of GFR estimation of the original MDRD study equation, a new equation is needed for more accurate estimation of GFR in Japanese patients with CKD stages 3 and 4.