Chronic kidney disease: a large-scale population-based study of the effects of introducing the CKD-EPI formula for eGFR reporting.

Objective: To evaluate the effects of introducing the Chronic Kidney Disease-Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) formula for estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) reporting in the adult population in routine clinical practice with clinician-directed testing. Design: Retrospective study of all creatinine measurements and calculation of eGFRs using Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) and CKD-EPI formulae. Setting: General population, Oxfordshire, UK. Participants: An unselected population of around 660 000. Interventions: Reporting of eGFRs using MDRD or CKD-EPI formulae. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Evaluation of the effects of the CKD-EPI formula on the prevalence of different stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Results: The CKD-EPI formula reduced the prevalence of CKD (stages 2-5) by 16.4% in patients tested in primary care. At the important stage 2estage 3 cut-off, there was a relative reduction of 7.5% in the prevalence of CKD stages 3-5 from 15.7% to 14.5%. The CKD-EPI formula reduced the prevalence of CKD stages 3-5 in those aged <70 but increased it at ages >70. Above 70 years, the prevalence of stages 3-5 was similar with both equations for women (around 41.2%) but rose in men from 33.3% to 35.5%. CKD stages 4-5 rose by 15% due exclusively to increases in the over 70s, which could increase specialist referral rates. The CKD classification of 18.3% of all individuals who had a creatinine measurement was altered by a change from the MDRD to the CKD-EPI formula. In the UK population, the classification of up to 3 million patients could be altered, the prevalence of CKD could be reduced by up to 1.9 million and the prevalence of CKD stages 3-5 could fall by around 200 000. Conclusions: Introduction of the CKD-EPI formula for eGFR reporting will reduce the prevalence of CKD in a primary care setting with current testing practice but will raise the prevalence in the over 70s age group. This has implications for clinical practice, healthcare policy and current prevalence-based funding arrangements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]