Key result
The MDRD equation showed the least age-related bias in estimating 24-hour creatinine production compared to DXA-measured muscle mass, supporting its use in Indian populations.
Cross-Sectional (n=917)
No
Effect estimate: Regression coefficient -0.012 (95% CI -0.021 to -0.003)
p-value: p=<0.001
The MDRD formula appears less variable and less biased by age than Cockcroft-Gault or CKD-EPI for estimating renal function in an Indian population.
May support MDRD preference for renal estimation in Indians; leaves open prospective validation against measured GFR.
BACKGROUND: Creatinine based formulae for estimating renal function developed in white populations may be less valid in other ethnic groups. We assessed the performance of various estimating formulae in an Indian population. METHODS: 917 subjects were recruited from the Hyderabad arm of the Indian Migration Study. Data were collected on comorbidity, serum creatinine and body composition from DXA scans. Renal function was compared using the modified Cockcroft-Gault, MDRD and CKD-EPI formulae. 24-hour creatinine production was derived from each estimate and the agreement with measured muscle mass examined. 24-hour creatinine production estimates were compared to that derived from a formula by Rule incorporating DXA measured muscle mass. Potential systematic biases were examined by age and eGFR. We assessed the association of renal function by each formula with hypertension and self-reported measures of vascular disease. RESULTS: Mean modified Cockcroft-Gault eCCl was 98.8 ml/min/1.73 m(2), MDRD eGFR 91.2 ml/min/1.73 m(2) and CKD-EPI eGFR 96.3 ml/min/1.73 m(2). MDRD derived 24-hour creatinine production showed the least age-related underestimation compared to the Rule formula. CKD-EPI showed a marked bias at higher eGFRs. All formulae showed similar strength associations with vascular disease and hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses support the use of MDRD for estimating renal function in Indian populations. Further work is required to assess the predictive value of formulae for incident disease and complications of CKD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bailey et al. (2013) conducted a cross-sectional in General population (n=917). MDRD equation vs. DXA-based Rule formula was evaluated on Age-related bias in estimated 24-hour creatinine production (difference between MDRD and Rule formula regressed against age) (Regression coefficient -0.012, 95% CI -0.021 to -0.003, p=<0.001). The MDRD equation showed the least age-related bias in estimating 24-hour creatinine production compared to DXA-measured muscle mass, supporting its use in Indian populations.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: