==== Front Ann Saudi MedAnn Saudi MedAnnals of Saudi Medicine0256-49470975-4466King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre 2701881010.5144/0256-4947.2016.28.3.1715asm-2-128Original ArticleAccuracy and precision of the CKD-EPI and MDRD predictive equations compared with glomerular filtration rate measured by inulin clearance in a Saudi population Al-Wakeel Jamal Saleh From the Nephrology Unit, Department of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi ArabiaCorrespondence: Professor Jamal Saleh Al-Wakeel, Nephrology Unit, Department of Medicine, King Saud University PO Box 2925 Riyadh, 11461 Saudi Arabia, T: 0096614671531, F: 0096614672671, jwakeel@ksu.edu.saMar-Apr 2016 36 2 128 134 Copyright © 2016, Annals of Saudi Medicine2016This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.BACKGROUND Predictive equations for estimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in different clinical conditions should be validated by comparing with the measurement of GFR using inulin clearance, a highly accurate measure of GFR. OBJECTIVES Our aim was to validate the Chronic Kidney Disease-Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equations by comparing it to the GFR measured using inulin clearance in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. DESIGN Cross-sectional study performed in adult Saudi patients with CKD. SETTING King Saud University Affiliated Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in 2014. PATIENTS AND METHODS We compared GFR measured by inulin clearance with the estimated GFR calculated using CKD-EPI and MDRD predictive formulas. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S) Correlation, bias, precision and accuracy between the estimated GFR and inulin clearance. RESULTS Comparisons were made in 31 participants (23 CKD and 8 transplanted), including 19 males (mean age 42.2 [15] years and weight 68.7 [18] kg). GFR using inulin was 51.54 (33.8) mL/min/1.73 m2. In comparison to inulin clearance, the GFR by the predictive equations was: CKD-EPI creatinine 52.6 (34.4) mL/min/1.73 m2 (P=.490), CKD-EPI cystatin C 41.39 (30.30) mL/min/1.73 m2 (P=.002), CKD creatinine-cystatin C 45.03 (30.9) mL/min/1.73 m2 (P=.004) and MDRD GFR 48.35 (31.5) mL/min/1.73 m2 (P=.028) (statistical comparisons vs inulin). Bland-Altman plots demonstrated that GFR estimated by the CKD-EPI creatinine was the most accurate compared with inulin clearance, having a mean difference (estimated bias) and limits of agreement of −1.1 (15.6, −17.7). By comparison the mean differences for predictive equations were: CKD-EPI cystatin C 10.2 (43.7, −23.4), CKD creatinine-cystatin C 6.5 (29.3, −16.3) and MDRD 3.2 (18.3, −11.9). Except for CKD-EPI creatinine, all of the equations underestimated GFR in comparison with inulin clearance. CONCLUSIONS When compared with inulin clearance, the CKD-EPI creatinine equation is the most accurate, precise and least biased equation for estimation of GFR in the Saudi population and in all subgroups by age, stage of CKD and transplantation status. LIMITATIONS Small sample size and the study did not include patients with comorbid diseases such as diabetes, hepatitis C virus infection, and other co-morbidities as well as old age (>80 years). ==== Body Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a growing major health concern worldwide and is the major cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). It carries high risk of cardiovascular events and mortality.1,2 Early detection and intensive care can slow the progression of ESRD. Glomerular filtration rate is a surrogate of kidney function. Measurement of true GFR using inulin clearance or radioisotopes is almost impossible in either clinical practice or research studies and is expensive, time consuming, and requires hospitalization. Predictive equations provide a rapid and convenient method of assessing GFR.3,4 But none are currently ideal and suitable for all ethnic groups, gender, age, and weight variations. Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD), cystatin C and creatinine are commonly used predictive equations.5 Recently, the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) published an equation for estimation of GFR using age, gender, race and serum creatinine that was found to be more accurate.4–6 CKD is common in Saudi Arabia, with a prevalence rate of 5.7%.7 The aim of this study was to validate the CKD-EPI and MDRD equations in diverse clinical subsets by comparion with GFR measured by inulin clearance. PATIENTS AND METHODS The present study was a cross-sectional study conducted in 31 Saudi adults with chronic kidney disease following the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) guidelines for qualification of CKD with renal transplant.8 The study is a re-analysis of our previous study conducted in 2009.9 It was performed from January 2014 to June 2014 in affiliation with King Saud University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia by reevaluating the data using the old CKD and MDRD formula compared with the new CKD-EPI formula.3,5,8 MDRD equation: GFR=1.86×(SCr)-1.154×Age-0.203×0.742 [If female] CKD-EPI creatinine equation: GFR=141×min (SCr/κ, 1)α×max (SCr/κ,1)-1.209×0.993Age×1.018 [If female] CKD-EPI cystatin C equation: GFR=133×min (Scys/0.8, 1)-0.499×max (Scys/0.8,1)-1.328×0.996Age×0.932 [If female] CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation: 135 min (SCr/κ, 1)α max (SCr/κ, 1)-0.601×min (Scys/0.8, 1)-0.375×max (Scys/0.8, 1)-0.711×0.995Age[×] 0.969 [If female] The National Kidney Foundation (NKF) considers a normal GFR value to be 90–120 mL/min/1.73 m2. An eGFR below 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 suggests kidney damage. 1,3,8 Inclusion criteria were that subjects be Saudi adults of either gender and older than 18 years of age. Exclusion criteria were acute renal failure, heart failure, pregnancy, malignancy, or infection. Thirty-one patients gave consent to participate in data collection. The eight patients were recently transplanted (6 months to 9 months), medically stable for more than 6 months, had stable renal function for 3 months and were using transplant medications (predisone, azothioprine or mycophenolate mofetil and cyclosporine or tacrolimus). In all subjects, blood samples were drawn for estimation of serum creatinine, fasting blood sugar, and other biochemistry tests for auto-analysis in the clinical laboratory of King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, which is accredited by the College of American Pathology and Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA). Serum creatinine was analyzed using Jaffe’s method which was standardized to isotope dilution mass spectrometry. Serum cystatin C was measured by nephroimmunoassay, which is described in our previous article,9 using the third generation automatized Dimension RxL Integrated Chemistry analyzer (Dade Behring) and commercially available assay kits. An inulin clearance test was also performed as reported previously.9 Patients gave informed consent to participate and were not exposed to any risks or hazards. All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards and approved by the Institutional Review Board, Deanship of Scientific Research of King Saud University. SPSS version 17 was used for statistical analysis (SPSS Illinois Chicago USA, https://goo.gl/G0S4LT). Quantitative variables are expressed as mean and standard deviation. Pearson correlation and paired t test samples were used to compare the predictive equations with inulin, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to measure small samples. The Bland-Altman plot and regression analysis were used to evaluate the accuracy and bias of paired sample tests. The mean difference in the Bland-Altman plot is the estimated bias, and the standard deviation of the differences measures the random fluctuations around this mean. Statistical significance was a P value <.05. RESULTS There were 31 participants, (23 CKD and 8 transplant patients, with 19 males) with a mean age of 42.26 (15.21) years and mean weight of 68.76 (18) kg (Table 1). GFR inulin was 51.54 (33.8) mL/min/1.73m2, GFR MDRD was 48.35 (31.5) mL/min/1.73m2, GFR CKD-EPI creatinine was 52.61 (34.39) mL/min/1.73m2, GFR cystatin C was 41.39 (30.02) mL/min/1.73 m2, and GFR CKD cystatin C and creatinine was 45.0 (30.9) mL/min/1.73 m2 (Table 2). Comparison of estimated GFR by the predictive equations with GFR measured by inulin clearance (a highly accurate measure of GFR), under the subsets of age, gender, BMI, CKD and kidney transplant are shown in Table 2. In contrast to other predictive equations, eGFR CKD-EPI creatinine was closer to the inulin clearance and the difference between GFR inulin and eGFR CKD-EPI creatinine was statistically insignificant in all CKD patients, and in transplant patients, as well as by gender, age, and BMI. The MDRD equation appeared to underestimate GFR. Table 3 shows the correlation of GFR measured by inulin clearance with predictive equations. MDRD and CKD-EPI creatinine were less advantageous compared with CKD-EPI cystatin C and CKD-EPI cystatin-creatinine. Figure 1 shows the linear relationship between inulin clearance and CKD-EPI creatinine (y=0.9537x + 1.367, r2=0.9391). Figure 2 shows the linear relationship between the MDRD formula and inulin clearance (y=1.0464x + 0.9481, r2=0.95). The Bland-Altman plot and regression analysis was performed to compare the relative performance of all the predictive equations by comparing with GFR measured by inulin clearance. When the difference in GFR values by the inulin clearance versus each of the four methods was compared with the null hypothesis of no difference (zero), the difference between GFR by inulin clearance versus three methods (MDRD formula, CKD-EPI cystatin and CKD cystatin-creatinine) were statistically significant. With the CKD-EPI creatinine method, the difference was not statistically significant compared with the values by the inulin clearance method. This indicates significant agreement between inulin clearance and the CKD-EPI creatinine methods. The Bland-Altman plot also showed a bias of 1.07 with 95% confidence interval (-2.05, 4.19) which indicates good agreement between inulin clearance and the CKD-EPI creatinine methods when compared the bias of other methods as shown in Table 4. The standard deviation of the precision was 8.50 and the limits of agreement of these two methods are −15.60, 17.74. From the Bland-Altman plot, the equal distribution of values around the mean indicates that the two tests produce similar results (the average difference is close to zero). To assess proportional bias, the regression between the difference of GFR between these two methods (CDK-EPI creatinine and MDRD) and the mean GFR of these two methods showed a non-significant proportional bias (b=−0.16, t=−0.35, P=.730). Table 4, Figure 3 and 4. DISCUSSION GFR estimation is mandatory for evaluation of renal function in transplanted kidney patients and in staging of CKD. Since GFR predictive equations4–6 are not perfect and their performance is affected by age, gender, ethnicity, BMI and clinical category of the patient,5 it is therefore necessary to evaluate the performance of estimated GFR predictive equations in order to determine the selection of a most appropriate simple and most applicable equation for GFR estimation in a Saudi population. In our previous study that compared the MDRD and Cockcroft-Gault serum and reciprocal serum cystatin C equations to inulin clearance, we found that MDRD had a strong correlation with inulin clearance.9 A recent study found that in a Saudi population, CKD-EPI creatinine was most appropriate, most accurate, and had less bias in estimating GFR as compared to conventional GFR estimating equations (MDRD, CKD-EPI cystatin C, and CKD-EPI cystatin C-creatinine). Other studies have also reported that the CKD-EPI creatinine equation has better performance in other ethnic populations with different clinical presentations. Levey et al showed that CKD–EPI creatinine is more accurate, precise and had less bias compared with urinary clearance by iothalamate.5 Wienek et al compared GFR measurement using 125I-iothalamate to determine the performance of CKD-EPI, MDRD and Cockcroft-Gault. It appeared that absolute bias for all the predictive equations was influenced by both gender and age. They also reported that CKD-EPI creatinine gave the best estimation of GFR although its accuracy was close to that of the MDRD.4 Kilbride et al measured GFR in an elderly European population using iohexol clearance and compared it to predictive equations. They concluded that the CKD-EPI creatinine equation appeared to be have less bias and was more accurate than the MDRD equation. They also reported that the CKD-EPI creatinine equation is suitable in older people as in younger people of European ancestry.10 In the present study, the other predictive equations underestimated GFR in all patients and in clinical subsets of CKD, transplant, GFR categories, different ages, and BMI groups. This finding has an important implication in that predictive equations other than CKD-EPI might be misinterpreted and increase the risk of a false positive distribution of CKD among the Saudi population. The accuracy of CKD-EPI has an important implication for public health and clinical practice and can even replace other predictive equations for estimation of GFR in Saudi adults. Another study have also reported an underestimation of GFR by MDRD equation.11 Cater et al estimated GFR in an adult UK population and found a higher eGFR by CKD-EPI, particularly among patients 18–59 years old as compared to the MDRD equation.12 Lujan et al reported that the GFR MDRD equation predicted a lower GFR than CKD-EPI creatinine in a comparison of 85 living kidney donors using non-radiolabeled iothalmate clearance.13 In contrast to our result, the study by Veronese et al of South Brazilian patients showed that CKD–EPI GFR underestimated GFR for GFR >60 and had low accuracy. Their explanation was that the population was of mixed ethnicity with a predominance of Germans, Italians, Portuguese, Spanish, along with native Indians and African blacks.14 Mixed ethnicity may have uniquely affected creatinine production and the performance of estimated GFR formulas. In the present study, the CKD-EPI cystatin C and creatinine equation had maximum bias compared with the CKD-EPI and MDRD. This is in agreement with Liu et al who reported that the bias of the CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation was greater than with other equations.15 However, they suggested that the CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation is suitable for an elderly Chinese population. The present study has shown that the value of GFR in renal transplant patients using the CKD-EPI creatinine equation was more accurate and closer to measured GFR by inulin clearance and had less bias than the other equations. In contrast to our findings, the study of Masson et al16 and Uwe et al,17 found that the CKD-EPI creatinine equation did not provide a better GFR prediction in renal transplant patients compared with the MDRD study equation even in the earlier CKD stages in Caucasian patients. However, our findings are consistent with the findings of White et al18 who studied 207 stable kidney transplanted patients using the plasma clearance of (99m)Tc-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid and compared to the GFR equation. They showed that CKD-EPI creatinine improved the GFR in renal transplant and that CKD-EPI can replace MDRD. The present study is the first comprehensive study from the region using inulin clearance to compare with GFR estimated by predictive equations. Furthermore, we have evaluated the performance of different predictive equations in several subsets of clinical conditions like renal transplant, chronic kidney disease, BMI, age, and gender, which were lacking in previous studies from the region. However, the present study had a small sample size and we did not include comorbid diseases like diabetes, HCV, and other co-morbidities as well as old age >80 years. In conclusion, we conclude that the CKD-EPI creatinine equation is more accurate, precise and less biased in the estimation of GFR in a Saudi population and in all subgroups such as age, stages of CKD and transplanted patients. GFR predicted by MDRD was second after CKD-EPI creatinine while other predictive equations such as CKD-EPI cystatin C, and CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin were inferior to CKD-EPI creatinine and MDRD formula in accuracy and precision. Acknowledgments I would like to give special thanks to Dr. Shaffi Ahamed and to Mr. Amir Marzouk for their immense effort and assistance in the statistical analysis of the study. Figure 1 Correlation of eGFR determined by CKD EPI creatinine and GFR measured by inulin clearance. Figure 2 eGFR determined by MDRD and GFR measured by inulin clearance. Figure 3 Bland-Altman plots comparing the GFR calculated by MDRD with the GFR measured by the inulin clearance. Figure 4 Bland and Altman plot comparing the GFR calculated by the CKD-EPI creatinine formula with the GFR measured by inulin clearance. Table 1 The clinical characteristics of study participants. Variable Mean (SD) Range Age 42.26 (15.45) 19–74 Male 19 Height (cm) 160.58 (10.6) 134–178 Weight (kg) 68.76 (18) 42.6–131.7 BSA (m2) 1.73 (0.23) 1.35–2.5 Serum creatinine (ml/min/1.73 m2) 199.8 (164.15) 51–815 BSA-body surface area. Table 2 Mean and standard deviation for GFR by inulin clearance compared with estimated GFR by predictive equations in different subsets. Mean (SD) Inulin Clearance CKD-EPI creatinine MDRD CKD-EPI cystatin C CKD-EPI cystatin C and creatinine Mean (SD) P value Mean (SD) P value Mean (SD) P value Mean (SD) P value Total patients 51.54 (33.8) 52.61 (34.39) .490 48.35 (31.5) .028 41.39 (30.02) .002 45.03 (30.9) .004 CKD patients (23) 46.3 (35.6) 47.6 (35.9) .499 44.2 (33.4) .22 41.43 (33.9) .220 43.3 (34.6) .094 Transplant patients (8) 66.6 (23.7) 67 (26.5) .874 60.25 (23.2) .025 41.25 (15.4) .013 50 (17.5) .014 Male patients (n=19) 58.5 (32.8) 58.3 (34.8) .9 53.5 (31) .008 42.21 (26.11) .001 47.7 (28.4) .001 Female patients (n=12) 40.6 (34) 43.6 (33) .213 40.2 (31.6) .88 40 (36) .823 40.75 (35.5) .937 <40 years (n=12) 60.5 (35) 64.8 (36) .202 58.5 (33) .459 50.58 (28.2) .122 55.08 (29.9) .195 40–60 years (n=14) 48 (35.6) 47.6 (35.7) .736 44 (33) .032 37.6 (34) .042 41 (39.3) .041 >60 years (n=5) 39.6 (25) 37.2 (18) .538 36.0 (16.3) .427 29.8 (17.9) .003 32.2 (18.4) .007 BMI <30 kg/m2 (n=23) 52.6 (35) 53.8 (36) .423 49.7 (34) .03 39.87 (29.06) .003 44.7 (31.8) .007 BMI ≥30kg/m2 (n=8) 48.5 (31.8) 49 (28.06) .907 44.38 (24.4) .363 45.75 (34.3) .482 45.8 (30.5) .375 Units are mL/min/1.73 m2. Table 3 Correlation between glomerular filtration rate equations and inulin clearance test in various clinical subgroups. Patient’s category GFR CKD-EPI-creatinine vs. GFR Inulin GFR MDRD vs. GFR Inulin GFR cystatin vs. GFR Inulin GFR CKD cystatin creatinine vs. GFR Inulin Kidney transplant 0.963 0.964 0.442 0.793 .001 .001 .132 .009 CKD patients 0.968 0.975 0.946 0.973 .001 .001 .001 .001 Male 0.968 0.976 0.822 0.928 .001 .001 .001 .001 Females 0.972 0.974 0.978 0.984 .001 .001 .001 .001 Age <40 years 0.952 0.966 0.811 0.924 .001 .001 .001 .001 Age >60 years 0.979 0.985 0.993 0.989 .001 .001 .001 .001 BMI <30 (kg/m2) 0.980 0.986 0.853 0.934 .001 .001 .001 .001 BMI >30 (kg/m2) 0.932 0.942 0.953 0.969 .001 .001 .001 .001 Overall 0.969 0.975 0.863 0.939 .001 .001 .001 .001 Age 40–60 years 0.990 0.986 0.877 0.944 .001 .001 .001 .001 Values are ml/min/1.73 m2. Table 4 Performance of predictive equations for estimation of GFR in relation to GFR measured by inulin. Category Mean GFR (SD) Mean difference 95% CI for bias SD of bias precision Limits of agreement GFR inulin 51.54 (33.8) MDRD 48.35 (33.7) −3.2 −6.02 to 0.32 7.71 −18.3, 11.92 CKD-EPIcreatinine 52.6 (34.4) −1.1 −2.05 to 4.19 8.5 −15.6, 17.76 Cystatin C 41.4 (30) −10.2 −16.4 to 3.89 17.1 −43.66, 23.35 CKD cystatin creatinine 45.03 (30.9) −6.5 −10.78 to 2.24 11.6 −29.33, 16.3 Values are ml/min/1.73 m2. ==== Refs REFERENCES 1 Levey AS Atkins R Coresh J Cohen EP Collins AJ Eckardt KU Chronic kidney disease as a global public health problem: Approaches and initiatives – a position statement from Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes Kidney Int 2007 8 72 3 247 59 17568785 2 Hajhosseiny R Khavandi K Goldsmith DJ Cardiovascular disease in chronic kidney disease: untying the Gordian knot Int J Clin Pract 2013 1 67 1 14 31 22780692 3 Bostom AG Kronenberg F Ritz E Predictive performance of renal function equations for patients with chronic kidney disease and normal serum creatinine levels J Am Soc Nephrol 2002 8 13 8 2140 4 12138147 4 Michels WM Grootendorst DC Verduijn M Elliott EG Dekker FW Krediet RT Performance of the Cockcroft-Gault, MDRD, and new CKD-EPI formulas in relation to GFR, age, and body size Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2010 6 5 6 1003 9 20299365 5 Levey AS Stevens LA Schmid CH Zhang YL Castro AF 3rd Feldman HI A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate Ann Intern Med 2009 5 5 150 9 604 12 19414839 6 Jones GR Use of the CKD-EPI equation for estimation of GFR in an Australian cohort Pathology 2010 42 5 487 8 20632832 7 Alsuwaida AO Farag YM Al Sayyari AA Mousa D Alhejaili F Al-Harbi A Epidemiology of chronic kidney disease in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (SEE K-Saudi investigators) - a pilot study Saudi J Kidney D is Transpl 2010 11 21 6 1066 72 8 National Kidney Foundation K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification Am J Kidney Dis 2002 2 39 2 Suppl 1 S1 266 11904577 9 Al Wakeel JS Hammad D Al Suwaida A Tarif N Chaudhary A Isnani A Validation of predictive equations for glomerular filtration rate in the Saudi population Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 2009 11 20 6 1030 7 19861866 10 Kilbride HS Stevens PE Eaglestone G Knight S Carter JL Delaney MP Accuracy of the MDRD (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease) study and CKD-EPI (CKD Epidemiology Collaboration) equations for estimation of GFR in the elderly Am J Kidney Dis 2013 1 61 1 57 66 22889713 11 Matsushita K Mahmoodi BK Woodward M Emberson JR Jafar TH Jee SH Comparison of risk prediction using the CKD-EPI equation and the MDRD study equation for estimated glomerular filtration rate JAMA 2012 5 9 307 18 1941 51 22570462 12 Carter JL Stevens PE Irving JE Lamb EJ Estimating glomerular filtration rate: comparison of the CKD-EPI and MDRD equations in a large UK cohort with particular emphasis on the effect of age QJM 2011 10 104 10 839 47 21652537 13 Lujan PR Chiurchiu C Douthat W de Arteaga J de la Fuente J Capra RH CKD-EPI instead of MDRD for candidates to kidney donation Transplantation 2012 9 27 94 6 637 41 22918217 14 Veronese FV Gomes EC Chanan J Carraro MA Camargo EG Soares AA Performance of CKD EPI equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate as compared to MDRD equation in South Brazilian individuals in each stage of renal function Clin Chem Lab Med 2014 12 52 12 1747 54 24940711 15 Liu X Xu H Zheng Z Wang C Cheng C Shi C Estimating glomerular filtration rates in elderly Chinese patients with chronic kidney disease: performance of sixmodified formulae developed in Asian populations Clin Interv Aging 2013 8 899 904 23901265 16 Masson I Flamant M Maillard N Rule AD Vrtovsnik F Peraldi MN MDRD versus CKD-EPI equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate in kidney transplant recipients Transplantation 2013 5 27 95 10 1211 7 23511243 17 Pöge U Gerhardt T Stoffel-Wagner B Sauerbruch T Woitas RP Validation of the CKD-EPI formula in patients after renal transplantation Nephrol Dial Transplant 2011 12 26 12 4104 8 21551088 18 White CA Akbari A Doucette S Fergusson D Knoll GA Estimating glomerular filtration rate in kidney transplantation: is the new chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration equation any better? Clin Chem 2010 3 56 3 474 7 19959620