BackgroundPrevious studies have proposed different formulas of estimating glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) among clinical patients. The comprehensive comparison of eGFR formulas is not well... Show moreBackgroundPrevious studies have proposed different formulas of estimating glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) among clinical patients. The comprehensive comparison of eGFR formulas is not well established in a Japanese population. We compared eGFR values and chronic kidney disease (CKD) classification of nine different eGFR in a Japanese general population sample.MethodsWe analyzed 469 Japanese community-dwelling adults (184 men) without any self-reported kidney disease. GFR estimated using the 4- and 6-parameter Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) formulas (MDRD4 and MDRD6); the CKD-EPI formulas based on creatinine with (CKD-EPI-2009) and without race coefficient (CKD-EPI-2021), on cystatin C (CKD-EPI-Cys), on both (CKD-EPI-CreCys); the Japanese creatinine-based formula (JPN-Cre), cystatin C-based formula (JPN-Cys), and modified CKD-EPI formula (JPN-CKD-EPI). CKD stages were defined by KDIGO guidelines (eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2).ResultseGFRJPN-Cre (mean = 71.2; SD = 14.3) were much lower than eGFRCKD-EPI-2021 (mean = 94.2; SD = 12.7), while eGFRJPN-Cys (mean = 102.8; SD = 24.2) was comparable to the MDRD and CKD-EPI formulas. The difference between eGFRCKD-EPI-2021 and eGFRJPN-Cre showed a V-shaped distribution across eGFR levels, indicating complex errors between these formulas. We observed very low agreement in CKD classification between eGFRJPN-Cre and the eGFRCKD-EPI-2021 (kappa = 0.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.06, 0.23).ConclusionsJPN-Cre was substantially different from the CKD-EPI formula without race term (CKD-EPI-2021), which means that it is impossible to recalibrate those with a simple coefficient. Although a comparison with measured GFR should be necessary, choice of the estimation method needs caution in clinical decision-making and academic research. Show less
