Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510630, China ; College of Biology Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China.
Department of Laboratory Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Int J Endocrinol. 2014;2014:521071. doi: 10.1155/2014/521071. Epub 2014 Mar 5.
Objectives. To evaluate eight modified equations developed in Asiatic populations in type 2 diabetic patients in China. Methods. A total of 209 Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited. Using the technetium-99m diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid-glomerular filtration rate (GFR) to act as the reference, comparisons of their efficiency to estimate GFR in the subjects were made between various equations. Results. Median of difference of the Chinese equation 1 was the lowest (median of difference, 0.51 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). Median percent of absolute difference of the Chinese equation 2 was less than those of the other equations (26.97 versus ranged from 32.54 to 37.61 mL/min/1.73 m(2), [P < 0.001 for all]). Precision of the simplified reexpressed MDRD equation was the best (92.9 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). Accuracies of the Chinese equation 2 were greater (P < 0.05 for all). There was also an improvement in chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage misclassification of the Chinese equation 2 (55.0 versus ranged from 61.2 to 64.6%, [P < 0.001 for all]). However, the 30% accuracies of all the equations were less than 70%. Conclusions. Our study highlighted a limitation in the use of the above equations in the majority of Chinese diabetic subjects. A better equation is needed in order to give an accurate estimation of GFR in type 2 diabetic patients in China.
目的。评估在中国 2 型糖尿病患者中开发的 8 种亚洲人群改良方程。
方法。共纳入 209 名中国 2 型糖尿病患者。使用锝-99m 二乙三胺五乙酸肾小球滤过率（GFR）作为参考，比较各方程在受试者中的 GFR 估计效率。
结果。中国方程 1 的差异中位数最低（差异中位数为 0.51 mL/min/1.73 m²）。中国方程 2 的绝对差异中位数百分比小于其他方程（26.97%，范围为 32.54%至 37.61%，均<0.001）。简化重表达 MDRD 方程的精度最高（92.9 mL/min/1.73 m²）。中国方程 2 的准确性更高（均<0.05）。中国方程 2 的 CKD 分期错误分类也有所改善（55.0%，范围为 61.2%至 64.6%，均<0.001）。然而，所有方程的 30%准确性均低于 70%。
结论。我们的研究强调了在大多数中国糖尿病患者中使用上述方程的局限性。需要更好的方程来准确估计中国 2 型糖尿病患者的 GFR。
