Division of Nephrology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Department of Medicine, Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and University of California, San Francisco, California; and.
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2020 Aug 7;15(8):1203-1212. doi: 10.2215/CJN.12791019. Epub 2020 May 11.
Assessment of GFR is central to clinical practice, research, and public health. Current Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes guidelines recommend measurement of serum creatinine to estimate GFR as the initial step in GFR evaluation. Serum creatinine is influenced by creatinine metabolism as well as GFR; hence, all equations to estimate GFR from serum creatinine include surrogates for muscle mass, such as age, sex, race, height, or weight. The guideline-recommended equation in adults (the 2009 Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration creatinine equation) includes a term for race (specified as black versus nonblack), which improves the accuracy of GFR estimation by accounting for differences in non-GFR determinants of serum creatinine by race in the study populations used to develop the equation. In that study, blacks had a 16% higher average measured GFR compared with nonblacks with the same age, sex, and serum creatinine. The reasons for this difference are only partly understood, and the use of race in GFR estimation has limitations. Some have proposed eliminating the race coefficient, but this would induce a systematic underestimation of measured GFR in blacks, with potential unintended consequences at the individual and population levels. We propose a more cautious approach that maintains and improves accuracy of GFR estimates and avoids disadvantaging any racial group. We suggest full disclosure of use of race in GFR estimation, accommodation of those who decline to identify their race, and shared decision making between health care providers and patients. We also suggest mindful use of cystatin C as a confirmatory test as well as clearance measurements. It would be preferable to avoid specification of race in GFR estimation if there was a superior, evidence-based substitute. The goal of future research should be to develop more accurate methods for GFR estimation that do not require use of race or other demographic characteristics.
肾小球滤过率(GFR)的评估是临床实践、研究和公共卫生的核心。目前的肾脏病改善全球结果指南建议测量血清肌酐来估计 GFR,作为 GFR 评估的初始步骤。血清肌酐受肌酐代谢和 GFR 的影响;因此,所有从血清肌酐估计 GFR 的方程都包括肌肉质量的替代物,如年龄、性别、种族、身高或体重。成人指南推荐的方程(2009 年慢性肾脏病流行病学合作肌酐方程)包括一个种族项(指定为黑人与非黑人),通过考虑到用于开发该方程的研究人群中种族对血清肌酐非 GFR 决定因素的差异,提高了 GFR 估计的准确性。在该研究中,与具有相同年龄、性别和血清肌酐的非黑人相比,黑人的平均实测 GFR 高出 16%。造成这种差异的原因尚不完全清楚,并且 GFR 估计中使用种族存在局限性。有人提议消除种族系数,但这将导致黑人实测 GFR 的系统性低估,在个体和人群层面可能产生意想不到的后果。我们提出了一种更为谨慎的方法,既可以维持和提高 GFR 估计的准确性,又可以避免使任何种族群体处于不利地位。我们建议充分披露 GFR 估计中使用种族的情况,容纳那些拒绝识别自己种族的人,并在医疗保健提供者和患者之间进行共同决策。我们还建议明智地使用胱抑素 C 作为确认试验以及清除率测量。如果有更好的、基于证据的替代方法,最好避免在 GFR 估计中指定种族。未来研究的目标应该是开发更准确的 GFR 估计方法,而不依赖种族或其他人口统计学特征。