Does Egfr by Any Number Mean the Same?
Donald E. Wesson, M.D.
Wesson, D. E. (2019). “Does Egfr by Any Number Mean the Same?” J Am Soc Nephrol 30(10): 1806-1807.
The development of a consensus strategy for classification and stratification of CKD was a major advance for clinicians managing individuals with CKD, for individuals with CKD under their care, and for those at CKD risk. This strategy allowed for the development of CKD stage–guided practice guidelines governed by level of remaining GFR and degree, if any, of kidney injury determined by urine indices, such as albuminuria. An individual’s stage helped determine whether and if so, how clinicians would investigate them for the cause of reduced eGFR and/or underlying kidney injury. This staging system subsequently allowed investigators to help predict outcomes, including mortality, according to stage and therefore, help guide the approach to individuals with CKD. Our evolving understanding of the contributors to GFR as well as CKD and its progression prompts the kidney community to consider if we need to modify this comparatively recent classification and stratification system. For example, individual race/ethnicity factors into the eGFR calculation,4 and some question the appropriateness of this inclusion.5 Do different eGFRs derived for individuals with different race/ethnicity mean that the different derived eGFRs indicate different outcomes for individuals with identical parameters except for race/ethnicity? However, does the generally lower eGFR of individuals habitually eating a primarily vegetarian diet6 predict the same outcome as the identical eGFR in individuals habitually eating a primarily meat-based diet? Relatedly, is progressive nephron loss of aging7 a consequence of “healthy” aging or due, at least in part, to the comparatively high meat content of diets typical of developed societies? If progressive nephron loss is indeed a consequence of healthy aging, does the lower eGFR of a healthy aged individual indicate the same outcome(s) as the identical lower eGFR in a younger individual? These and possibly, other insights question whether our CKD classification system should evolve to help clinicians better assess the consequence(s) of a given lower eGFR through the lens of its cause and context. In a perspectives article in this issue of JASN, Delanaye et al. propose that “the CKD definition be amended to include age-specific thresholds for GFR.” (Excerpt from text of this commentary on Delanaye P, et al.: Chronic kidney disease: Call for an age-adapted definition, in this same issue of Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.)