Creatinineor cystatin Cbased equations to estimate glomerular filtration in the general population: impact on the epidemiology of chronic kidney disease
 Pierre Delanaye^{1}Email author,
 Etienne Cavalier^{2},
 Olivier Moranne^{3},
 Laurence Lutteri^{2},
 JeanMarie Krzesinski^{1} and
 Olivier Bruyère^{4}
DOI: 10.1186/147123691457
© Delanaye et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013
Received: 20 November 2012
Accepted: 4 March 2013
Published: 12 March 2013
Abstract
Background
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major issue in public health. Its prevalence has been calculated using estimation of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) by the creatininebased equations developed in the Modified Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKDEPI) study. Recently, new equations based either on cystatin C (CKDEPI Cys) or both cystatin and creatinine (CKDEPI mix) have been proposed by the CKDEPI consortium. The aim of this study was to measure the difference in the prevalence of stage 3 CKD, defined as an estimated GFR less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m^{2}, in a population using these four equations.
Methods
CKD screening was performed in the Province of Liège, Belgium. On a voluntary basis, people aged over 50 years have been screened. GFR was estimated by the four equations. Stage 3 CKD was defined as a GFR less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m^{2}.
Results
The population screened consisted of 4189 people (47% were men, mean age 63 ± 7y). Their mean serum creatinine and plasma cystatin C levels were 0.88 ± 0.21 mg/dL and 0.85 ± 0.17 mg/L, respectively. The prevalence of CKD in this population using the MDRD, the CKDEPI, the CKDEPI Cys and the CKDEPI mix equations was 13%, 9.8%, 4.7% and 5%, respectively. The prevalence of CKD was significantly higher with the creatininebased (MDRD and the CKDEPI) equations compared to the new cystatin Cbased equations.
Conclusions
Prevalence of CKD varies strongly depending on the method used to estimate GFR. Such discrepancies are of importance and must be confirmed and explained by additional studies, notably by studies using GFR measured with a reference method.
Trial registration
Keywords
Creatinine Cystatin C Chronic kidney disease Glomerular filtration rateBackground
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is frequently presented as a major public health issue, because a prevalence as high as 10% has been described in the general population of Western Countries [1, 2]. In addition, CKD is associated with a high mortality risk [3–5]. In this context, prevention and screening of CKD could be of importance, even if definitive proof of the benefits of such CKD screening is still lacking [6–8]. Disease screening requires the use of a diagnostic tool with high sensitivity and specificity. Measuring both glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and proteinuria are key elements to estimate the global function of the kidneys [9]. In this article, we will focus on the determination of GFR. Because measuring GFR may be costly and cumbersome, several authors have proposed creatininebased equations to improve GFR estimation. The Modified Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) study and the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration study (CKDEPI) equations are used to estimate CKD prevalence in epidemiological studies [10, 11]. For example, according to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) performed in the USA, the prevalence of stage 3 CKD (defined as an estimated GFR (eGFR) less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m^{2}) was 6.3% and 7.8% using either the CKDEPI or MDRD study equation, respectively [1, 11]. However, there are several limitations to the use of serum creatininebased equations. There are reasons to believe that both equations overestimate the real prevalence of CKD because they underestimate the measured GFR (mGFR) [12].
Plasma cystatin C is a relatively new marker of GFR. Cystatin C seems to have most of the characteristics of a good biomarker of GFR [13–15]. Several equations based on plasma cystatin C level have been created to estimate GFR [16]. However, these equations have been developed by the use of a limited sample of test subjects and have been poorly validated [13, 15]. There is also concern because of the lack of standardized calibration for the measurement of the plasma level of cystatin C [17–21]. Now, a standardized calibration is available [22] and the CKDEPI consortium has recently proposed equations (based on cystatin C alone or combined with creatinine) to better estimate GFR [23]. It is thus now possible to compare the prevalence of stage 3 CKD with the MDRD and CKDEPI study equations to its prevalence based on the new cystatin Cbased equations, namely the CKDEPI based on cystatin C alone (CKDEPI Cys) and CKDEPI based on creatinine and cystatin C (CKDEPI mix).
Methods
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of our University Hospital (Comité d’Ethique HospitaloFacultaire Universitaire de Liège). The Belgian registration number is B70720071509. This prospective study was performed in the context of the CKD screening program organized by the Department of Health of the Province of Liège. This province is one of the ten provinces in Belgium. Its area is 3862 km^{2} and its population in 2005 was 1,037,161 inhabitants. The CKD screening is enabled by a medical bus that travels through the 84 communes of the province. Between June 2008 and March 2010, 112,000 subjects without any other restriction that being aged between 40 and 75 years were invited through a personal letter to participate in a CKD screening. All individuals wanting to voluntary participate had to register and make an appointment by giving a phone call to the Department of Health of the Province of Liège. The time slot to visit the screening bus was from 9 am to 7.45 pm so that active working people could participate. We arbitrary limited our analysis to subjects older than 50 years. All patients have signed informed consent. Blood samples and anthropometric data were collected and a short interview was done. Between June 2008 and March 2010, frozen blood samples were sent to the Clinical Chemistry laboratory of the University of Liège where they were immediately thawed and assayed. Serum creatinine was measured by the IDMS traceable compensated Jaffe method (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) on Modular apparatus. Cystatin C was measured by a particleenhanced nephelometric immunoassay (PENIA) on the BNII nephelometer (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Marburg, Germany). The assay was not calibrated against the international certified reference material ERMDA471/IFCC for cystatin C but values were multiplied by 1.11 as recommended by the manufacturer (customer notification November 18, 2010) to convert them to ERMDA471/IFCC–equivalent concentrations [22, 24]. Our university laboratory is currently accredited for the ISO 15189 Standard.
Diabetes mellitus was defined as glycosylated hemoglobin greater than 48 mmoL/moL or selfreported diabetes. Hypertension was defined as measured systolic blood pressure by oscillometric method of 140 mm Hg or greater, diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or greater or selfreported hypertension. Smoking status was selfreported.
The four equations analyzed in the study are shown in (Additional file 1: Table S1). Stage 3 CKD was defined as eGFR less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m^{2}[9].
The data were anonymously analyzed. All results are expressed as mean ± SD. The percentage of CKD patients obtained with the four equations was compared with the McNemar test (paired samples). Agreement or reliability between GFR estimations was assessed by Cohen’s kappa statistics to discriminate GFR greater and less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m^{2} (only two possible categories) [25]. A kappa value of 0.20 or less was considered slight agreement; 0.21–0.40, fair agreement; 0.41–0.60, moderate agreement; 0.61–0.80, substantial agreement; and 0.81–1.00, almost perfect agreement. We compared the results of the four GFR estimations by paired sample ttest. The validity between eGFR was studied with estimation of the bias, SD (i.e. precision) and with a graphical approach (i.e. Bland et Altman) [26]. In these analyses, we have arbitrarily chosen the creatininebased equation results as the reference value. Because no equation can be considered as the perfect reference, we have only considered the absolute bias (with neither positive nor negative sign). Bias between equations has been defined as the absolute mean of the differences. The SD around the mean reflect the dispersion of the equations.
Because performance of the equations and epidemiology of CKD are well known to be influenced by age, we performed analyses according to 10 years age bracket. We also repeated the analyses according to gender and diabetes status.
In subgroup analyses, we focused on discrepant results between the equations regarding the stage 3 CKD diagnosis (i.e. eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m^{2}). Clinical characteristics of discrepant subjects were compared by ttest and Chi square test. In all statistical data, we used p < 0.05 to determine statistical significance. All analyses were performed using MedCalc® (MedCalc Software, Mariakerke, Belgium).
Results
Anthropometrical and biological description of the population
N = 4189  Mean  SD  Range 

Age (years)  63  7  50–96 
% men (%)  46.7  
Weight (Kg)  75  15  31–156 
Height (cm)  167  9  102–197 
BMI (Kg/m^{2})  27  5  13–60 
Diabetes (%)  11.9%  
Hypertension (%)  47.2%  
Current smoking  18.2%  
Creatinine (mg/dL)  0.89  0.21  
Cystatin C (mg/L)  0.85  0.17  
MDRD (mL/min/1.73 m^{2})  78  17  
CKDEPI (mL/min/1.73 m^{2})  81  15  
CKDEPI Cys (mL/min/1.73 m^{2})  92  17  
CKDEPI mix (mL/min/1.73 m^{2})  88  16 
Prevalence (%) of CKD stages according to the equations used
MDRD  CKDEPI  CKDEPI Cys  CKDEPI Mix  

All (n = 4189)  13  9.8  4.7  5 
>90 mL/min/1.73 m^{2}  22.1  33  63.2  48.9 
60–89 mL/min/1.73 m^{2}  64.8  57.2  32  46.1 
30–59 mL/min/1.73 m^{2}  12.9  9.6  4.5  4.8 
<30 mL/min/1.73 m^{2}  0.2  0.3  0.2  0.2 
Concordance analyses
Kappa coefficients between the equations. 95% confidence intervals are shown between brackets
MDRD  CKDEPI  CKDEPI Cys  CKDEPI mix  

MDRD  XXXXXXXXX  0.84 [0.81–0.86]  0.32 [028–0.36]  0.48 [0.44–0.53] 
CKDEPI  XXXXXXXXX  0.39 [0.33–0.44]  0.59 [0.55–0.64]  
CKDEPI Cys  XXXXXXXXX  0.71 [0.66–0.76]  
CKDEPI mix  XXXXXXXXX 
Absolute bias (mean difference) (bold) and precision (SD around the bias) (italic) between the equations
MDRD  CKDEPI  CKDEPI Cys  CKDEPI mix  

MDRD  XXXXXXXXX  5.8  16.3  9.8 
CKDEPI  3  XXXXXXXXX  14.2  7.3 
CKDEPI Cys  14.3  11.3  XXXXXXXXX  7.2 
CKDEPI mix  9.6  6.6  4.7  XXXXXXXXX 
Subgroups analyses according to gender, diabetic status and age
No difference was observed between stage 3 CKD prevalence according to gender when either CKDEPI Cys or CKDEPI mix were used (Additional file 1: Table S2). On the contrary, the prevalence of stage 3 CKD was significantly higher in women when the CKDEPI equation was used and even more when the MDRD study equation was considered.
We also calculated the prevalence of stage 3 CKD in diabetic patients. In these patients, the prevalence with the MDRD, CKDEPI, CKDEPI Cys and CKDEPI mix were 17.1%, 14.5%, 10.2% and 10.4%, respectively.
Prevalence of CKD according to age (age ranges of 10 years) (in %)
Whole (n = 4208)  5059 (n = 1455)  6069 (n = 1812)  7079 (n = 919)  8089 (n = 21)  

MDRD  13  6  12.9  23.7  47.6 
CKDEPI  9.8 *  3.2 *  9 *  20.8  47.6 
CKDEPI Cys  4.7 *^{$}  1 *^{$}  3.6 *^{$}  12.1 *^{$}  33.3 
CKDEPI mix  5 *^{$}  0.8 *^{$}  4.4 *^{$}  12.1 *^{$}  38.1 
Analysis of discrepant results
Percentage of discordant patients according to the two equations considered
MDRD  CKDEPI  CKDEPI Cys  CKDEPI mix  

MDRD  XXXXXXXXX  
CKDEPI  3.3% (99.98%)  XXXXXXXXX  
CKDEPI Cys  11.2% (87.1%)  8.29% (81.5%)  XXXXXXXXX  
CKDEPI mix  8.63% (96.7%)  5.58% (92.8%)  2.71% (44.7%)  XXXXXXXXX 
Characteristics of the subjects in the different subgroups
Whole  MDRD>60  MDRD<60  MDRD<60  MDRD<60  MDRD<60  MDRD>60  

CKDEPI>60  CKDEPI<60  CKDEPI>60  CKDEPI<60  CKDEPI<60  CKDEPI>60  
CKDEPI Cys>60  CKDEPI Cys<60  CKDEPI Cys>60  CKDEPI Cys>60  CKDEPI Cys>60  CKDEPI Cys<60  
CKDEPI mix>60  CKDEPI mix<60  CKDEPI mix>60  CKDEPI mix>60  CKDEPI mix<60  CKDEPI mix>60  
N  4189  3573  129  131  218  63  49 
Age (years)  63 ± 7  62 ± 7*  71 ± 6*  63 ± 7  67 ± 7*  68 ± 5*  68 ± 7 * 
Men (%)  46.7  48.2  48.1  23.7 *  40.8  28.6 *  46.9 
Weight (Kg)  75 ± 15  75 ± 15  80 ± 17*  72 ± 14*  75 ± 14  77 ± 12  82 ± 20* 
Height (cm)  167 ± 9  167 ± 9  166 ± 9  164 ± 9*  166 ± 9  165 ± 8  166 ± 9 
BMI (Kg/m^{2})  27 ± 5  27 ± 5  29 ± 5*  27 ± 4  27 ± 4  28 ± 4  30 ± 6 * 
Diabetes (%)  11.9  11.1  25.6*  8.4  11  22.2*  24.5* 
HTA (%)  47.2  45.1  72.9*  50.4  51.4  63.5*  75.5* 
Discussion
Epidemiologic studies in Western countries have shown that prevalence of stage 3 CKD, defined as a GFR less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m^{2}, is about 10% in the general population [1, 2, 11, 27]. But there are large differences between studies regarding the prevalence of CKD which can be explained not only by the population characteristics, but also by the difference in the method used to estimate GFR [2]. Most of the recent data have been obtained with the MDRD study equation using a well calibrated serum creatinine [2, 28, 29]. However, the use of this equation is not free from criticisms. We and others, have demonstrated that this equation tends to strongly underestimate GFR in healthy populations and, more generally, in patients with normal or near normal creatinine values [12, 30, 31]. Thus, the Levey’s group has recently proposed a new equation, the CKDEPI equation, which is expected to be better especially in the higher GFR range (over 60 ml/min/1.73 m^{2}). Indeed, the CKD prevalence is significantly lower according to the CKDEPI equations for the present population cohort than if the MDRD equation is used (9.8% versus 13%). Among the patients screened, 140 (3.3%) were classified as having stage 3 CKD with the MDRD study equation but not with the CKDEPI equation. This is important from an epidemiological point of view. We have thus confirmed that a higher prevalence of stage 3 CKD when the MDRD equation is used [11, 32–36]. The higher prevalence of stage 3 CKD found with the MDRD study equation compared to the prevalence observed with the newer CKDEPI equation may be explained by the systematic underestimation of GFR obtained with this first equation, especially in women [12, 30, 35, 37]. Interestingly, we confirmed that difference between the MDRD and the CKDEPI equations seems to decrease with age, notably in subjects older than 70 years [34–38]. These results may be explained by the performances of the two equations which have been showed to be very similar (or at least less different) in elderly patients [39]. Indeed, it has been shown that the MDRD equation yields systematically lower eGFR results (for a given age and creatinine level) than the CKDEPI equation except in the very old patient [35]. This is confirmed by our own data showing that all patients presenting discrepant results between MDRD and CKDEPI equations are actually positively screened only by the MDRD equation, except in one patient who was the oldest of the sample (96 years old).
In their initial CKDEPI article [11], Levey et al. have also compared prevalence of CKD in the NHANES study. If we consider the same definition of CKD (only based on eGFR), these authors have found that prevalence of CKD in the NHANES study was 10.06% with the CKDEPI equation and 14.9% with the MDRD study equation (Appendix Table 9 in [11]) in subjects aged between 60 and 69 years. The discrepancies observed between the two equations are comparable to discrepancies observed in our study.
One can conclude that the performance of the CKDEPI equation to determine the prevalence of CKD in epidemiological studies is better than the MDRD study equation [11, 32]. However, this equation is not free from criticism. The CKDEPI notably remains dependent on the limitations of serum creatinine and its precision is imperfect. Cystatin C is often presented as a better marker of kidney function, especially because its concentration is less influenced by muscular mass than serum creatinine [15]. New equations based on standardized cystatin C have been recently proposed by the CKDEPI consortium. These equations have been built and internally validated from an impressive sample (5592 subjects in the developing dataset and 1119 in the validation dataset). The authors demonstrated better performance of the equations combining creatinine and cystatin C compared to the CKDEPI equation [23]. Recent studies confirmed the good performances of the two cystatin Cbased equations in specific populations [24, 40]. This better performance is also supported by the studies that show a better estimate of mortality risk when using cystatin C compared to creatininebased equations [41, 42].
In our population of volunteers, the prevalence of stage 3 CKD is strongly discordant using creatinine or cystatin Cbased equations. Indeed, if the prevalence of CKD is as high as 13% and 9.8% using the MDRD or the CKDEPI study equations, the prevalence will decrease to 5%, for the equations based on cystatin C only or on cystatin C and creatinine. Interestingly, the seminal study on the cystatin Cbased equations published by Inker et al. showed a better performance of the CKDEPI mix equation to estimate GFR [23]. In our study, we found however no difference in the prevalence of stage 3 CKD results between the CKDEPI Cys or the CKDEPI mix. This may be related to the way the authors calibrated the cystatin C measurement, which was not unquestionable. Also, the bias of the equations influences the epidemiologic results and we note that in the CKDEPI study (Table 3 in [43]), bias of the CKDEPI Cys is similar to the bias of the CKDEPI mix equation in the range of interest for the CKD screening (i.e. around 60 mL/min/1.73 m^{2}).
In our cohort, when we considered the ability of each equation to detect CKD, kappa statistics showed very good agreement (κ = 0.84) between the CKDEPI and the MDRD equations. Agreement is still acceptable, even if lower (κ = 0.71), between the CKDEPI Cys and the CKDEPI mix. However, agreement between CKDEPI (or MDRD) and CKDEPI Cys is low (0.39 and 0.32, respectively) although agreement is slightly better between CKDEPI (and MDRD) and the CKDEPI mix equations (0.59 and 0.48, respectively). These results underlined the powerful value of each biomarker in the equations: more concordant results between equations based exclusively on creatinine (MDRD versus CKDEPI), poor concordant results between equations based on creatinine and on cystatin C only (CKDEPI or MDRD versus CKDEPI Cys), and intermediate concordance results when the mix equation is compared to others. Better concordance between the CKDEPI and the two new cystatin Cbased equations compared to the MDRD study equation is also probably explained by the mathematical construction of the equation (different exponent applied to creatinine according to creatinine level) and by the fact that the MDRD study equation has been developed on a very different sample [44] although the three other equations have been developed from comparable cohorts [11, 23].
Bias and precision results must be interpreted with caution in our study. Indeed, the systematic difference between the MDRD and the CKDEPI equations seems low (3 mL/min/1.73 m^{2}). It can be suggested from Figure 1 that this bias is however very dependent on the GFR level. The systematic difference between the MDRD and the CKDEPI equations increases with increasing GFR values especially at high values. Comparing the three CKDEPI equations, we also found a positive correlation between the difference in equations and the mean of the two equations, which means that the differences between equations slightly increase with eGFR levels. This correlation is however low (r^{2} between 0.02 and 0.04, p < 0.001) and linear although a clear non linear relationship with a knot joinpoint around X = 80 mL/min/1.73 m^{2} does exist when MDRD is compared to CKDEPI and CKDEPI Mix. This fact also means that discrepancies between the MDRD and the CKDEPI are systematic and almost in the same direction, i.e. MDRD giving a positive screening result and CKDEPI giving a negative one. Such a systematic deduction cannot be done when discrepancies are found between the CKDEPI Cys and the CKDEPI mix equations.
The prevalence of stage 3 CKD may be higher in women if the CKDEPI, and especially if the MDRD study equation is used [2, 11]. Contrary to the CKDEPI and the MDRD study equations, the prevalence of stage 3 CKD with the cystatin Cbased equations is the same in both men and women. In the absence of mGFR, this discrepancy in results according to gender cannot be explained. Regarding the underestimation of women’s GFR by the MDRD equation [30], the higher prevalence of stage 3 CKD in women must be interpreted with caution. Differences in prevalence of CKD according to gender observed between the three CKDEPI equations deserve further studies.
Diabetes is a wellknown risk factor associated with CKD. As expected, CKD prevalence was higher in diabetic patients than in nondiabetic patients. Interestingly, the difference between the prevalences with creatininebased versus the cystatin Cbased equations appears less important than in the general population. Once again, in the absence of measured GFR, we can only describe such differences. Moreover, we must be careful in our interpretation of this result, as diabetic patients have also different clinical characteristics than nondiabetics, like a higher mean BMI.
CKD prevalence is also greatly influenced by age. As expected, we observed an increasing prevalence of stage 3 CKD according to age [2, 23, 37, 45, 46]. At every age range, the prevalence of stage 3 CKD remains significantly lower with the CKDEPI Cys and the CKDEPI mix, except in the higher age category but results must be interpreted with caution due to the low sample number.
It is useful to analyze the characteristics of patients with discrepant results. Generally, concordant results for the 4 equations were found in 3702 subjects (88%). If we based our CKD definition on eGFR less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m^{2} with all four equations, the prevalence of stage 3 CKD would be 3.1%. Our first comment must be emphasized: a perfect concordance between all four equations does not necessarily mean that the results of these equations are correct. Indeed, in the absence of mGFR, it remains possible that all four equations misclassified the patients. The same argument must be applied in the following discussion on discrepant subjects. In 131 subjects, the discrepant result is the positive screening with the MDRD study equation. As already discussed, there is little doubt that the MDRD effectively underestimates GFR and thus yields a substantial proportion of false positive screening results. The most numerous discrepant patients are those with a positive screening result with the creatininebased equations (MDRD and CKDEPI) but with a negative screening result with the two cystatin Cbased equations. These 218 patients are slightly older compared to the general population (67 ± 7 y versus 63 ± 7 y). Because mGFR is not really known, such a discrepancy remains difficult to explain. However, this last result could be interpreted in the light of recent studies suggesting that the combined creatinine and cystatinC based equations better estimate GFR in the elderly subject [24, 45]. Moreover, it must be underlined that the proportion of diabetic and hypertensive subjects was the same in the whole population. The positive screening result using cystatin Cbased equations could thus be the most accurate, especially in the elderly [46]. In 63 patients, the CKDEPI Cys was the only one to give a negative screening result. These subjects were slightly older and more often women (71.4%). On the contrary, the CKDEPI Cys is the only equation to give a positive screening result in 49 subjects. These subjects were older and had a higher BMI. Once again, in the absence of mGFR, we can only note the discrepancies without asserting which equation actually gives the better results. The possible influence of body mass index on cystatin C levels deserves future study [47]. Further studies are actually important in these discrepant patients who are also more frequently hypertensive and diabetic.
There are several limitations to our study. First, the main limitation is linked to the fact that we have not measured GFR with a reference method. Therefore, even if we have indirect arguments to affirm that the CKDEPI and MDRD equations overestimate the prevalence of CKD, such an assertion is conclusive only if a reference method to measure GFR is used. In our cohort, we can only identify clinical characteristics of discrepant patients. In the same vein, our Jaffe assay has lesser precision than enzymatic assays, although IDMS traceable. Second, our population may not be representative of the Belgian population because only volunteers were included. We actually noted a higher proportion of hypertension and diabetes than expected in the general population. Therefore, our results are not generally applicable for epidemiological considerations but more of an illustration of potential discrepancies in the CKD epidemiology due to difference in estimating GFR [21, 32]. Third, we have no data on the ethnicity. As the ethnicity factor for each equation is different, this could be source of bias. But in the Province of Liège, Caucasians are by far the dominant ethnic group. Therefore, it is doubtful that the differences observed in our study are due to ethnic factors. Fourth, as in several epidemiological studies, our subjects have been tested only one time. A strict definition of CKD requires that two or three samples confirm the first result after at least three months [9]. With this correct definition, CKD prevalence would likely still be lower [48–52]. Last, we have defined stage 3 CKD as a GFR less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m^{2}. The definition of CKD is however subject to debate and we have recently questioned this definition, notably in elderly population [31, 37, 46].
Conclusions
The present study has illustrated large discrepancies for the prevalence of stage 3 CKD according to the biomarker used to estimate the GFR. Moving from strictly creatininebased equations (MDRD or CKDEPI) to cystatin Cbased or combined equations will decrease prevalence of stage 3 CKD by half, which is highly significant from an epidemiological point of view. Additional studies are thus necessary before asserting we know the true prevalence of CKD in the general population.
Abbreviations
 BMI:

Body mass index
 CKD:

Chronic kidney disease
 CKDEPI:

Chronic Kidney disease epidemiology collaboration study
 CKDEPI Cys:

CKDEPI equation based on cystatin C alone
 CKDEPI mix:

CKDEPI equation based on creatinine and cystatin C
 eGFR:

Estimated glomerular filtration rate
 GFR:

Glomerular filtration rate
 MDRD:

Modified diet in renal disease
 mGFR:

Measured glomerular filtration rate
 NHANES:

National health and nutrition examination survey
 PENIA:

Particleenhanced nephelometric immunoassay.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
We want to thank Dr Eric Cohen from Milwaukee, Mrs Fabienne Damblon and Mrs Rosalie Bonmariage for their help in the redaction of the manuscript. We want to thank Mr G. Pire, Deputy of the Health Department of the Province of Liège, and Dr Ph. Maasen. We also thank our data nurses Michèle Focan and Arnaud Borsu for their contribution.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Coresh J, Selvin E, Stevens LA, Manzi J, Kusek JW, Eggers P: Prevalence of chronic kidney disease in the United States. JAMA. 2007, 298: 20382047. 10.1001/jama.298.17.2038.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 McCullough K, Sharma P, Ali T, Khan I, Smith WC, Macleod A: Measuring the population burden of chronic kidney disease: a systematic literature review of the estimated prevalence of impaired kidney function. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012, 27: 18121821. 10.1093/ndt/gfr547.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Hallan SI, Matsushita K, Sang Y, Mahmoodi BK, Black C, Ishani A: Age and association of kidney measures with mortality and Endstage renal disease. JAMA. 2012, 308: 23492360. 10.1001/jama.2012.16817.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
 Mahmoodi BK, Matsushita K, Woodward M, Blankestijn PJ, Cirillo M, Ohkubo T: Associations of kidney disease measures with mortality and endstage renal disease in individuals with and without hypertension: a metaanalysis. Lancet. 2012, 380: 16491661. 10.1016/S01406736(12)612720.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
 Matsushita K, van d V, Astor BC, Woodward M, Levey AS, de Jong PE: Association of estimated glomerular filtration rate and albuminuria with allcause and cardiovascular mortality in general population cohorts: a collaborative metaanalysis. Lancet. 2010, 375: 20732081.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
 Hallan SI, Vikse BE: Relationship between chronic kidney disease prevalence and endstage renal disease risk. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2008, 17: 286291. 10.1097/MNH.0b013e3282f8b177.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Fink HA, Ishani A, Taylor BC, Greer NL, MacDonald R, Rossini D: Screening for, monitoring, and treatment of chronic kidney disease stages 1 to 3: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive services task force and for an American college of physicians clinical practice guideline. Ann Intern Med. 2012, 156: 570581. 10.7326/00034819156820120417000008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Moyer VA: Screening for chronic kidney disease: U.S. Preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012, 157: 567570. 10.7326/00034819157820121016000533.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Levey AS, de Jong PE, Coresh J, El NM, Astor BC, Matsushita K: The definition, classification, and prognosis of chronic kidney disease: a KDIGO controversies conference report. Kidney Int. 2011, 80: 1728. 10.1038/ki.2010.483.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Levey AS, Coresh J, Greene T, Stevens LA, Zhang YL, Hendriksen S: Using standardized serum creatinine values in the modification of diet in renal disease study equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med. 2006, 145: 247254. 10.7326/00034819145420060815000004.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Levey AS, Stevens LA, Schmid CH, Zhang YL, Castro AF, Feldman HI: A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med. 2009, 150: 604612. 10.7326/00034819150920090505000006.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
 Delanaye P, Cohen EP: Formulabased estimates of the GFR: equations variable and uncertain. Nephron Clin Pract. 2008, 110: c48c53. 10.1159/000151436.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Newman DJ: Cystatin C. Ann Clin Biochem. 2002, 39: 89104. 10.1258/0004563021901847.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Grubb AO: Cystatin C–properties and use as diagnostic marker. Adv Clin Chem. 2000, 35: 6399.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 SeronieVivien S, Delanaye P, Pieroni L, Mariat C, Froissart M, Cristol JP: Cystatin C: point d’étape et perspectives. Ann Biol Clin (Paris). 2008, 66: 301323.Google Scholar
 SeronieVivien S, Delanaye P, Pieroni L, Mariat C, Froissart M, Cristol JP: Cystatin C: current position and future prospects. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2008, 46: 16641686.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Delanaye P, Pieroni L, Abshoff C, Lutteri L, Chapelle JP, Krzesinski JM: Analytical study of three cystatin C assays and their impact on cystatin Cbased GFRprediction equations. Clin Chim Acta. 2008, 398: 118124. 10.1016/j.cca.2008.09.001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Larsson A, Hansson LO, Flodin M, Katz R, Shlipak MG: Calibration of the siemens cystatin C immunoassay has changed over time. Clin Chem. 2011, 57: 777778. 10.1373/clinchem.2010.159848.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 White CA, Rule AD, Collier CP, Akbari A, Lieske JC, Lepage N: The impact of interlaboratory differences in cystatin C assay measurement on glomerular filtration rate estimation. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011, 6: 21502156. 10.2215/CJN.00130111.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
 Voskoboev NV, Larson TS, Rule AD, Lieske JC: Importance of cystatin C assay standardization. Clin Chem. 2011, 57: 12091211. 10.1373/clinchem.2011.164798.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Delanaye P, Cavalier E, SaintRemy A, Lutteri L, Krzesinski JM: Discrepancies between creatininebased and cystatin Cbased equations in estimating prevalence of stage 3 chronic kidney disease in an elderly population. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2009, 69: 344349. 10.1080/00365510802609856.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Grubb A, BlirupJensen S, Lindstrom V, Schmidt C, Althaus H, Zegers I: First certified reference material for cystatin C in human serum ERMDA471/IFCC. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2010, 48: 16191621.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Inker LA, Schmid CH, Tighiouart H, Eckfeldt JH, Feldman HI, Greene T: Estimating glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine and cystatin C. N Engl J Med. 2012, 367: 2029. 10.1056/NEJMoa1114248.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
 Kilbride HS, Stevens PE, Eaglestone G, Knight S, Carter JL, Delaney MP: Accuracy of the MDRD (modification of diet in renal disease) study and CKDEPI (CKD epidemiology collaboration) equations for estimation of GFR in the elderly. AJKD. 2013, 61: 5766. 10.1053/j.ajkd.2012.06.016.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977, 33: 159174. 10.2307/2529310.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986, 1: 307310.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Hallan SI, Coresh J, Astor BC, Asberg A, Powe NR, Romundstad S: International comparison of the relationship of chronic kidney disease prevalence and ESRD risk. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006, 17: 22752284. 10.1681/ASN.2005121273.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Hallan S, Asberg A, Lindberg M, Johnsen H: Validation of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formula for estimating GFR with special emphasis on calibration of the serum creatinine assay. Am J Kidney Dis. 2004, 44: 8493. 10.1053/j.ajkd.2004.03.027.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Coresh J, Eknoyan G, Levey AS: Estimating the prevalence of low glomerular filtration rate requires attention to the creatinine assay calibration. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2002, 13: 28112812. 10.1097/01.ASN.0000037420.89149.C9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Froissart M, Rossert J, Jacquot C, Paillard M, Houillier P: Predictive performance of the modification of diet in renal disease and cockcroftgault equations for estimating renal function. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2005, 16: 763773. 10.1681/ASN.2004070549.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Glassock RJ, Winearls C: An epidemic of chronic kidney disease: fact or fiction?. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008, 23: 11171121.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Delanaye P, Cavalier E, Mariat C, Maillard N, Krzesinski JM: MDRD or CKDEPI study equations for estimating prevalence of stage 3 CKD in epidemiological studies: which difference? Is this difference relevant?. BMC Nephrol. 2010, 11: 810.1186/14712369118.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
 Korhonen PE, Kautiainen H, Jarvenpaa S, Kivela SL: Time to change the glomerular filtration rate estimating formula in primary care?. Eur J Intern Med. 2012, 23: 355357. 10.1016/j.ejim.2012.01.001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 O’Callaghan CA, Shine B, Lasserson DS: Chronic kidney disease: a largescale populationbased study of the effects of introducing the CKDEPI formula for eGFR reporting. BMJ Open. 2011, 1: e00030810.1136/bmjopen2011000308.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
 Schold JD, Navaneethan SD, Jolly SE, Poggio ED, Arrigain S, Saupe W: Implications of the CKDEPI GFR estimation equation in clinical practice. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011, 6: 497504. 10.2215/CJN.04240510.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
 Stengel B, Metzger M, Froissart M, Rainfray M, Berr C, Tzourio C: Epidemiology and prognostic significance of chronic kidney disease in the elderly–the threecity prospective cohort study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011, 26: 32863295. 10.1093/ndt/gfr323.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
 van den Brand JA, van Boekel GA, Willems HL, Kiemeney LA, den HM, Wetzels JF: Introduction of the CKDEPI equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate in a caucasian population. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011, 26: 31763181. 10.1093/ndt/gfr003.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Carter JL, Stevens PE, Irving JE, Lamb EJ: Estimating glomerular filtration rate: comparison of the CKDEPI and MDRD equations in a large UK cohort with particular emphasis on the effect of age. QJM. 2011, 104: 839847. 10.1093/qjmed/hcr077.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Flamant M, Haymann JP, VidalPetiot E, Letavernier E, Clerici C, Boffa JJ: GFR estimation using the cockcroftgault, MDRD study, and CKDEPI equations in the elderly. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012, 60: 847849. 10.1053/j.ajkd.2012.08.001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Masson I, Maillard N, Tack I, Thibaudin L, Dubourg L, Delanaye P: GFR estimation using standardized cystatin C in kidney transplant recipients. AJKD. 2013, 61: 279284. 10.1053/j.ajkd.2012.09.010.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Peralta CA, Shlipak MG, Judd S, Cushman M, McClellan W, Zakai NA: Detection of chronic kidney disease with creatinine, cystatin C, and urine albumintocreatinine ratio and association with progression to endstage renal disease and mortality. JAMA. 2011, 305: 15451552. 10.1001/jama.2011.468.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
 Shlipak MG, Sarnak MJ, Katz R, Fried LF, Seliger SL, Newman AB: Cystatin C and the risk of death and cardiovascular events among elderly persons. N Engl J Med. 2005, 352: 20492060. 10.1056/NEJMoa043161.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Inker LA, Wyatt C, Creamer R, Hellinger J, Hotta M, Leppo M: Performance of creatinine and cystatin C GFR estimating equations in an HIVpositive population on antiretrovirals. JAIDS. 2012, 61: 302309. 10.1097/QAI.0b013e31826a6c4f.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
 Levey AS, Bosch JP, Lewis JB, Greene T, Rogers N, Roth D: A more accurate method to estimate glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine: a new prediction equation. Modification of diet in renal disease study group. Ann Intern Med. 1999, 130: 461470. 10.7326/00034819130619990316000002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Schaeffner ES, Ebert N, Delanaye P, Frei U, Gaedeke J, Jakob O: Two novel equations to estimate kidney function in persons aged 70 years or older. Ann Intern Med. 2012, 157: 471481. 10.7326/00034819157720121002000003.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Delanaye P, Schaeffner E, Ebert N, Cavalier E, Mariat C, Krzesinski JM: Normal reference values for glomerular filtration rate: what do we really know?. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012, 27: 26642672. 10.1093/ndt/gfs265.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Stevens LA, Schmid CH, Greene T, Li L, Beck GJ, Joffe MM: Factors other than glomerular filtration rate affect serum cystatin C levels. Kidney Int. 2009, 75: 652660. 10.1038/ki.2008.638.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Agarwal SK, Dash SC, Irshad M, Raju S, Singh R, Pandey RM: Prevalence of chronic renal failure in adults in Delhi, India. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2005, 20: 16381642. 10.1093/ndt/gfh855.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 John R, Webb M, Young A, Stevens PE: Unreferred chronic kidney disease: a longitudinal study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2004, 43: 825835. 10.1053/j.ajkd.2003.12.046.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Nissenson AR, Pereira BJ, Collins AJ, Steinberg EP: Prevalence and characteristics of individuals with chronic kidney disease in a large health maintenance organization. Am J Kidney Dis. 2001, 37: 11771183. 10.1053/ajkd.2001.24520.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Arora P, Rajagopalan S, Patel N, Nainani N, Venuto RC, Lohr JW: The MDRD equation underestimates the prevalence of CKD among blacks and overestimates the prevalence of CKD among whites compared to the CKDEPI equation: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Nephrol. 2012, 13: 410.1186/14712369134.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
 de Lusignan S, Tomson C, Harris K, van Vlymen J, Gallagher H: Creatinine fluctuation has a greater effect than the formula to estimate glomerular filtration rate on the prevalence of chronic kidney disease. Nephron Clin Pract. 2011, 117: c213c224. 10.1159/000320341.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 The prepublication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/14712369/14/57/prepub
Prepublication history
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.