Multinational assessment of accuracy of equations for predicting risk of kidney failure: a meta-analysis

By N. Tangri, Morgan E. Grams, A. Levey, Josef Coresh, L. Appel, B. Astor, G. Chodick, A. Collins, O. Djurdjev, C. Elley and 18 more. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 2016

618 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Importance Identifying patients at risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression may facilitate more optimal nephrology care. Kidney failure risk equations (KFREs) were previously developed and validated in two Canadian cohorts. Validation in other regions and in CKD populations not under the care of a nephrologist is needed. Objective To evaluate the accuracy of the KFREs across different geographic regions and patient populations through individual-participant data meta-analysis. Data Sources Thirty-one cohorts, including 721,357 participants with CKD Stages 3–5 in over 30 countries spanning 4 continents, were studied. These cohorts collected data from 1982 through 2014. Study Selection Cohorts participating in the CKD Prognosis Consortium with data on end-stage renal disease. Data Extraction and Synthesis Data were obtained and statistical analyses were performed between July 2012 and June 2015. Using the risk factors from the original KFREs, cohort-specific hazard ratios were estimated, and combined in meta-analysis to form new “pooled” KFREs. Original and pooled equation performance was compared, and the need for regional calibration factors was assessed. Main Outcome and Measure Kidney failure (treatment by dialysis or kidney transplantation). Results During a median follow-up of 4 years, 23,829 cases of kidney failure were observed. The original KFREs achieved excellent discrimination (ability to differentiate those who developed kidney failure from those who did not) across all cohorts (overall C statistic, 0.90 (95% CI 0.89–0.92) at 2 years and 0.88 (95% CI 0.86–0.90) at 5 years); discrimination in subgroups by age, race, and diabetes status was similar. There was no improvement with the pooled equations. Calibration (the difference between observed and predicted risk) was adequate in North American cohorts, but the original KFREs overestimated risk in some non-North American cohorts. Addition of a calibration factor that lowered the baseline risk by 32.9% at 2 years and 16.5% at 5 years improved the calibration in 12/15 and 10/13 non-North American cohorts at 2 and 5 years, respectively (p=0.04 and p=0.02). Conclusions and Relevance KFREs developed in a Canadian population showed high discrimination and adequate calibration when validated in 31 multinational cohorts. However, in some regions the addition of a calibration factor may be necessary.

Subfields: Nephrology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/42badd003b406271675dae2698f8b285d9b3bd4c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

  1. Gabriel Erion-Barner
  2. Scott M. Lundberg
  3. Hugh Chen
  4. Su-In Lee
  5. Alex J. DeGrave
  6. Bala G. Nair
  7. Ian Covert
  8. J. Prutkin

Citations in the corpus