Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Saved Searches
    • Topics by Section
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
    • Reprints
  • Editorial Board
  • Subscriptions
  • More
    • About JASN
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Editorial Fellowship Program
  • Other
    • CJASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • In the Loop
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • CJASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • In the Loop
    • American Society of Nephrology
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Saved Searches
    • Topics by Section
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
    • Reprints
  • Editorial Board
  • Subscriptions
  • More
    • About JASN
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Editorial Fellowship Program
  • Follow JASN on Twitter
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow JASN on RSS
  • Community Forum
UP FRONT MATTERSClinical Commentary
You have accessRestricted Access

Staging of Chronic Kidney Disease: Time for a Course Correction

Carolyn Bauer, Michal L. Melamed and Thomas H. Hostetter
JASN May 2008, 19 (5) 844-846; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2008010110
Carolyn Bauer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michal L. Melamed
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas H. Hostetter
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Awareness of chronic kidney disease (CKD) has increased in part because of the definitions and treatment guidelines set out by Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI); however, the staging system set forth by these guidelines has led to several problems and unforeseen consequences. Stages 1 and 2 CKD are difficult to determine using the standard Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) estimation of GFR, and their clinical significance in the absence of other risk factors is unclear. Just because microalbuminuria in people without diabetes is a cardiovascular risk factor does not make it kidney disease. Most patients who receive a diagnosis of stage 3 CKD (GFR between 30 and 59 ml/min) are elderly people, and the vast majority of these patients will die before they reach ESRD. The staging system needs to be modified to reflect the severity and complications of CKD. It is suggested that stages 1 and 2 be eliminated and stages 3, 4, and 5, be simply termed moderate impairment, severe impairment, and kidney failure, respectively. In addition, age should be a modifying factor, especially in moderate kidney impairment. These changes would allow identification and treatment of clinically relevant disease and avoidance of what can seem exaggerated prevalence estimates.

The increasing recognition of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the past few years and acceptance of its abbreviation into ordinary clinical jargon stems from multiple sources. First, its most conspicuous outcome, ESRD, was increasing in the United States at alarming rates from the inception of Medicare coverage in 1972 until the late 1990s, and there still remains a very high incidence of ESRD today with 100,000 new cases per year.1 Also, a reliable estimation of GFR was developed from data in the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) study.2 Using that estimation, the prevalence of CKD is rather large in the general population.3 In addition, a relation of CKD, not just ESRD, to cardiovascular disease was discovered.4 Importantly, effective therapies emerged for slowing progression of CKD.5,6 Several campaigns by nonprofit organizations, government, and industry began around the turn of the century to promote CKD awareness among not just nephrologists but also people at risk and their primary care providers; however, staging of CKD embodied in the National Kidney Foundation KDOQI™ guideline published in 2002 has had a particularly large influence and at least partially underlies several of these epidemiologic analyses.7

Most readers are aware of the five stages, but they are reproduced in Table 1. The staging as it was laid out 6 years ago has had beneficial effects; however, several weaknesses and unforeseen consequences have become apparent. In the original KDOQI publication, the general rationale for these stages was detailed in the Executive Summary7:

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Stages of CKDa

“Why Develop a New Classification? Currently, there is no uniform classification of the stages of chronic kidney disease. A review of textbooks and journal articles clearly demonstrates ambiguity and overlap in the meaning of current terms. The Work Group concluded that uniform definitions of terms and stages would improve communication between patients and providers, enhance public education, and promote dissemination of research results. In addition, it was believed that uniform definitions would enhance conduct of clinical research.

Why Base a New Classification System on Severity of Disease? Adverse outcomes of kidney disease are based on the level of kidney function and risk of loss of function in the future. Chronic kidney disease tends to worsen over time. Therefore, the risk of adverse outcomes increases over time with disease severity. Many disciplines in medicine, including related specialties of hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and transplantation, have adopted classification systems based on severity to guide clinical interventions, research, and professional and public education. Such a model is essential for any public health approach to disease.”

These views seem to us still reasonable, so what is wrong?

GFR values >60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 as estimated by the MDRD formula are generally too inaccurate for routine clinical use. Several issues contribute to this problem, including the formula's development in a large group in which all participants had depressed GFR and particular ethnic, age, and disease characteristics; for example, few Asians, few elderly, and few people with diabetes. Also, at low levels of serum creatinine (normal to high GFR), an estimation of GFR generates a very wide range of confidence intervals, a range so wide as to be useless.2 A few commentators have even questioned the accuracy of estimates in the range <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2, but we regard the estimate as just that, an estimate that is useful for clinical work in the low end of GFR if not as exact as some desire. In any case, reporting estimated GFR (eGFR) >60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 has been discouraged; however, the staging demands distinctions in this higher range. Admittedly, these problems for estimations in the near-normal and high range are most apparent since the promulgation of the system and probably in part because of it. Nevertheless, it seems to us that this weakness should be recognized and stages 1 and 2 be removed. If we cannot find them, then we should not stage them.

In addition to an eGFR, stages 1 and 2 demand the presence of “kidney damage” as a supplementary criterion.7 Damage could be evidenced by several criteria; for example, biopsy and imaging, but proteinuria is the most commonly referenced data used as evidence of kidney damage. We are uncertain of the significance of microalbuminuria in a patient with an eGFR >60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 without known kidney disease or major risk factor, especially diabetes or hypertension. Proteinuria can be transient and without pathology, for example after exercise. The staging and the epidemiology devolving from it have attempted to estimate only persistent proteinuria or, more specific, persistent albuminuria. Even persistent low-grade albuminuria in the otherwise normal person has no specific therapy. Increasing evidence suggests a cardiovascular risk to albuminuria but, again, one without current treatment.8 A cardiovascular disease risk factor does not merit a diagnosis of kidney disease. Why albuminuria would have been measured in the first place in such a person except as part of an epidemiologic cohort study is a mystery of its own.

This current KDOQI staging system forms a basis for extrapolation of CKD prevalence in the general US population using sample populations, especially the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES). The most recent has estimated that 13% of the adult population in the United States has CKD. This is an enormous number and for many seems inflated. The inclusion of people with eGFR >60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 but with some albuminuria (stages 1 and 2) accounted for almost 40% of the total estimate of prevalence. Except for the patient with diabetes, we have little guidance on what to do with such patients or knowledge of how many will develop complications. Thus, inclusion of such people in these population estimates expands the estimate beyond current clinical implications.

The incredibly high prevalence rate depends on inclusion of not just those with stages 1 and 2 but also those in the range just below 60 ml/min per 1.73 m2. Because the distribution of eGFR is roughly bell shaped with a mean of 80 to 90 ml/min per 1.73 m2, it is obvious that more values will be lie between 50 and 60 than 40 and 30, and so forth. Thus, any arbitrary limit imposed on such a distribution will have this problem: More people at the border edge with mild impairment than down in the range of most concern with severest impairment. However, the separate phenomenon of age-related decline in GFR makes this preponderance more than mathematically unfortunate.9

With the current staging system, people who are older than 70 years dominate the category of moderate renal impairment; that is, GFR from 30 to 59 ml/min per 1.73 m2 (stage 3).10 Indeed, most of this group is older than 70 years. Because the median age of incidence for ESRD is approximately 65 years, the vast majority of people identified as having stage 3 CKD cannot be expected to progress to ESRD. To be sure, the additional risk for cardiovascular disease with CKD has been much noted and widely emphasized. Whether this particular cardiovascular risk factor has much meaning for the 75-year-old person with an eGFR of 59 and no other risk factors or with controlled risk factors is unclear. What the physician should do with this risk factor is also uncertain. Age is ignored in the current staging; however, within the pool of moderate CKD, risk for ESRD depends strongly on age. Compared with the elderly, people in middle age with moderate CKD, especially if male or black, have much higher risks for ESRD and truly premature cardiovascular disease.1,11

Several other concerns can be raised with the current staging system. Disease labeling for people at little or no known risk has been raised as a hazard. The psychological weight could be untoward. The label “disease” may be unnecessarily onerous, and “impairment” might be better and just as accurate; however, we do not see this as an overriding concern but one for which the nephrologist can provide perspective to the patient and the primary care provider. Lumping many diseases into a huge category only on the basis of kidney function potentially leads to failure of diagnosis for some patients. Physicians may think they know what is happening once a label of stage 3 CKD is applied. We see this as another point that requires thoughtful nephrologic advice and guidance but does not detract from the overall value. Likewise, research into better means of altering the outcomes of CKD is not superseded by a staging label.

We emphasize that reporting eGFR with all serum creatinine values is valuable and totally separate from staging patients’ disease. In fact, such reporting is especially useful for the elderly, whose serum creatinine so poorly reflects GFR. Recognizing CKD in the elderly should benefit them even if ESRD is unlikely, because it would improve drug dosing and reduce nephrotoxin exposure. Furthermore, identification of CKD in people with high risk for ESRD, the younger and black individuals, is crucial to altering their progression and even preparing for ESRD. Less than one half of people with an eGFR below 30 ml/min/1.73 m2 knew they had CKD.10 Routine reporting of eGFR is a key means of identifying them and should be encouraged in all clinical laboratories.

In the past several years, staging as well as other factors have contributed to a welcome increase in awareness of CKD, but the staging system has had some unforeseeable adverse consequences. What would we do? We propose that stages 1 and 2 be eliminated. We also think as a means of classifying, numbers, be they Roman or Arabic, always suggest more than they really deliver and should be dropped. Simply, the words originally attached to stages 3, 4, and 5 seem best: Moderate kidney impairment, severe kidney impairment, and kidney failure or ESRD, respectively. Age should be introduced as a modifying factor, especially for moderate kidney impairment.

Renal epidemiology has blossomed in recent years, providing many new insights, but we are leery about relying on the current staging system for population estimates of CKD. This approach leads to huge estimates containing large numbers of people with GFR indiscernible from normal and many elderly with moderate impairment and unproven therapeutic implication. Until trials show that such asymptomatic people benefit from a treatment or progress to ESRD, giving them a diagnosis of kidney disease seems dubious. That cardiovascular risk can attach to such minor renal findings seems clear, but that risk, to date, is not modifiable.4,11 Estimates that one of eight Americans has CKD may lead the wider medical community as well as policy makers to question whether we are exaggerating out of self-interest, especially when we have little in the way of prognosis or treatment for some of these large subgroups. Kidney disease and ESRD are genuinely big enough problems that we would not want to reduce our credibility by overstating them.

DISCLOSURES

None.

Footnotes

  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.jasn.org.

  • © 2008 American Society of Nephrology

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    US Renal Data System: USRDS 2007 Annual Data Report: Atlas of Chronic Kidney Disease and End-Stage Renal Disease in the United States, Bethesda, National In stitutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 2007
  2. ↵
    Stevens LA, Manzi J, Levey AS, Chen J, Chen J, Deysher AE, Greene T, Poggio ED, Schmid CH, Steffes MW, Zhang YL, Van Lente F, Coresh J: Impact of creatinine calibration on performance of GFR estimating equations in a pooled individual database. Am J Kidney Dis 50 : 21 –35, 2007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    Coresh J, Astor BC, Greene T, Eknoyan G, Levey AS: Prevalence of chronic kidney disease and decreased kidney function in the adult US population: Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Am J Kidney Dis 41 : 1 –12, 2003
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    Go AS, Chertow GM, Fan D, McCulloch CE, Hsu CY: Chronic kidney disease and the risks of death, cardiovascular events, and hospitalization. N Engl J Med 351 : 1296 –1305, 2004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group: The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 329 : 977 –986, 1993
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Bain RP, Rohde RD: The effect of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition on diabetic nephropathy. N Engl J Med 329 (20): 1456 –1462, 1993
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: Evaluation, classification, and stratification. Am J Kidney Dis 39 : S1 –S266, 2002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    Hallan S, Astor B, Romundstad S, Aasarod K, Kvenild K, Coresh J: Association of kidney function and albuminuria with cardiovascular mortality in older and younger individuals. Arch Intern Med 167 : 2490 –2496, 2007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    Rule AD, Gussak HM, Pond GR, Bergstralh EJ, Stegall MD, Cosio FG, Larson TS: Measured and estimated GFR in healthy kidney donors. Am J Kidney Dis 43 : 112 –119, 2004 [erratum appears in Am J Kidney Dis 44: 1126, 2004; and 46: 170, 2005]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    Coresh J, Selvin E, Stevens LA, Manzi J, Kusek JW, Eggers P, Van Lente F, Levey AS: Prevalence of chronic kidney disease in the United States. JAMA 298 : 2038 –2047, 2007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    O'Hare AM, Choi AI, Bertenthal D, Bacchetti P, Garg AX, Kaufman JS, Walter LC, Mehta KM, Steinman MA, Allon M, McClellan WM, Landefeld CS: Age affects outcomes in chronic kidney disease. J Am Soc Nephrol 18 : 2758 –2765, 2007
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 19 (5)
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 19, Issue 5
May 2008
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article
Thank you for your help in sharing the high-quality science in JASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Staging of Chronic Kidney Disease: Time for a Course Correction
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
Citation Tools
Staging of Chronic Kidney Disease: Time for a Course Correction
Carolyn Bauer, Michal L. Melamed, Thomas H. Hostetter
JASN May 2008, 19 (5) 844-846; DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2008010110

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Staging of Chronic Kidney Disease: Time for a Course Correction
Carolyn Bauer, Michal L. Melamed, Thomas H. Hostetter
JASN May 2008, 19 (5) 844-846; DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2008010110
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • DISCLOSURES
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

UP FRONT MATTERS

  • Looking Back 50 Years at the Biology of Mankind in Space: The Renal-Cardiovascular Fluid Shift Conundrum
  • Race, Pregnancy, and ESKD
  • Competing Risk Modeling: Time to Put it in Our Standard Analytical Toolbox
Show more UP FRONT MATTERS

Clinical Commentary

  • Trends in Discharge Claims for Acute Myocardial Infarction among Patients on Dialysis
  • Reassessing Medical Risk in Living Kidney Donors
  • Commentary on the 2014 BP Guidelines from the Panel Appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8)
Show more Clinical Commentary

Cited By...

  • CKD: A Call for an Age-Adapted Definition
  • The CKD Classification System in the Precision Medicine Era
  • The Unjustified Classification of Kidney Donors as Patients with CKD: Critique and Recommendations
  • Web Surveillance for CKD
  • Safety and efficacy of bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide followed by bortezomib-thalidomide maintenance (VMPT-VT) versus bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) in untreated multiple myeloma patients with renal impairment
  • Population-Based Risk Assessment of APOL1 on Renal Disease
  • Dipstick Proteinuria as a Screening Strategy to Identify Rapid Renal Decline
  • Performance Measurement in Chronic Kidney Disease
  • Quantifying Severity of Chronic Kidney Disease as a Risk Factor for Acute Kidney Injury
  • Clinical Impact of Reporting Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rates
  • VMP (Bortezomib, Melphalan, and Prednisone) Is Active and Well Tolerated in Newly Diagnosed Patients With Multiple Myeloma With Moderately Impaired Renal Function, and Results in Reversal of Renal Impairment: Cohort Analysis of the Phase III VISTA Study
  • Chronic kidney disease: definition and staging - an orthodox view
  • Blood Pressure Control Among Persons Without and With Chronic Kidney Disease: US Trends and Risk Factors 1999-2006
  • Combining GFR and Albuminuria to Classify CKD Improves Prediction of ESRD
  • CKD Classification: Time to Move Beyond KDOQI
  • Kidney Stones and the Risk for Chronic Kidney Disease
  • The Case for Using Albuminuria in Staging Chronic Kidney Disease
  • eGFR: Is It Ready for Early Identification of CKD?
  • Scopus (98)
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Scopus
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

About

  • JASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Podcasts
  • About ASN
  • JASN Relaunch

Author Information

  • Manuscript Submission
  • Information for Authors
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

More Information

  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • Password/Email Address Changes

© 2019 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1046-6673 Online ISSN - 1533-3450

Powered by HighWire