Recognizing that race is a social and not a biological construct, healthcare professionals and the public have called for removal of race in clinical algorithms. In response, the National Kidney Foundation and the American Society of Nephrology created the Task Force on Reassessing the Inclusion of Race in Diagnosing Kidney Diseases to examine the issue and provide recommendations. The final report from the Task Force recommends calculating estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) without a race coefficient using the recently published CKD-EPI 2021 creatinine and creatinine-cystatin C equations. The Task Force recommends immediately replacing older eGFRcr equations (MDRD Study and CKD-EPI 2009) with the new CKD-EPI 2021 equation. In a 2019 survey by the College of American Pathologists, 23% of 6200 laboratories reporting eGFRcr used an incorrect equation that is not suitable for use with standardized creatinine measurements, 34% used the CKD-EPI 2009 equation and 43% used the MDRD Study 2006 equation re-expressed for standardized creatinine measurement. Rapid transition to using the CKD-EPI 2021 equation is an opportunity for laboratories to standardize to a single equation to eliminate differences in eGFRcr due to different equations used by different laboratories, and to report eGFR without use of race. We provide guidance to laboratories for implementing the CKD-EPI 2021 equations for both eGFRcr and eGFRcr-cys.

OBJECTIVE An estimated 37 million Americans have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Nearly 90% do not know about their condition because of low awareness about the importance of CKD testing and diagnosis among practitioners and people at risk for CKD. This study uses data from a national clinical laboratory to identify guideline-recommended CKD testing rates across the U.S. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Patients with Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (Labcorp) testing between 2013 and 2019 were defined as at risk for CKD if they had any testing ordered with diagnosis codes for diabetes and/or hypertension. Guideline-concordant CKD assessment was defined by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (uACR) testing within the study year. RESULTS We identified 28,295,982 at-risk patients (mean age 60.6 ± 14.8 years; 53.6% women): 16.2% had diabetes, 63.8% had hypertension, and 20.1% had both comorbidities. Of these, 80.3% did not receive guideline-concordant assessment during the study period. Furthermore, only 21.0% had uACR testing versus 89.6% with eGFR. CKD assessment occurred at least once in 28.7% of patients with diabetes, 10.5% of patients with hypertension, and 41.4% of patients with both conditions. In a state-by-state comparison, annual testing rates ranged from 5 to 30%. The nationwide rate increased modestly each year between 2013 and 2018 (from 10.7% to 15.2%). CONCLUSIONS Despite guideline recommendations, testing for CKD with uACR and eGFR in U.S. adults with diabetes and hypertension is low in routine clinical care. These data highlight the need for strategies to improve routine CKD assessment nationwide.

We found evidence for an optimal level of 25-D above which suppression of PTH progressively diminishes. This level is more than twice that currently recommended for the general population. We found no association between these higher 25-D levels and hyperphosphatemia or hypercalcemia. Additional prospective trials seem appropriate to test the idea that 25-D levels around 40-50 ng/ml could be a safe and effective treatment target for secondary hyperparathyroidism in CKD.

Background: Living kidney donation is on the rise and acceptance criteria for potential donors are evolving to include more ‘complex’ patients such as kidney stone formers. Transplant centers are faced with sparse data on patient outcomes when evaluating potential donors who are stone formers; thus, attitudes and practice can differ greatly between centers. Methods: We conducted a survey of United States kidney transplant programs to assess current trends in the approach to dealing with stone formers who are evaluated for kidney donation. Results: Based on the survey results, there appears to be a tendency toward increased acceptance of donors with a history of kidney stones. 77% of responding centers allowed stone formers to donate. Nearly 40% of centers reported that their attitude towards accepting donors with kidney stones has changed over the last 5–10 years. Among these, the overwhelming majority reported that they were more likely to accept these donors. Conclusions: Such trends are likely based on organ need, as published patient outcomes and evidence-based guidelines are lacking for this unique group of patients. We propose the need for a study to formally evaluate the outcome of stone formers who donate a kidney in order to systematically examine whether appropriately selected stone formers can safely donate.