Annals of Internal Medicine
Evaluation and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease: Synopsis of
the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes 2012 Clinical
Practice Guideline
Paul E. Stevens, MBBS, BSc, and Adeera Levin, MD, BSc, for the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes Chronic Kidney Disease
Guideline Development Work Group Members*
Description: The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes
(KDIGO) organization developed clinical practice guidelines in 2012
to provide guidance on the evaluation, management, and treat-
ment of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in adults and children who
are not receiving renal replacement therapy.
Methods: The KDIGO CKD Guideline Development Work Group
defined the scope of the guideline, gathered evidence, determined
topics for systematic review, and graded the quality of evidence
that had been summarized by an evidence review team. Searches
of the English-language literature were conducted through Novem-
ber 2012. Final modification of the guidelines was informed by the
A decade of research after the publication of the first
internationally accepted definition and classification
of CKD (1) led the Kidney Disease: Improving Global
Outcomes (KDIGO) organization to develop an updated
Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Man-
agement of Chronic Kidney Disease (2). The updated
guideline applied to all persons with chronic kidney disease
(CKD) who were not receiving renal replacement therapy
and included aspects related to both adults and children.
Within the guideline, implications for clinical practice,
public policy, and international considerations were high-
lighted, along with areas of controversy, confusion, or non-
consensus. The detailed work-up for specific causes of
CKD was beyond the scope of the guideline, as were spe-
cific approaches to acute kidney injury (AKI) and other
acute kidney diseases, diagnostic work-up or treatment of
specific causes of CKD, management of CKD in preg-
nancy, detailed management of endocrine and metabolic
complications, and detailed drug dosing.
The guideline sought to provide comprehensive guid-
ance encompassing the whole CKD pathway, from early
identification and diagnosis through initiation of renal re-
placement therapy for end-stage renal disease or end-of-life
care. The recognition of the importance of patient safety
and inclusion of caveats in the use and interpretation of
commonly used tests was unique and highly practical.
These details can be found in the full guideline (2), and
recommendations are listed in the Supplement (available
at www.annals.org). This synopsis focuses on the evalua-
tion and classification of CKD, areas that have generated
substantial controversy. We also discuss some key recom-
mendations, including the management of CKD progres-
sion and complications, and the relationship between AKI
and CKD.
Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 10/31/2016
Clinical Guideline
KDIGO Board of Directors and a public review process involving
registered stakeholders.
Recommendations: The full guideline included 110 recommenda-
tions. This synopsis focuses on 10 key recommendations pertinent
to definition, classification, monitoring, and management of CKD in
adults.
Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:825-830. www.annals.org
For author affiliations, see end of text.
* For a list of the members of the KDIGO CKD Guideline Development Work
Group, see the Appendix (available at www.annals.org).
GUIDELINE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, EVIDENCE
GRADING, AND STAKEHOLDER AND PUBLIC
CONSULTATION
The work group consisted of an international group
of clinicians and researchers, including kidney specialists,
primary care physicians, a diabetologist, an epidemiologist,
a clinical chemist, administrators, and a professional evi-
dence review team. The work group formulated the scope
of the guideline, graded evidence on the basis of the
GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, De-
velopment and Evaluation) system (3–5) (Appendix Ta-
bles 1 and 2, available at www.annals.org), and made con-
sensus recommendations even when the quality of evidence
was low to highlight key concepts and areas of confusion in
clinical practice. In addition, the evidence review team did
systematic reviews for 8 topics of interest (Appendix Table
3, available at www.annals.org), and searches were last con-
ducted in June 2011 and supplemented with additional
evidence through November 2012. Further guideline de-
velopment, evidence synthesis, and writing of the guideline
itself was done by the work group. Full details of the guide-
line development process, topic discussion, and consensus
development can be found in the published guideline (2).
The draft guideline was reviewed by the KDIGO
Board of Directors, and revisions were incorporated before
a structured, Internet-based public review process. Feed-
See also:
Web-Only
CME quiz
Supplement
© 2013 American College of Physicians 825
 Clinical Guideline Synopsis of Clinical Practice Guideline on Evaluation and Management of CKD
back from this was reviewed by the work group, and final
revisions were incorporated before publication of the
guideline.
RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO THE DEFINITION
CLASSIFICATION OF CKD
1.1.1. CKD is defined as abnormalities of kidney struc-
ture or function, present for ⬎3 months, with implica-
tions for health. (Not Graded)
Criteria for CKD are shown in Table 1. Diagnostic
thresholds for glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of less than
60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 and an albumin– creatinine ratio
(ACR) of 30 mg/g or greater were retained. This was
driven by studies examining risk for all-cause and cardio-
vascular mortality, AKI, CKD progression, and kidney fail-
ure in the general population and populations with in-
creased risk for cardiovascular disease (6 –9). However, the
addition of “with implications for health” reflects the no-
tion that although various abnormalities of kidney struc-
ture or function exist, not all have implications for a per-
son’s health. For example, although age-associated GFR
decline is seen in longitudinal as well as cross-sectional
studies, it varies substantially. A GFR less than 60 mL/min
per 1.73 m2 is less than half of the normal value in young
adult men and women (which is approximately 125 mL/
min per 1.73 m2) and is associated with a higher risk for
complications of CKD than in persons with CKD and
conserved GFR. The mechanisms underlying these associ-
ations are not fully understood, but there is a clinically
significant effect of reduced GFR on drug toxicity, endo-
crine and metabolic complications, and risk for cardiovas-
cular disease and death. These are relevant to all patients
with reduced GFR, regardless of country, age, or cause. An
ACR of 30 mg/g is greater than 3 times the normal value
in young adult men and women (which is approximately
10 mg/g) and is associated with an increased risk for com-
plications of CKD.
1.2.1. We recommend that CKD is classified based on
cause, GFR category, and albuminuria category (CGA).
(1B)
Table 1. Criteria for Chronic Kidney Disease*
Markers of kidney damage (>1 for >3 mo)
Albuminuria (AER ⱖ30 mg/d; ACR ⱖ30 mg/g)
Urinary sediment abnormalities
Electrolyte and other abnormalities due to tubular disorders
Abnormalities detected by histology
Structural abnormalities detected by imaging
History of kidney transplantation
Decreased GFR (for >3 mo)
GFR ⬍60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 (GFR categories G3a–G5)
ACR ⫽ albumin– creatinine ratio; AER ⫽ albumin excretion rate; GFR ⫽ glo-
merular filtration rate.
* Reproduced from reference 2.
826 4 June 2013 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 158 • Number 11
Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 10/31/2016
The classification system has been revised to encom-
pass cause and severity. Identifying cause is emphasized
because of its fundamental importance in predicting out-
come and guiding choice of cause-specific treatments. Se-
AND verity is expressed by level of GFR and albuminuria (Table
2). Severity is linked to risks for adverse outcomes, includ-
ing death and kidney outcomes.
The GFR categories mapping to the previous 5-stage
classification have been retained but with subdivision of
the G3 category of 30 to 59 mL/min per 1.73 m2 into
categories G3a (45 to 59 mL/min per 1.73 m2) and G3b
(30 to 44 mL/min per 1.73 m2). This was driven by data
supporting different outcomes and risk profiles in these
categories (6 –10). Many other concurrent complications
are associated with decreased categories of GFR, including
infection, impaired cognitive and physical function, and
threats to patient safety.
Three albuminuria categories were proposed both for
simplification and initial assessment and prognostication.
Further classification into higher and nephrotic ranges
(ACR ⬎2220 mg/g) may be appropriate for specific cir-
cumstances in specialist centers.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EVALUATION OF GFR AND
URINARY ALBUMIN EXCRETION
The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collabo-
ration (CKD-EPI) equation was recommended for report-
ing estimated GFR (eGFR) in adults from serum creatinine
levels measured by an assay calibrated to the isotope-
dilution mass spectrometry reference method. Systematic
review supported the strength of this recommendation
(evidence level 1B). The CKD-EPI equation had less bias
than the MDRD (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease)
Study equation, especially at a GFR of 60 mL/min per
1.73 m2 or greater; a small improvement in precision; and
greater accuracy (11). Most but not all studies from North
America, Europe, and Australia show that the CKD-EPI
equation is more accurate than the MDRD Study equa-
tion, especially at greater GFR, enabling reporting of nu-
merical values across the range of GFRs. Selection of a
single equation for use should facilitate communication
among providers, patients, researchers, and public health
officials. However, where CKD-EPI has been modified for
use in other racial and ethnic groups, and where validated
country- or region-specific equations have been developed,
these should be used in preference to unmodified equations.
1.4.3.5. We suggest measuring cystatin C in adults
with eGFRcreat [creatinine-based eGFR] 45-59 ml/
min/1.73 m2 who do not have other markers of kidney
damage if confirmation of CKD is required. (2C)
The guideline acknowledged that this is a contentious
area with potential health economics consequences and
that not all laboratories internationally will be able to assay
www.annals.org
 Synopsis of Clinical Practice Guideline on Evaluation and Management of CKD Clinical Guideline

Table 2. GFR and Albuminuria Categories in the New Classification

Category GFR, mL/min per 1.73 m2 AER, mg/d ACR Equivalent, mg/g Descriptor
GFR – –
G1 ⱖ90 – – Normal or high
G2 60–89 – – Mildly decreased*†
G3a 45–59 – – Mildly to moderately decreased
G3b 30–44 – – Moderately to severely decreased
G4 15–29 – – Severely decreased
G5 ⬍15 – – Kidney failure

Albuminuria
A1 – ⬍30 ⬍30 Normal to mildly increased
A2 – 30–300 30–300 Moderately increased*
A3 – ⬎300 ⬎300 Severely increased‡

ACR ⫽ albumin– creatinine ratio; AER ⫽ albumin excretion rate; GFR ⫽ glomerular filtration rate.
* Relative to young adult level.
† In the absence of evidence of kidney damage, neither GFR category G1 nor G2 fulfill the criteria for chronic kidney disease.
‡ Including the nephrotic syndrome (AER usually ⬎2200 mg/d [ACR ⬎2220 mg/g]).

cystatin C. Evidence supports the use of cystatin C– based
eGFR (eGFRcys) in persons without albuminuria (cate-
gory A1) or other markers of kidney damage, especially
those with an eGFRcreat of 45 to 59 mL/min per 1.73 m2
(category G3a) (12, 13). This group represents 3.6% of the
U.S. population and 41% of persons in the United States
estimated to have CKD on the basis of eGFRcreat and
urinary ACR alone. Because the diagnosis of CKD in these
persons is an area of substantial controversy with potential
implications from disease labeling, the potential utility of a
confirmatory marker is important. Use of eGFRcys to con-
firm CKD in populations has shown that two thirds of
persons with eGFRcreat less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2
have a diagnosis of CKD confirmed by eGFRcys less than
60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 and had markedly elevated risks
for death, cardiovascular disease, and end-stage renal dis-
ease compared with those with eGFRcys greater than 60
mL/min per 1.73 m2.
1.4.4.2. We recommend that clinical laboratories re-
port albumin:creatinine ratios (ACR) and protein:crea-
tinine ratios (PCR) in untimed urine samples in
addition to albumin concentration or proteinuria con-
centrations rather than the concentrations alone. (1B)
Measurement of urinary ACR was recommended for
evaluation of proteinuria in preference to urinary total pro-
tein for many reasons. Albumin is the most important pro-
tein lost in the urine in most cases of CKD. In population
studies, urinary ACR accurately predicts kidney and car-
diovascular risks (6 –9, 14 –19). Reduction in ACR in in-
tervention trials targeted at blood pressure (BP) reduction
or renin–angiotensin blockade has shown benefit for pro-
gression of CKD. Urinary ACR has greater sensitivity for
detecting low-grade but clinically important albuminuria
and is more precise at low but diagnostically important
concentrations (20).
www.annals.org
1.4.4.2.1. The term microalbuminuria should no lon-
ger be used by laboratories. (Not Graded)
Although the significance of the A2 category of ACR
(30 to 300 mg/g) has been understood in persons with
diabetes for decades, use of this category to denote CKD,
especially in those with higher GFRs, remains controver-
sial. However, data demonstrate that, at any level of GFR,
an ACR increase above normal is associated with increased
risk for adverse outcomes and that this increased risk is a
continuum (6 –9). It was, therefore, suggested that the
term “microalbuminuria” no longer be used.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MONITORING CKD
Persons with CKD should be assessed at least annu-
ally. The exact frequency of GFR and ACR monitoring
will depend on the severity of CKD (Figure) and the risk
for and rate of progression. Factors associated with pro-
gression include cause of CKD, level of GFR, level of al-
buminuria, AKI, age, sex, race or ethnicity, elevated BP,
hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia, smoking, obesity, history of
cardiovascular disease, ongoing exposure to nephrotoxic
agents, and others.
Small fluctuations in GFR are common and do not
necessarily indicate progression. An approach involving an
assessment of change in eGFR category confirmed by a
minimal percentage of change in eGFR (25% or greater)
was recommended to define progression. The reasoning for
this was that although longitudinal cohort studies examin-
ing progression have assumed that progression is linear,
this is often not the case. The greater the fluctuation in
kidney function, the higher the probability of nonlinear
progression (21, 22). A criterion requiring both a change in
GFR category (that is, from category G2 to G3a) and per-
centage of change would ensure that small changes in GFR
(from 61 to 59 mL/min per 1.73 m2, for example, which
4 June 2013 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 158 • Number 11 827

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 10/31/2016

 Clinical Guideline Synopsis of Clinical Practice Guideline on Evaluation and Management of CKD

Figure. Guide to frequency of monitoring by GFR and albuminuria categories.

Persistent Albuminuria Categories

Description and Range

A1 A2 A3

Normal to
mildly Moderately Severely
increased increased increased

ACR <30 mg/g ACR of 30–300 mg/g ACR >300 mg/g

G1 Normal or high ≥90 1 if CKD 1 2

GFR Categories (mL/min per 1.73 m2)

G2 Mildly decreased 60–89 1 if CKD 1 2

Description and Range

Mildly to moderately
G3a decreased 45–59 1 2 3

Moderately to
G3b 30–44 2 3 3
severely decreased

G4 Severely decreased 15–29 3 3 4+

G5 Kidney failure <15 4+ 4+ 4+

This GFR and albuminuria grid reflects the risk for progression by intensity of coloring. The numbers in the boxes are a guide to the frequency of
monitoring (number of times per year). Reproduced from reference 2. ACR ⫽ albumin– creatinine ratio; CKD ⫽ chronic kidney disease; GFR ⫽
glomerular filtration rate.

represents a change in category but a minimal change in diastolic be treated with BP-lowering drugs to maintain
GFR) would not be misinterpreted to represent progres- a BP that is consistently ⱕ140 mm Hg systolic and
sion. Preliminary studies have indicated that this approach ⱕ90 mm Hg diastolic. (1B)
identifies those at increased risk (23–25).
Data were insufficient to inform recommendations de- 3.1.5 We suggest that both diabetic and non-diabetic
fining albuminuria progression, although increasing levels adults with CKD and with urine albumin excretion of
of albuminuria suggest progression and has been shown to ⱖ30 mg/24 hours (or equivalent) whose office BP is
be associated with increased risk for adverse outcomes. consistently ⬎130 mm Hg systolic or ⬎80 mm Hg
diastolic be treated with BP-lowering drugs to maintain
MANAGEMENT OF CKD a BP that is consistently ⱕ130 mm Hg systolic and
Detailed within the guideline were many management ⱕ80 mm Hg diastolic. (2D)
recommendations for prevention of CKD progression and
management of specific complications of CKD (see Sup- 3.1.7 We recommend that an ARB [angiotensin-
plement). Key recommendations relating to BP control, receptor blocker] or ACE-I [angiotensin-converting en-
proteinuria reduction, AKI, and cardiovascular disease are zyme inhibitor] be used in both diabetic and non-
summarized. diabetic adults with CKD and urine albumin excretion
⬎300 mg/24 hours (or equivalent). (1B)
3.1.4 We recommend that both diabetic and non-
diabetic adults with CKD and urine albumin excretion Control of blood pressure and reduction of proteinuria
⬍30 mg/24 hours (or equivalent) whose office BP is are critical in preventing CKD progression. Studies have
consistently ⬎140 mm Hg systolic or ⬎90 mm Hg consistently shown that reduction of proteinuria using
828 4 June 2013 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 158 • Number 11 www.annals.org

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 10/31/2016

 Synopsis of Clinical Practice Guideline on Evaluation and Management of CKD
renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) interrup-
tion slows progression of both diabetic and nondiabetic
nephropathy. Lowering blood pressure also slows CKD
progression, breaking a potentially vicious cycle associating
hypertension and CKD. Evidence is insufficient to recom-
mend combining an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhib-
itor with angiotensin-receptor blockers to prevent CKD
progression. In formulating statements about blood pres-
sure control and RAAS interruption, the recommendations
in the KDIGO guidance on blood pressure control in
CKD were followed to maintain consistency (26).
Lifestyle interventions (reduced sodium intake to ⬍2 g
per day, achieving a healthy body mass index of 20 to 25
kg/m2, smoking cessation, and exercising for 30 minutes 5
times per week) and good diabetes control (target hemo-
globin A1c level of 7%) are also linked to reduction of
proteinuria and alleviation of CKD progression (27–30).
3.1.12. We recommend that all people with CKD are
considered to be at increased risk of AKI. (1A)
The goal of this recommendation was to promote
awareness of the complex relationship between CKD and
AKI. Evidence demonstrates that CKD remains an inde-
pendent risk factor for AKI, even after multivariate adjust-
ment for comorbid conditions (31). Mounting evidence
suggests that AKI is a risk factor for both incident CKD
and progression of CKD. Both CKD and AKI increase in
prevalence with age, and we are an aging population.
4.1.2 We recommend that the level of care for ischemic
heart disease offered to people with CKD should not be
prejudiced by their CKD. (1A)
Persons with CKD are more likely to have a cardio-
vascular event than to progress to end-stage renal disease;
have worse prognosis with higher mortality rates after acute
myocardial infarction; and higher risk for recurrent myo-
cardial infarction, heart failure, and sudden cardiac death
(32). Despite this, the level of care offered to persons with
CKD is still frequently suboptimal.
DISCUSSION
The CKD classification system now encompasses
cause of CKD, GFR category, and albuminuria category.
This 3-dimensional approach builds on the simpler earlier
version, and the timing of these changes is appropriate,
given the current familiarity of general physicians with the
simpler version and the need to address common misun-
derstandings in a systematic manner. It has been argued
that additional factors, such as blood pressure, should be
included within the classification (33); however, while re-
fining the existing staging system, we also wanted to retain
the simplicity and easy applicability of a classification sys-
tem in clinical, research, and public health practice. There-
www.annals.org
Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 10/31/2016
Clinical Guideline
fore, we chose to include only kidney-related measures, and
by including cause of CKD, we acknowledge the true dif-
ferences in the natural history of kidney disease of different
causes. The revised classification provides a framework for
the next decade of reporting and research in CKD.
Whether decreased GFR or increased ACR in older
persons represents a disease or “normal aging” will always
be debatable, and disease labeling will continue to provoke
controversy in an aging society. Persons older than 75 years
have a spectrum of GFRs exceeding 60 mL/min per
1.73 m2 with and without albuminuria, as well as values
less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2. Aging is associated with
accruing comorbid conditions and the use of medications
that may result in reductions in GFR and albuminuria, and
that is an underappreciated aspect of the argument about
aging and eGFR.
It is no accident that 37% of the recommendations in
the guideline were ungraded and only 10% were graded
“A” for quality of the evidence. Much of the research gen-
erated in the past decade has been aimed at definition and
evaluation of CKD, together with identification of persons
with CKD and description of the associated adverse out-
comes of CKD. We have some good trial data about inter-
ventions, such as RAAS blockade in proteinuric CKD and
use of statin therapy for CKD (34, 35), and limited trial
data in other areas, such as bicarbonate therapy for acido-
sis. We need much more data if we want to affect out-
comes. We need to know exactly which interventions are
beneficial in prevention or alleviation of both CKD pro-
gression and the associated adverse outcomes and how and
when these interventions should be applied. We also need
to know when interventions that are believed to be bene-
ficial may actually cause harm. For example, indiscriminate
use of RAAS blockade in those with lower GFR and no
specific indication other than hypertension may expose
persons to additional risk for AKI with no benefit. Allied to
these areas, we need a much better understanding of defi-
nitions of CKD progression and how they affect clinical
practice and trials, how the relationship between AKI and
CKD relates to progression, and whether we can positively
influence this relationship.
From Kent Kidney Care Centre, East Kent Hospitals University NHS
Foundation Trust, Canterbury, United Kingdom, and University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Acknowledgment: The authors thank the KDIGO co-chairs Bertram L.
Kasiske, Kai-Uwe Eckardt, David C. Wheeler; the evidence review team
(Katrin Uhlig, Dana C. Miskulin, Amy Earley, Shana Haynes, Michael
Cheung); and all those who provided feedback during the public review
of the draft guideline.
Potential Conflicts of Interest: Dr. Levin: Consultancy (money to insti-
tution): Abbott Laboratories, Merck & Co; Grants/grants pending (money
to institution): Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Kidney
Foundation, Merck & Co, Ortho. Dr. Stevens: None disclosed. Disclo-
sures can also be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOf
InterestForms.do?msNum⫽M13-0034.
4 June 2013 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 158 • Number 11 829
 Clinical Guideline Synopsis of Clinical Practice Guideline on Evaluation and Management of CKD
Requests for Single Reprints: Paul E. Stevens, MBBS, BSc, Kent Kid-
ney Care Centre, Kent and Canterbury Hospital, Ethelbert Road, Can-
terbury, Kent CT1 3NG, United Kingdom; e-mail, pstevens@nhs.net.
Current author addresses and author contributions are available at www
.annals.org.
References
1. National Kidney Foundation. K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic
kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification. Am J Kidney Dis.
2002;39:S1-266. [PMID: 11904577]
2. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD Work
Group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and management of
chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int Suppl. 2013;3:1-150.
3. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, et al;
GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recom-
mendations. BMJ. 2004;328:1490. [PMID: 15205295]
4. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Vist GE, Liberati A, et al;
GRADE Working Group. Going from evidence to recommendations.
BMJ. 2008;336:1049-51. [PMID: 18467413]
5. Uhlig K, Macleod A, Craig J, Lau J, Levey AS, Levin A, et al. Grading
evidence and recommendations for clinical practice guidelines in nephrology. A
position statement from Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes
(KDIGO). Kidney Int. 2006;70:2058-65. [PMID: 17003817]
6. Astor BC, Matsushita K, Gansevoort RT, van der Velde M, Woodward M,
Levey AS, et al; Chronic Kidney Disease Prognosis Consortium. Lower esti-
mated glomerular filtration rate and higher albuminuria are associated with mor-
tality and end-stage renal disease. A collaborative meta-analysis of kidney disease
population cohorts. Kidney Int. 2011;79:1331-40. [PMID: 21289598]
7. Gansevoort RT, Matsushita K, van der Velde M, Astor BC, Woodward M,
Levey AS, et al; Chronic Kidney Disease Prognosis Consortium. Lower esti-
mated GFR and higher albuminuria are associated with adverse kidney outcomes.
A collaborative meta-analysis of general and high-risk population cohorts. Kidney
Int. 2011;80:93-104. [PMID: 21289597]
8. Matsushita K, van der Velde M, Astor BC, Woodward M, Levey AS, de Jong
PE, et al; Chronic Kidney Disease Prognosis Consortium. Association of esti-
mated glomerular filtration rate and albuminuria with all-cause and cardiovascu-
lar mortality in general population cohorts: a collaborative meta-analysis. Lancet.
2010;375:2073-81. [PMID: 20483451]
9. van der Velde M, Matsushita K, Coresh J, Astor BC, Woodward M, Levey
A, et al; Chronic Kidney Disease Prognosis Consortium. Lower estimated glo-
merular filtration rate and higher albuminuria are associated with all-cause and
cardiovascular mortality. A collaborative meta-analysis of high-risk population
cohorts. Kidney Int. 2011;79:1341-52. [PMID: 21307840]
10. Levey AS, de Jong PE, Coresh J, El Nahas M, Astor BC, Matsushita K,
et al. The definition, classification, and prognosis of chronic kidney disease: a
KDIGO Controversies Conference report. Kidney Int. 2011;80:17-28. [PMID:
21150873]
11. Earley A, Miskulin D, Lamb EJ, Levey AS, Uhlig K. Estimating equations
for glomerular filtration rate in the era of creatinine standardization: a systematic
review. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:785-95. [PMID: 22312131]
12. Peralta CA, Shlipak MG, Judd S, Cushman M, McClellan W, Zakai NA,
et al. Detection of chronic kidney disease with creatinine, cystatin C, and urine
albumin-to-creatinine ratio and association with progression to end-stage renal
disease and mortality. JAMA. 2011;305:1545-52. [PMID: 21482744]
13. Waheed S, Matsushita K, Sang Y, Hoogeveen R, Ballantyne C, Coresh J,
et al. Combined association of albuminuria and cystatin C-based estimated GFR
with mortality, coronary heart disease, and heart failure outcomes: the Athero-
sclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;60:207-
16. [PMID: 22537422]
14. Rifkin DE, Katz R, Chonchol M, Fried LF, Cao J, de Boer IH, et al.
Albuminuria, impaired kidney function and cardiovascular outcomes or mortality
in the elderly. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010;25:1560-7. [PMID: 20008829]
15. Gross JL, de Azevedo MJ, Silveiro SP, Canani LH, Caramori ML,
Zelmanovitz T. Diabetic nephropathy: diagnosis, prevention, and treatment.
Diabetes Care. 2005;28:164-76. [PMID: 15616252]
830 4 June 2013 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 158 • Number 11
Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 10/31/2016
16. Ninomiya T, Perkovic V, de Galan BE, Zoungas S, Pillai A, Jardine M,
et al; ADVANCE Collaborative Group. Albuminuria and kidney function in-
dependently predict cardiovascular and renal outcomes in diabetes. J Am Soc
Nephrol. 2009;20:1813-21. [PMID: 19443635]
17. Viazzi F, Leoncini G, Conti N, Tomolillo C, Giachero G, Vercelli M, et al.
Combined effect of albuminuria and estimated glomerular filtration rate on car-
diovascular events and all-cause mortality in uncomplicated hypertensive patients.
J Hypertens. 2010;28:848-55. [PMID: 20087212]
18. Shastri S, Katz R, Shlipak MG, Kestenbaum B, Peralta CA, Kramer H,
et al. Cystatin C and albuminuria as risk factors for development of CKD stage 3:
the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). Am J Kidney Dis. 2011;57:
832-40. [PMID: 21296473]
19. Hallan SI, Ritz E, Lydersen S, Romundstad S, Kvenild K, Orth SR. Com-
bining GFR and albuminuria to classify CKD improves prediction of ESRD.
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;20:1069-77. [PMID: 19357254]
20. Lamb EJ, MacKenzie F, Stevens PE. How should proteinuria be detected
and measured? Ann Clin Biochem. 2009;46:205-17. [PMID: 19389884]
21. Li L, Astor BC, Lewis J, Hu B, Appel LJ, Lipkowitz MS, et al. Longitudinal
progression trajectory of GFR among patients with CKD. Am J Kidney Dis.
2012;59:504-12. [PMID: 22284441]
22. O’Hare AM, Batten A, Burrows NR, Pavkov ME, Taylor L, Gupta I, et al.
Trajectories of kidney function decline in the 2 years before initiation of long-
term dialysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;59:513-22. [PMID: 22305760]
23. Turin TC, Coresh J, Tonelli M, Stevens PE, de Jong PE, Farmer CK, et al.
One-year change in kidney function is associated with an increased mortality risk.
Am J Nephrol. 2012;36:41-9. [PMID: 22699706]
24. Turin TC, Coresh J, Tonelli M, Stevens PE, de Jong PE, Farmer CK, et al.
Short-term change in kidney function and risk of end-stage renal disease. Nephrol
Dial Transplant. 2012;27:3835-43. [PMID: 22764191]
25. Turin TC, Coresh J, Tonelli M, Stevens PE, de Jong PE, Farmer CK, et al.
Change in the estimated glomerular filtration rate over time and risk of all-cause
mortality. Kidney Int. 2013. [PMID: 23344477]
26. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) BP Work Group.
KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the management of blood pressure in
chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int Suppl. 2012;2:337-414.
27. Jones-Burton C, Mishra SI, Fink JC, Brown J, Gossa W, Bakris GL, et al.
An in-depth review of the evidence linking dietary salt intake and progression of
chronic kidney disease. Am J Nephrol. 2006;26:268-75. [PMID: 16763384]
28. Navaneethan SD, Yehnert H, Moustarah F, Schreiber MJ, Schauer PR,
Beddhu S. Weight loss interventions in chronic kidney disease: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;4:1565-74. [PMID:
19808241]
29. Wakasugi M, Kazama JJ, Yamamoto S, Kawamura K, Narita I. A combi-
nation of healthy lifestyle factors is associated with a decreased incidence of
chronic kidney disease: a population-based cohort study. Hypertens Res. 2012.
[PMID: 23171953]
30. National Kidney Foundation. KDOQI Clinical Practice Guideline for Dia-
betes and CKD: 2012 Update. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;60:850-86. [PMID:
23067652]
31. Bedford M, Farmer C, Levin A, Ali T, Stevens P. Acute kidney injury and
CKD: chicken or egg? [Editorial]. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;59:485-91. [PMID:
22444492]
32. Herzog CA, Asinger RW, Berger AK, Charytan DM, Dı́ez J, Hart RG,
et al. Cardiovascular disease in chronic kidney disease. A clinical update from
Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO). Kidney Int. 2011;80:
572-86. [PMID: 21750584]
33. Burgos-Calderon R, Depine S. Systematic approach for the management of
chronic kidney disease: moving beyond chronic kidney disease classification. Curr
Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2010;19:208-13. [PMID: 19779338]
34. Remuzzi G, Benigni A, Remuzzi A. Mechanisms of progression and regres-
sion of renal lesions of chronic nephropathies and diabetes. J Clin Invest. 2006;
116:288-96. [PMID: 16453013]
35. Baigent C, Landray MJ, Reith C, Emberson J, Wheeler DC, Tomson C,
et al; SHARP Investigators. The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with sim-
vastatin plus ezetimibe in patients with chronic kidney disease (Study of Heart
and Renal Protection): a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;377:
2181-92. [PMID: 21663949]
www.annals.org

Current Author Addresses: Dr. Stevens: Kent Kidney Care Centre,
Kent and Canterbury Hospital, Ethelbert Road, Canterbury, Kent CT1
3NG, United Kingdom.
Dr. Levin: St. Paul’s Hospital, Providence Wing, Room 6010A, 1160
Burrard Street, Vancouver, British Columbia V6Z 1Y8, Canada.
Author Contributions: Conception and design: A. Levin.
Analysis and interpretation of the data: A. Levin.
Drafting of the article: P.E. Stevens, A. Levin.
Critical revision for important intellectual content: P.E. Stevens,
A. Levin.
Final approval of the article: P.E. Stevens, A. Levin.
Annals of Internal Medicine
Administrative, technical, or logistic support: A. Levin.
Collection and assembly of data: A. Levin.
APPENDIX: KDIGO CKD GUIDELINE DEVELOPMENT
WORK GROUP MEMBERS
Rudy W. Bilous, Josef Coresh, Angel L.M. de Francisco,
Paul de Jong, Kathryn E. Griffith, Brenda R. Hemmelgarn,
Kunitoshi Iseki, Edmund J. Lamb, Andrew S. Levey, Miguel C.
Riella, Michael G. Shlipak, Haiyan Wang, Colin T. White, and
Christopher G. Winearls.

Appendix Table 1. GRADE Criteria Used for Grade Levels in the KDIGO CKD Guideline

Grade Level* Implications

Patients Clinicians Policy

1 (“We Most persons in this situation would—and only
recommend”) a small proportion would not—want the
recommended course of action.
2 (“We suggest”) Most persons in this situation would—but
many would not—want the recommended
course of action.
Most patients should receive the recommended
course of action.
Different choices will be appropriate for different
patients. Each patient needs help to arrive at a
management decision consistent with his or
her values and preferences.
The recommendation can be evaluated as
a candidate for developing a policy or
performance measure.
The recommendation is likely to require
substantial debate and involvement of
stakeholders before policy can be
determined.

CKD ⫽ chronic kidney disease; GRADE ⫽ Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; KDIGO ⫽ Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes.
* The additional category “Not Graded” was typically used to provide guidance on the basis of common sense or where the topic does not allow adequate application of evidence.

Appendix Table 2. GRADE Criteria Used for Letter Grades in the KDIGO CKD Guideline

Letter Grade Quality of Evidence Meaning

A High We are confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
B Moderate The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
C Low The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
D Very low The estimate of the effect is very uncertain and often will be far from the truth.

CKD ⫽ chronic kidney disease; GRADE ⫽ Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; KDIGO ⫽ Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes.

Appendix Table 3. Topics Chosen for Systematic Review

Topic Question Population

Nontreatment
Prediction equations for GFR
Prediction equations for risk
for kidney failure
Gadolinium exposure and NFD
AKI and phosphate-containing
bowel preparations
How do serum creatinine– or cystatin C–based prediction equations
perform compared with gold standard measurement of GFR?
What prediction equations predict kidney failure?
What is the incidence of NFD after exposure to gadolinium?
What is the incidence of AKI after taking a phosphate-containing
bowel preparation?
Patients in steady state with or without CKD and other
special populations (DM, hypertension, KTRs or
donors, various age groups, races, or ethnic groups)
Patients with a GFR ⬍60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or KTRs
Patients with a GFR ⬍60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or KTRs
Patients within any GFR category; individuals without
CKD

Treatment
Treatment with bicarbonate
Treatment with allopurinol
Timing of initiation of RRT in
CKD
Protein restriction
Does treatment with bicarbonate in CKD improve clinical outcomes?
Does treatment with allopurinol in CKD improve clinical outcomes?
When should dialysis be started (early or late)?
Should patients with CKD be on a protein-restricted diet?
Patients with a GFR ⬍60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or KTRs
Patients with a GFR ⬍60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or KTRs
with or without hyperuricemia
Patients with a GFR ⬍30 mL/min per 1.73 m2
Patients with a GFR ⬍60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or KTRs

AKI ⫽ acute kidney injury; CKD ⫽ chronic kidney disease; DM ⫽ diabetes mellitus; GFR ⫽ glomerular filtration rate; KTR ⫽ kidney transplant recipient; NFD ⫽
nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy; RRT ⫽ renal replacement therapy.

W-332 4 June 2013 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 158 • Number 11 www.annals.org

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 10/31/2016