public health surveillance of ckd: principles, steps, and challenges
TRANSCRIPT
CpoahcbpdciaPtlsUIDMtNsipHmfsan
A
Public Health Surveillance of CKD: Principles, Steps, and Challenges
Neil R. Powe, MD, MPH, MBA,1,2,3,4 Laura Plantinga, ScM,2,4 and Rajiv Saran, MD, MS5,6
Population-based surveillance of disease has become an important component of addressingsuch common chronic diseases as hypertension and diabetes. Such systems guide screening,prevention, and treatment resources. Development of a chronic kidney disease (CKD) surveillancesystem for the United States that focuses on early stages of CKD is an important activity that couldhelp stem the increasing number of end-stage renal disease cases and CKD-related morbidity andmortality in the United States. It also could help in the evaluation of interventional programs thatcurrently are being developed or already in place. Such a surveillance system should address theburden of CKD, awareness of CKD, CKD risk factors, CKD consequences, process and quality ofcare in CKD, and the health system capacity for CKD. It also should allow for estimations of theburden of CKD by age, sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic strata, geographic groups, and clinicalsubgroups. We describe the key components of a surveillance system for CKD, steps in thedevelopment of such a system, and challenges that need to be addressed. Information necessaryfor surveillance of CKD is evolving. At this juncture, collecting, integrating, analyzing, and interpret-ing information about CKD for surveillance by using a systematic, comprehensive, and feasibleapproach will be instrumental in prevention and health promotion efforts for this chronic disease.Am J Kidney Dis 53(S3):S37-S45. © 2009 by the National Kidney Foundation, Inc.
INDEX WORDS : Chronic kidney disease; surveillance; epidemiology; public health.
gsso(t
tdanmtde
vaBPHmC
CJS
hronic kidney disease (CKD), defined as kid-ney damage with persistent, gradual, and
rogressive deterioration of kidney function (lossf the ability to excrete wastes, concentrate urine,nd conserve electrolytes), is a growing publicealth problem in the United States. Detected mostommonly through laboratory measurements onlood (eg, creatinine) and urine (eg, albumin), therevalence of its most severe stage, end-stage renalisease (ESRD), has doubled during the last de-ade, with approximately 500,000 US patients be-ng treated for ESRD in 2005.1 Almost a decadego, CKD was declared a focus area of the Healthyeople 2010 objectives.2 Despite the attention given
o this chronic disease epidemic, there is no estab-ished comprehensive monitoring and surveillanceystem for the entire spectrum of CKD in thenited States. Concerted efforts by the National
nstitute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidneyisease (NIDDK) and the Centers for Medicare &edicaid Services (CMS) in the establishment of
he US Renal Data System (USRDS) and the ESRDetworks have historically focused on the most
evere stage of CKD, stage 5 CKD or ESRD, anllness with many complications, high mortality,oor quality of life, and large health care costs.owever, if we are to prevent ESRD and its relatedorbidity and mortality in the United States, ef-
orts must be made to track the distribution of alltages of CKD, its risk factors, and consequencesnd identify opportunities to intervene on the ill-
ess at earlier stages, particularly in high-riskmerican Journal of Kidney Diseases, Vol 53, No 3, Suppl 3 (Marc
roups. A surveillance system is one of the firstteps in this process. We discuss the principles,teps, and challenges involved in our developmentf a Centers for Disease Control and PreventionCDC)-sponsored comprehensive surveillance sys-em for CKD in the United States.
WHAT IS A SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM?
A surveillance system comprehensively cap-ures and tracks all important manifestations of aisease, providing key information about diseasectivity, including persons affected, timing, mag-itude, severity, and location, to guide the imple-entation of medical and public health measures
o control or contain the disease. For a chronicisease such as CKD, this means, in addition tonumeration of cases, information about progres-
From the 1Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Uni-ersity School of Medicine; Departments of 2Epidemiologynd 3Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkinsloomberg School of Public Health; 4Welch Center forrevention, Epidemiology and Clinical Research, Johnsopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD; and 5Depart-ent of Medicine and 6Kidney Epidemiology and Costenter, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.Address correspondence to Neil R. Powe, MD, Welch
enter for Prevention, Epidemiology and Clinical Research,ohns Hopkins Medical Institutions, 2024 E Monument St,te 2-600, Baltimore, MD 21287. E-mail: [email protected]© 2009 by the National Kidney Foundation, Inc.0272-6386/09/5303-0105$36.00/0
doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2008.07.056h), 2009: pp S37-S45 S37
siiSncvon
fafwstidoattn(oaarsrccotfeahsamttsmtt
seitewdutn
tcvtweaTstaaFa
msat
Powe, Plantinga, and SaranS38
ion of the disease and its complications. It ismportant to distinguish surveillance from screen-ng because the 2 concepts are often confused.creening refers to identification of unrecog-ized cases of a disease. Screening may be aomponent of surveillance, but surveillance in-olves enumerating and tracking recognized casesf disease in addition to detection of unrecog-ized cases of disease.
DESIRABLE ATTRIBUTES OF ASURVEILLANCE SYSTEM
The CDC3 has proposed 7 desirable attributesor a surveillance system (Box 1). To be effectivend sustainable over time, a surveillance systemor CKD should involve relatively straightfor-ard data collection and operations for reporting
uch data on a periodic basis. It must be flexibleo examine new dimensions identified from morentensive research and accommodate changes inefinitions of disease. For example, new markersf kidney damage (eg, neutrophil gelatinase-ssociated lipocalin, dimethylarginine, and liver-ype fatty acid-binding protein)4 and kidney func-ion (eg, cystatin C) have been identified. If suchovel markers were to supersede current markersalbuminuria and creatinine) through further rig-rous testing and become commercially avail-ble, a surveillance system should be able todapt to incorporate their data collection andeporting. The data incorporated into a CKDurveillance system should be of high quality,eliable, and valid. The measures should haveonstruct validity, predictive validity, and dis-riminant validity, as well as face validity. Sourcesf data should find the system acceptable andhus be willing to participate and share their datareely. The system must be sensitive to capturevents over time and space, and a high percent-ge of true cases must be identified as possiblyaving a disease. The system must give a repre-entative picture of CKD in the United States aswhole and in communities. The system alsoust be able to report the status of CKD in a
imely fashion so that interventions can be effec-ive. Finally, some of the most important mea-ures, such as burden of kidney disease, will beost useful if data are assembled over time so
hat trends in illness can be examined. Therefore,
he sources that provide information for a CKD eurveillance system must be stable enough tonsure that data will be available in the future. Its important to note that these attributes some-imes can be in conflict with each other; forxample, collection of data in a cohort study thatould maximize the predictive value of kidneyamage through repeated measures of albumin-ria to establish persistence may be less represen-ative than data from a geographically broaderational cross-sectional survey.
CORE STEPS IN A SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM
Design of a comprehensive surveillance sys-em for CKD includes several core steps thatarefully weigh the desirable attributes of a sur-eillance system (Box 2).5 The first step includeshe selection of important topics and measuresithin each topic area. The second includes
stablishment of indicators for each measure,long with selection of possible data sources.hird, data are collected or assembled fromources and integrated if obtained from morehan 1 data source. Fourth, data are analyzed toddress each indicator of interest. Fifth, resultsre interpreted and assembled for presentation.inally, the products of the surveillance systemre disseminated.
Ideally, the process of selecting topics andeasures to be included in a surveillance system
hould include input not only from experts, butlso from possible users of the system. For CKD,his might include representatives from the fed-
Box 1. Attributes of an Ideal Surveillance System
Simplicity of the system structure and operationFlexibility to look at new questions posed by research
and accommodate changes in technology or reportingdefinitions
Data quality for complete and valid dataAcceptability to generate enthusiasm and willingness
to participate in the systemSensitivity for capturing all events and monitoring
trendsPredictive value positive of capturing true casesRepresentativeness of the information for individuals
in the United StatesTimeliness of process from collecting information to
delivering it to make health care changesStability to reliably operate and provide information
when called upon
Adapted with permission from the CDC.3
ral government agencies impacted on by kidney
dHRmSFt[AptAtnlib
lCCohoodngab
lrtdseb
eipdspse
P
aa(famsptsspmtmpsiptipiv
P
a
CKD Public Health Surveillance S39
isease (eg, the CDC, NIDDK, CMS, Agency forealthcare Research and Quality, and Healthesources and Services Administration). Involve-ent of professional societies (eg, Americanociety of Nephrology [ASN], National Kidneyoundation [NKF], Renal Physicians Associa-
ion, American Nephrology Nurses’ AssociationANNA], American College of Physicians, andmerican Academy of Family Physicians) andatient advocacy groups (eg, American Associa-ion of Kidney Patients and American Diabetesssociation) provides input by those who can
ake local action on findings to increase aware-ess and implement change. Also, input fromocal and regional health officials can be usefuln galvanizing communities in which diseaseurden and problems are most prevalent.
A POSSIBLE CLASSIFICATION OF TOPICS FORA CKD SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM
A possible classification of topics for a surveil-ance system for CKD would include burden ofKD (incidence and prevalence), awareness ofKD, risk factors for CKD, health consequencesf CKD, processes and quality of care in CKD, andealth care system capacity for CKD. The burdenf disease should be described according to stagesf CKD (described in previous articles) and withinifferent demographic (eg, age, sex, race, and eth-icity) and clinical (eg, diabetes and hypertension)roups, across different geographic areas (eg, states),nd across time. Stage 5 CKD, or ESRD, which has
Box 2. Core Steps in the Design of aSurveillance System
Selection of topics and measures+
Identification of data sources and creation of indicators+
Data collection+
Data intergration+
Data analysis+
Interpretation of results+
Development of surveillance products+
Dissemination of products
Adapted with permission.5
een tracked since the late 1980s by its own surveil- b
ance system, the USRDS, provides an importanteference point to gauge progress in the preven-ion of kidney damage and progression ofisease. For each of these potential topics,everal measures may be relevant (Table 1),ach of which may have indicators that need toe carefully delineated (Table 2).6
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF DATA FORNATIONAL AND LOCAL SURVEILLANCE
Many types of data sources could provide rel-vant data for a CKD surveillance system. Thesenclude population-based survey data, public andrivate health care system data, screening activityata, professional societies, private industry, cohorttudies, and registries. We describe some of theseossibilities next. Table 3 lists a brief summary ofpecific data collection activities or databases forach of these types of data sources.
opulation-BasedSurveyDataNational surveys, such as the National Health
nd Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)nd Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance SystemBRFSS), provide nationally representative dataor the overall health of US citizens. NHANES is
long-running national source of objectivelyeasured health and nutrition data. The NHANES
urvey, now conducted every 2 years, includeshysical examinations, clinical and laboratoryests, and personal interviews to provide a cross-ectional summary of the health and nutritionaltatus of the noninstitutionalized civilian USopulation. NHANES provides data to deter-ine rates of major diseases and health condi-
ions, as well as identify and monitor trends inedical conditions, risk factors, and emerging
ublic health issues. BRFSS is a CDC-sponsoredtate-based annual telephone survey of behav-oral risk factors with a primary purpose torovide state-specific estimates of behavioral fac-ors that contribute to the leading causes of deathn the United States. Data from the BRFSSrovide information about trends in risk behav-ors, health disparities, and effectiveness of pre-ention and education programs.
ublicHealth SystemDataPublic health programs in the United States
lso might provide useful data. The CMS serves
oth the elderly and disabled (Medicare) andpccMM
tSdar
B
A
B
H
C
H
e e rena
IDNDMPD
B
SL
L
A
A
E
Powe, Plantinga, and SaranS40
oor (Medicaid) populations and captures alllaims from both sources. Data from the CMSould come from many sources, including theedicare Enrollment Database (EDB), Nationaledicare Utilization Database, Medicaid Utiliza-
Table 1. Examples of Measures With
Category
urden of CKD (CKDincidence and prevalence)
Prevalence of stagesIncidence of stages 1-
wareness of CKD Awareness of risk in pAwareness of risk in pAwareness of risk in thKnowledge of CKD ris
urden (incidence/prevalence)of risk factors for CKD inthose at risk
Prevalence of diabetePrevalence of hypertePrevalence of controll
ealth consequences inpatients with CKD
Proportion of patientsMortality ratesProgression of CKD bProgression of decrea
KD processes and quality ofcare
Detection of CKD in thAppropriate use of AC
and patients with hyReferral to a nephrolo
ealth system capacity forCKD
Reporting of eGFR byAdequacy of insurancUse of standardized c
Abbreviations: ACE, angiotensin-converting enzyme; ARGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; ESRD, end-stag
Table 2. Sample C
Field
ndicator name Prevalence of stage 3 Cemographic group Residents aged � 18 yumerator Residents aged � 18 yenominator All residents aged � 18easures of frequency Annual prevalence (aseriod for case definition 1980-2005ata resources NHANES for calculation
Bureau population esackground Estimates from NHANE
which translated to aignificance Indication of future burdimitations of indicator Requires laboratory tes
methodsimitations of dataresources
Not calculated from origfrom huge database
ddresses Healthy People2010 objectives
2010 Relevant targets iprevalent patients wit
dditional data items Individual-level data forfactors and data strat
Abbreviations: CKD, chronic kidney disease; CVD, card
SRD, end-stage renal disease; NHANES, National Health and Nion Database (Medicaid Statistical Informationtatistics), nursing home and health assessmentata (Outcome and Assessment Information Setnd Minimum Data Set), and the Medicare Cur-ent Beneficiary Survey. The Department of Vet-
ad Categories for CKD Surveillance
Example Measures
D by eGFR (kidney function)by eGFR (kidney function)with diabeteswith hypertension
ith family history of CKD/ESRDrsus
d pressureKD moving to ESRD over time
graphic characteristics (eg, race/ethnicity)nal function by level of proteinuriath risk factorsitors/ARBs (eg, for patients with diabetes with proteinuriasion)PCP before ESRDtoriesragee
giotensin receptor blocker; CKD, chronic kidney disease;l disease; PCP, primary care physician.
dicator Template
Description
ve eGFR of 30-60 mL/min/1.73 m2
tage and estimates of number affected)
centage affected that could then be applied to Censuss for total disease burden-2000 show the prevalence of stage 3 CKD at 3.7%,ately 7.4 million US adults from 2000 Census data6
this group progresses to ESRD or CVDserum creatinine and estimation of GFR by standardized
rum creatinine measurements or will be difficult to extract
reducing the ESRD incident rate to 217/million because3 CKD have high risk of progressing to ESRD
ex, race/ethnicity, and geography for adjustment of riskn
ular disease; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate;
in Bro
1-5 CK5 CKDatientsatientsose wk factos mellitnsioned bloowith C
y demosed reose wiE inhibpertengist bylabora
e covereatinin
B, an
KD In
KD
who hayears
percen
of pertimateS 1999
pproximen asting of
inal se
ncludeh stageage, sificatio
iovasc
utrition Examination Survey.eAgahtuhpuaHfAhNpm
wn
P
Cnmtpp
S
au
P
P
P
S
P
P
C
R
rCINp ata Sy
CKD Public Health Surveillance S41
rans Affairs (VA), through the Veterans Healthdministration (VHA), operates the largest inte-rated health care system in the United States forll US military veterans. The VHA has a longistory of computerized clinical information sys-ems. At present, all episodes of care providednder VA auspices in VA hospitals, nursingomes, domiciles, and outpatient clinics are re-orted by facility staff using nationally distrib-ted software. The Indian Health Service (IHS),n agency within the Department of Health anduman Services, is responsible for providing
ederal health services to American Indians andlaska Natives. The IHS is the principal federalealth care provider and health advocate for theative American population. The IHS currentlyrovides health services to approximately 1.5
Table 3. Types of Data Available From
Data Source Questionnaire Examina
opulation-based surveysNHANES ✓ ✓
BRFSS ✓
ublic health systemsCMS ✓ ✓
VA ✓
HIS ✓
rivate health systemsBCBS ✓
Regional ✓
creening activitiesKEEP ✓ ✓
NKDEP ✓
rofessional societiesAMA ✓
ASN/ANNA ✓
rivate industryLabCorpQuestMedstat ✓
ohort studiesCRIC/CKiD ✓ ✓
CRIC/CKiD ✓ ✓
egistriesUSRDS ✓
SRTR ✓
Abbreviations: AMA, American Medical Association; ANNosis Risk in Communities; ASN, American Society of NeKiD, Chronic Kidney Disease in Children; CMS, Cent
nsufficiency Cohort; IHS, Indian Health Service; KEEP, Kutrition Examination Survey; NKDEP, National Kidney Dlant Recipients; VA, Veterans Affairs; USRDS, US Renal D
illion American Indians and Alaska Natives s
ho belong to more than 557 federally recog-ized tribes in 35 states.
rivateHealth SystemData
Private health insurance plans, such as Blueross Blue Shield, could provide data on aational level (in aggregate) for diagnoses, treat-ents, costs, and trends in their patient popula-
ions. Additional regional health care plans couldrovide in-depth information about trends inarticular US states or regions.
creeningActivityData
Several organizations maintain screeningnd/or educational programs that may provideseful data for CKD surveillance. The NKF
ntial CKD Surveillance Data Sources
Type of Data
Laboratory Medical Record Claims Mortality
✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓
erican Nephrology Nurses Association; ARIC, Atheroscle-y; BRFSS, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System;Medicare & Medicaid Services; CRIC, Chronic Renalarly Evaluation Program; NHANES, National Health andEducation Program; SRTR, Scientific Registry of Trans-stem.
Pote
tion
A, Amphrologers foridney Eisease
ponsors a free kidney health screening pro-
g(kpttt(na(
P
Mmcnt
P
tmshbarccaa
C
rvpcrl4ctstomc
mspmdhecNpySMMitlbawhnCtymsfitfcs
R
aTdsEiaoasim
Powe, Plantinga, and SaranS42
ram, the Kidney Early Evaluation ProgramKEEP), designed to increase awareness aboutidney disease in high-risk individuals androvide free testing and educational informa-ion so that kidney disease and its complica-ions can be prevented or delayed. The Na-ional Kidney Disease Education ProgramNKDEP) has performed surveys on aware-ess of CKD risk factors in African Americansnd for estimated glomerular filtration rateeGFR) reporting by laboratories.
rofessional Societies
Professional societies, such as the Americanedical Association, ASN, and ANNA, alsoight provide data about issues of health care
apacity, including numbers of nephrologists andephrology nurses, in addition to nephrologyrainees.
rivate IndustryData
Private industry also may provide data usefulo CKD surveillance. For example, such nationaledical laboratories as Quest Diagnostics (Madi-
on, NJ) and LabCorp (Burlington, NC) mightave information about tests ordered and possi-ly results of tests. Private data warehouses, suchs Medstat, provide a family of databases toesearchers containing individual-level health carelaims, laboratory test results, and hospital dis-harge information from large employers, man-ged care organizations, hospitals, and Medicarend Medicaid programs.
ohort StudyData
Cohort studies, although usually not as rep-esentative as other sources, might providealuable information about the incidence androgression of disease that may be hard toapture elsewhere. For example, the Atheroscle-osis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study7 is aongitudinal study of 15,792 participants aged5 to 64 years recruited from 4 US suburbanommunities with the primary purpose of inves-igating the cause and natural history of athero-clerosis, including determination of risk fac-ors. Baseline and follow-up visits (whichccurred every 3 years) included measure-ents of demographics, lifestyle, physiologi-
al characteristics, and laboratory measure- r
ents. Studies such as ARIC could be used totudy the incidence of CKD. Cohorts of partici-ants enrolled with kidney disease would beost useful for studying the progression of
isease. The Chronic Renal Insufficiency Co-ort (CRIC) Study8 and Chronic Kidney Dis-ase in Children (CKiD)9 are both prospectiveohort studies funded by the NIDDK of theational Institutes of Health (NIH). CRIC com-rises nearly 4,000 adult patients aged 21 to 74ears recruited from 7 centers in the Unitedtates, including Philadelphia, PA; Baltimore,D; Cleveland, OH; Chicago, IL; Ann Arbor,I; New Orleans, LA; and Oakland, CA. CRIC
ncludes measures of kidney function overime and risk factors for CKD and cardiovascu-ar disease (CVD) to examine the relationshipetween moderate stages of CKD and CVD asfirst step to prevent and better treat patientsith CKD and CVD. Selected participants alsoave undergone extensive measurement of kid-ey function with radiolabeled iothalamate.KiD is recruiting from approximately 50 cen-
ers, approximately 500 children aged 1 to 16ears who have an eGFR between 30 and 75L/min/1.73 m2. CKiD also includes mea-
ures of kidney function over time and riskactors for CKD progression to examine thempact of progression on the growth, cogni-ion, behavior, and development of risk factorsor CVD. These studies provide detailed andarefully collected data about CKD progres-ion from moderate CKD stages to ESRD.
egistryData
National registries of ESRD care (USRDS)nd transplant recipients (Scientific Registry ofransplant Recipients [SRTR]) provide valuableata. The USRDS is an NIDDK- and CMS-ponsored national database, predominantly forSRD. It provides national statistics for ESRD
ncidence and prevalence, treatment modalities,chievement of clinical indicators, and clinicalutcomes. The SRTR supports the ongoing evalu-tion of the scientific and clinical status of allolid-organ transplantations in the United States,ncluding kidney transplants. Thus, it provides aeans of following up patients who are at high
isk of CKD outcomes.
trttTm
S
fttTiudsnwaottNcfl
E
tptcvmttctntnatk
G
rmbcmplsrat
S
lmSststaothpr
V
mfftdlfc
V
tdmomt
CKD Public Health Surveillance S43
CHALLENGES IN ESTABLISHING A CKDSURVEILLANCE SYSTEM
The processes of identifying and selectingopics and measures, identifying and selectingelevant data sources, and integrating the informa-ion into a usable surveillance system for CKD inhe United States are fraught with challenges.hese challenges include both conceptual andethod issues.
ampling
The USRDS, the current surveillance systemor ESRD, benefits from the relatively easy iden-ification of persons treated for stage 5 CKDhrough Medicare program administrative files.hus, it can enumerate nearly all cases of ESRD
n the United States and passively follow themp for such outcomes as hospitalization andeath by using Medicare program files. For earlytages of CKD, total identification of all cases isot possible. Thus, the use of NHANES data,hich uses probability sampling, has been the
ccepted approach to estimating the total burdenf CKD in the United States.10,11 Incorporatinghe sampling strategy for areas of the countryherefore is critical for appropriate analysis ofHANES data. Because NHANES has strict
onfidentiality concerns, data are not availableor smaller geographic units that might allow forocal efforts to address CKD.
stablishing aPopulationDenominator
For some data, we may be able to determinehe number of cases affected, but the largeropulation from which they come (the denomina-or) may not be clearly defined. For example,linical laboratories may be able to identify indi-iduals with CKD through creatinine measure-ents. However, these individuals represent only
hose tested, and the reasons for testing are likelyo be unknown in most cases. Similarly, healthare system data are likely to identify thoseested for CKD through proteinuria and creati-ine measurements, but CKD in individuals notested would not be identified. One could use theumber of enrollees in the health care system asdenominator, but there would be misclassifica-
ion of some persons as normal who truly have
idney disease. geographicDetail for State andLocal Planning
Arguably, data to compare communities withegard to CKD burden and prevention would beost useful. Many surveillance systems have
enefited from data at levels of state, county, zipode, or census tract. For CKD risk factors, itay be possible to obtain such information, but
revalence and incidence data for CKD at theocal level are hard to come by. Local efforts,uch as the New York HANES, could incorpo-ate measures for CKD in data collection toddress kidney disease in addition to other condi-ions.
tandardizationofMeasures
Some measures to calculate as part of a surveil-ance system are incidence and prevalence rates,ortality rates, and hospital admission rates.tandardization of these types of measures in aurveillance system is crucial,12 and standardiza-ion must be done to a single population at aingle time. This is to ensure that the denomina-or provides an accurate representation of CKDt all its stages by geographic area, age, race, andther patient characteristics (and eventually, overime). Many data sources provide measures thatave already been standardized to their ownopulation (eg, the reference may be state oregion level or historic).
ariableDefinitions ofMeasures
Variables such as diabetes could be defined inultiple ways, such as a self-reported diagnosis,
asting glucose level greater than 126 g/dL, orrom such information as use of diabetes medica-ion. Varying definitions such as these could giveifferent rates. In addition, GFR may be calcu-ated based on several measurements or differentormulae and thus lead to differences in classifi-ation and staging of patients with CKD.
ariability inDataQuality
Another issue is variability in the quality ofhe data because different data sources may haveifferent thresholds of quality; ie, some sourcesay release all data they have collected, whereas
ther sources might release only data that haveissing values less than a certain proportion or
hat are in sufficient numbers in demographic or
eographic subgroups that they are not identifi-acmscdwmns
CTpBsflellpfdCioiortmagcCbgfsad
ll
clsccUtC
f
RoM
PHi
l
a
K
HO
Powe, Plantinga, and SaranS44
ble. This information must be taken into ac-ount when possible. Additionally, individualeasures may have their own method issues,
uch as measurement of GFR, which may bealculated based on several measurements orifferent formulae.13-15 In this case, we ideallyould use the most recent and accepted measure-ents and formulae to estimate GFR, rather than
ecessarily depend on that calculated by the dataource.
EXTENDING CKD SURVEILLANCESYSTEMS GLOBALLY
Many countries now have registries for stage 5KD with data elements similar to the USRDS.his has allowed international comparisons inrevalence, incidence, and treatment for ESRD.1
ecause such data collection efforts can be expen-ive in countries with fewer resources, CKD dataor international comparisons will be a chal-enge. In 2006, experts from around the worldxamined CKD as a global public health prob-em initiative, addressing the issue of surveil-ance through the KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Im-roving Global Outcomes) initiative.16 Expertsrom different countries made several recommen-ations with respect to establishment of nationalKD surveillance programs (Box 3). Recogniz-
ng that data for early stages might be difficult tobtain, the group recommended that all countriesnstitute CKD surveillance, including estimatesf the prevalence of stages 4 and 5 CKD. Theyecommended that nations with resources striveo include earlier stages. In addition, they recom-ended that data for risk factors for CKD (eg,
ge, diabetes, and hypertension) and CKD pro-ression17 be included. Recognizing the effi-iency of combined efforts around CVD andKD, they suggested that surveillance for CKDe incorporated into ongoing surveillance pro-rams, and data collected that are also CKD riskactors in such programs should be used for CKDurveillance. They also made recommendationsbout topic areas, sampling, and frequency ofata collection.
CONCLUSION
Despite the large amount of work and chal-enges involved in establishing a CKD surveil-
ance system in the United States, a systematic, tomprehensive, and feasible approach as out-ined can guide the collection, integration, analy-is, and interpretation of CKD information. Weurrently are using these principles to designomprehensive surveillance for CKD in thenited States. Such a system will be instrumen-
al in prevention and health promotion efforts forKD.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSSupport: Dr Powe is supported by Grant K24DK02643
rom the NIDDK.Financial Disclosure: None.
REFERENCES1. US Renal Data System: USRDS 2005 Annual Data
eport. The National Institutes of Health, National Institutef Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda,D, 20072. Department of Health and Human Services: Healthy
eople 2010 (ed 2). With Understanding and Improvingealth and Objectives for Improving Health. 2 vols. Wash-
ngton DC, US Government Printing Office, 20003. Updated guidelines for evaluating public health surveil-
ance systems. MMWR 50:1-35, 20014. Nickolas TL, Barasch J, Devarajan P: Biomarkers in
cute and chronic kidney disease. Curr Opin Nephrol Hyper-
Box 3. Recommendations on Surveillance From thePosition Statement From the KDIGO Controversies
Conference
All countries should have a surveillance program forCKD to estimate the prevalence of CKD stages 4-5 andstrive to include earlier stages
If possible, data for risk factors for the developmentand progression of CKD most relevant for the specificpopulation should be included
Surveillance for CKD could be incorporated into exist-ing surveillance programs and data from such programsshould be used for surveillance of CKD risk factors.
Data could be obtained from random samples of thegeneral population or (possibly) populations receivingmedical care
Data should be collected at a frequency of every 5-10y or more often, depending on disease dynamics, inter-ventional strategies, and regional resources
Additional components of a CKD surveillance pro-gram could be consequences of CKD education/aware-ness, health system capabilities, quality of care markers,and health policy goals
Abbreviations: CKD, chronic kidney disease; KDIGO,idney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes.Data from Chronic Kidney Disease as a Global Publicealth Problem: Approaches and Initiatives, Amsterdam,ctober, 2006.15
ens 17:127-132, 2008
aSCC
R
mm
Ro
mp2
kU2
Pf
a2
snK
RfitA
c
Ad5
dip
g
CKD Public Health Surveillance S45
5. Health Canada: Chronic Disease Surveillance in Can-da: A Background Paper. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Healthurveillance Coordination Division, Centre for Surveillanceoordination, Population and Public Health Branch, Healthanada, 20036. Indicators for chronic disease surveillance. MMWR
ecomm Rep 53(RR-11): 1-6, 20047. ARIC Investigators: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Com-unities (ARIC) Study: Design and objectives. Am J Epide-iol 129:687-702, 19898. Feldman HI, Appel LJ, Chertow GM, et al: The Chronic
enal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) Study: Design and meth-ds. J Am Soc Nephrol 14:S148-S153, 2003 (suppl 2)9. Furth SL, Cole SR, Moxey-Mims M, et al: Design andethods of the Chronic Kidney Disease in Children (CKiD)
rospective cohort study. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 1:1006-1015,006
10. Coresh J, Byrd-Holt D, Astor BC, et al: Chronicidney disease awareness, prevalence, and trends among.S. adults, 1999 to 2000. J Am Soc Nephrol 16:180-188,00511. Coresh J, Astor BC, Greene T, Eknoyan G, Levey AS:
revalence of chronic kidney disease and decreased kidney
unction in the adult US population: Third National Health Snd Nutrition Examination Survey. Am J Kidney Dis 41:1-12,00312. Selvin E, Manzi J, Stevens LA, et al: Calibration of
erum creatinine in the National Health and Nutrition Exami-ation Surveys (NHANES) 1988-1994, 1999-2004. Am Jidney Dis 50:918-926, 200713. Levey AS, Bosch JP, Lewis JB, Greene T, Rogers N,
oth D: A more accurate method to estimate glomerularltration rate from serum creatinine: A new prediction equa-
ion. Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Group.nn Intern Med 130:461-470, 199914. Cockcroft DW, Gault MH: Prediction of creatinine
learance from serum creatinine. Nephron 16:31-41, 197615. Schwartz GJ, Haycock GB, Edelmann CM Jr, Spitzer
: A simple estimate of glomerular filtration rate in childrenerived from body length and plasma creatinine. Pediatrics8:259-263, 197616. Levey AS, Atkins R, Coresh J, et al: Chronic kidney
isease as a global public health problem: Approaches andnitiatives—A position statement from Kidney Disease Im-roving Global Outcomes. Kidney Int 72:247-259, 200717. McClellan WM, Flanders WD: Risk factors for pro-
ressive chronic kidney disease. J Am Soc Nephrol 14:S65-
70, 2003 (suppl 2)