Yaping (Lucy) Zhang

A New Equation to Estimate Glomerular Filtration Rate

BACKGROUNDnEquations to estimate glomerular filtration rate (GFR) are routinely used to assess kidney function. Current equations have limited precision and systematically underestimate measured GFR at higher values.nnnOBJECTIVEnTo develop a new estimating equation for GFR: the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation.nnnDESIGNnCross-sectional analysis with separate pooled data sets for equation development and validation and a representative sample of the U.S. population for prevalence estimates.nnnSETTINGnResearch studies and clinical populations (studies) with measured GFR and NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey), 1999 to 2006.nnnPARTICIPANTSn8254 participants in 10 studies (equation development data set) and 3896 participants in 16 studies (validation data set). Prevalence estimates were based on 16,032 participants in NHANES.nnnMEASUREMENTSnGFR, measured as the clearance of exogenous filtration markers (iothalamate in the development data set; iothalamate and other markers in the validation data set), and linear regression to estimate the logarithm of measured GFR from standardized creatinine levels, sex, race, and age.nnnRESULTSnIn the validation data set, the CKD-EPI equation performed better than the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study equation, especially at higher GFR (P < 0.001 for all subsequent comparisons), with less bias (median difference between measured and estimated GFR, 2.5 vs. 5.5 mL/min per 1.73 m(2)), improved precision (interquartile range [IQR] of the differences, 16.6 vs. 18.3 mL/min per 1.73 m(2)), and greater accuracy (percentage of estimated GFR within 30% of measured GFR, 84.1% vs. 80.6%). In NHANES, the median estimated GFR was 94.5 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) (IQR, 79.7 to 108.1) vs. 85.0 (IQR, 72.9 to 98.5) mL/min per 1.73 m(2), and the prevalence of chronic kidney disease was 11.5% (95% CI, 10.6% to 12.4%) versus 13.1% (CI, 12.1% to 14.0%).nnnLIMITATIONnThe sample contained a limited number of elderly people and racial and ethnic minorities with measured GFR.nnnCONCLUSIONnThe CKD-EPI creatinine equation is more accurate than the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study equation and could replace it for routine clinical use.nnnPRIMARY FUNDING SOURCEnNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

Using Standardized Serum Creatinine Values in the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Equation for Estimating Glomerular Filtration Rate

Context Guidelines recommend that laboratories estimate glomerular filtration rate (GFR) with equations that use serum creatinine level, age, sex, and ethnicity. Standardizing creatinine measurements across clinical laboratories should reduce variability in estimated GFR. Contribution Using standardized creatinine assays, the authors calibrated serum creatinine levels in 1628 patients whose GFR had been measured by urinary clearance of 125I-iothalamate. They used these data to derive new equations for estimating GFR and to measure their accuracy. The equations were inaccurate only when kidney function was near-normal. Cautions There was no independent sample of patients for measuring accuracy. Implications By using this equation and a standardized creatinine assay, different laboratories can report estimated GFR more uniformly and accurately. The Editors Chronic kidney disease is a recently recognized public health problem. Current guidelines define chronic kidney disease as kidney damage or a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 for 3 months or more, regardless of cause (13). Kidney damage is usually ascertained from markers, such as albuminuria. The GFR can be estimated from serum creatinine concentration and demographic and clinical variables, such as age, sex, ethnicity, and body size. The normal mean value for GFR in healthy young men and women is approximately 130 mL/min per 1.73 m2 and 120 mL/min per 1.73 m2, respectively, and declines by approximately 1 mL/min per 1.73 m2 per year after 40 years of age (4). To facilitate detection of chronic kidney disease, guidelines recommend that clinical laboratories compute and report estimated GFR by using estimating equations, such as equations derived from the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study (13, 510). The original MDRD Study equation was developed by using 1628 patients with predominantly nondiabetic kidney disease. It was based on 6 variables: age; sex; ethnicity; and serum levels of creatinine, urea, and albumin (11). Subsequently, a 4-variable equation consisting of age, sex, ethnicity, and serum creatinine levels was proposed to simplify clinical use (3, 12). This equation is now widely accepted, and many clinical laboratories are using it to report GFR estimates. Extensive evaluation of the MDRD Study equation shows good performance in populations with lower levels of GFR but variable performance in those with higher levels (1332). Variability among clinical laboratories in calibration of serum creatinine assays (33, 34) introduces error in GFR estimates, especially at high levels of GFR (35), and may account in part for the poorer performance in this range (13, 14, 16, 1821, 27, 30). The National Kidney Disease Education Program (NKDEP) has initiated a creatinine standardization program to improve and normalize serum creatinine results used in estimating equations (36). The MDRD Study equation has now been reexpressed for use with a standardized serum creatinine assay (37), allowing GFR estimates to be reported in clinical practice by using standardized serum creatinine and overcoming this limitation to the current use of GFR estimating equations. The purpose of this report is to describe the performance of the reexpressed 4-variable MDRD Study equation and compare it with the performance of the reexpressed 6-variable MDRD equation and the CockcroftGault equation (38), with particular attention to the level of GFR. This information should facilitate implementation of reporting and interpreting estimated GFR in clinical practice. Methods Laboratory Methods Urinary clearances of 125I-iothalamate after subcutaneous infusion were determined at clinical centers participating in the MDRD Study. Serum and urine 125I-iothalamate were assayed in a central laboratory. All serum creatinine values reported in this study are traceable to primary reference material at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), with assigned values based on isotope-dilution mass spectrometry. The serum creatinine samples from the MDRD Study were originally assayed from 1988 to 1994 in a central laboratory with the Beckman Synchron CX3 (Global Medical Instrumentation, Inc., Ramsey, Minnesota) by using a kinetic alkaline picrate method. Samples were reassayed in 2004 with the same instrument. The Beckman assay was calibrated to the Roche/Hitachi P module Creatinase Plus enzymatic assay (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland), traceable to an isotope-dilution mass spectrometry assay at NIST (37, 39). On the basis of these results, the 4-variable and 6-variable MDRD Study equations were reexpressed for use with standardized serum creatinine assay. The CockcroftGault equation was not reexpressed because the original serum creatinine samples were not available for calibration to standardized serum creatinine assay. Derivation and Validation of the MDRD Study Equation The MDRD Study was a multicenter, randomized clinical trial of the effects of reduced dietary protein intake and strict blood pressure control on the progression of chronic kidney disease (40). The derivation of the MDRD Study equation has been described previously (11). Briefly, the equation was developed from data from 1628 patients enrolled during the baseline period. The GFR was computed as urinary clearance of 125I-iothalamate. Creatinine clearance was computed from creatinine excretion in a 24-hour urine collection and a single measurement of serum creatinine. Glomerular filtration rate and creatinine clearance were expressed per 1.73 m2 of body surface area. Ethnicity was assigned by study personnel, without explicit criteria, probably by examination of skin color. The MDRD Study equation was developed by using multiple linear regression to determine a set of variables that jointly estimated GFR in a random sample of 1070 patients (development data set). The regressions were performed on log-transformed data to reduce variability in differences between estimated and measured GFR at higher levels. Several equations were developed, and the performance of these equations was compared in the remaining sample of 558 patients (validation data set). To improve the accuracy of the final equations, the regression coefficients derived from the development data set were updated on the basis of data from all 1628 patients (11). Estimation of GFR Glomerular filtration rate was estimated by using the following 4 equations: the reexpressed 4-variable MDRD Study equation (GFR= 175standardized Scr 1.154age0.2031.212 [if black]0.742 [if female]), the reexpressed 6-variable MDRD Study equation (GFR= 161.5standardized Scr 0.999age0.176SUN0.17albumin0.3181.18 [if black]0.762 [if female]), the CockcroftGault equation adjusted for body surface area (Ccr= [140age]weight0.85 [if female]1.73/72 standardized ScrBSA), and the CockcroftGault equation adjusted for body surface area and corrected for the bias in the MDRD Study sample (Ccr= 0.8[140age]weight0.85 [if female]1.73/72 standardized ScrBSA). In these equations, GFR and creatinine clearance (Ccr) are expressed as mL/min per 1.73 m2, serum creatinine and urea nitrogen (SUN) are expressed as mg/dL, albumin is expressed as g/dL, weight is expressed as kg, age is expressed as years, and body surface area (BSA) is expressed as m2. Correction for bias improves performance of the CockcroftGault equation because it adjusts for systematic differences between studies, such as differences in the measures of kidney function (GFR in the MDRD Study and creatinine clearance in the study by Cockcroft and Gault), the serum creatinine assays, and the study samples. Hence, the bias correction for the CockcroftGault equation provided here reexpresses that equation for the estimation of GFR for use with standardized creatinine in study samples similar to that in the MDRD Study. Measures of Performance Measures of performance include bias (median difference of measured minus estimated GFR and measured GFR) and percentage bias (percentage of bias divided by measured GFR), precision (interquartile range of the difference between estimated and measured GFR, and percentage of variance in log-measured GFR explained by the regression model [R2 values]), and accuracy (percentage of estimates within 30% of the measured values). In the overall data set, bias is expected to be close to 0 for equations derived in the MDRD Study database, including the 4-variable and 6-variable equations and the CockcroftGault equation adjusted for bias. The bootstrap method (based on percentiles, with 2000 bootstrap samples) was used to estimate 95% CIs for interquartile ranges and R2 values. Confidence intervals for the percentage of estimates within 30% of measured values were computed by using the normal approximation to the binomial or exact binomial probabilities, as appropriate. We also computed sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of estimated GFR less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2, and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves by using measured GFR less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 as the criterion standard. Areas under the ROC curves were compared by using the method of DeLong and colleagues (41). R, version 2 (Free Software Foundation, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts), and SAS, version 9.1 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina), were used for statistical analysis. We used the lowess function in R to plot smoothed functions in the figures. Role of the Funding Source The study was funded by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) as part of a cooperative agreement that gives the NIDDK substantial involvement in the design of the study and in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data. The NIDDK was not required to approve publication of the finished manuscript. The institutional review boards of all participating institutions approved the study. Results Clinical characteristics of

Estimating GFR Using Serum Cystatin C Alone and in Combination With Serum Creatinine: A Pooled Analysis of 3,418 Individuals With CKD

BACKGROUNDnSerum cystatin C was proposed as a potential replacement for serum creatinine in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimation. We report the development and evaluation of GFR-estimating equations using serum cystatin C alone and serum cystatin C, serum creatinine, or both with demographic variables.nnnSTUDY DESIGNnTest of diagnostic accuracy.nnnSETTING & PARTICIPANTSnParticipants screened for 3 chronic kidney disease (CKD) studies in the United States (n = 2,980) and a clinical population in Paris, France (n = 438).nnnREFERENCE TESTnMeasured GFR (mGFR).nnnINDEX TESTnEstimated GFR using the 4 new equations based on serum cystatin C alone, serum cystatin C, serum creatinine, or both with age, sex, and race. New equations were developed by using linear regression with log GFR as the outcome in two thirds of data from US studies. Internal validation was performed in the remaining one third of data from US CKD studies; external validation was performed in the Paris study.nnnMEASUREMENTSnGFR was measured by using urinary clearance of iodine-125-iothalamate in the US studies and chromium-51-EDTA in the Paris study. Serum cystatin C was measured by using Dade-Behring assay, standardized serum creatinine values were used.nnnRESULTSnMean mGFR, serum creatinine, and serum cystatin C values were 48 mL/min/1.73 m(2) (5th to 95th percentile, 15 to 95), 2.1 mg/dL, and 1.8 mg/L, respectively. For the new equations, coefficients for age, sex, and race were significant in the equation with serum cystatin C, but 2- to 4-fold smaller than in the equation with serum creatinine. Measures of performance in new equations were consistent across the development and internal and external validation data sets. Percentages of estimated GFR within 30% of mGFR for equations based on serum cystatin C alone, serum cystatin C, serum creatinine, or both levels with age, sex, and race were 81%, 83%, 85%, and 89%, respectively. The equation using serum cystatin C level alone yields estimates with small biases in age, sex, and race subgroups, which are improved in equations including these variables.nnnLIMITATIONSnStudy population composed mainly of patients with CKD.nnnCONCLUSIONSnSerum cystatin C level alone provides GFR estimates that are nearly as accurate as serum creatinine level adjusted for age, sex, and race, thus providing an alternative GFR estimate that is not linked to muscle mass. An equation including serum cystatin C level in combination with serum creatinine level, age, sex, and race provides the most accurate estimates.

Comparative Performance of the CKD Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) and the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study Equations for Estimating GFR Levels Above 60 mL/min/1.73 m2

BACKGROUNDnThe Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study equation underestimates measured glomerular filtration rate (GFR) at levels>60 mL/min/1.73 m2, with variable accuracy among subgroups; consequently, estimated GFR (eGFR)>or=60 mL/min/1.73 m2 is not reported by clinical laboratories. Here, performance of a more accurate GFR-estimating equation, the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation, is reported by level of GFR and clinical characteristics.nnnSTUDY DESIGNnTest of diagnostic accuracy.nnnSETTING & PARTICIPANTSnPooled data set of 3,896 people from 16 studies with measured GFR (not used for the development of either equation). Subgroups were defined by eGFR, age, sex, race, diabetes, prior solid-organ transplant, and body mass index.nnnINDEX TESTSneGFR from the CKD-EPI and MDRD Study equations and standardized serum creatinine.nnnREFERENCE TESTnMeasured GFR using urinary or plasma clearance of exogenous filtration markers.nnnRESULTSnMean measured GFR was 68+/-36 (SD) mL/min/1.73 m2. For eGFR<30 mL/min/1.73 m2, both equations have similar bias (median difference compared with measured GFR). For eGFR of 30-59 mL/min/1.73 m2, bias was decreased from 4.9 to 2.1 mL/min/1.73 m2 (57% improvement). For eGFR of 60-89 mL/min/1.73 m2, bias was decreased from 11.9 to 4.2 mL/min/1.73 m2 (61% improvement). For eGFR of 90-119 mL/min/1.73 m2, bias was decreased from 10.0 to 1.9 mL/min/1.73 m2 (75% improvement). Similar or improved performance was noted for most subgroups with eGFR<90 mL/min/1.73 m2, other than body mass index<20 kg/m2, with greater variation noted for some subgroups with eGFR>or=90 mL/min/1.73 m2.nnnLIMITATIONSnLimited number of elderly people and racial and ethnic minorities with measured GFR.nnnCONCLUSIONSnThe CKD-EPI equation is more accurate than the MDRD Study equation overall and across most subgroups. In contrast to the MDRD Study equation, eGFR>or=60 mL/min/1.73 m2 can be reported using the CKD-EPI equation.

Factors other than glomerular filtration rate affect serum cystatin C levels.

Cystatin C is an endogenous glomerular filtration marker hence its serum level is affected by the glomerular filtration rate (GFR). To study what other factors might affect it blood level we performed a cross-sectional analysis of 3418 patients which included a pooled dataset of clinical trial participants and a clinical population with chronic kidney disease. The serum cystatin C and creatinine levels were related to clinical and biochemical parameters and errors-in-variables models were used to account for errors in GFR measurements. The GFR was measured as the urinary clearance of 125I-iothalamate and 51Cr-EDTA. Cystatin C was determined at a single laboratory while creatinine was standardized to reference methods and these were 2.1+/-1.1 mg/dL and 1.8+/-0.8 mg/L, respectively. After adjustment for GFR, cystatin C was 4.3% lower for every 20 years of age, 9.2% lower for female gender but only 1.9% lower in blacks. Diabetes was associated with 8.5% higher levels of cystatin C and 3.9% lower levels of creatinine. Higher C-reactive protein and white blood cell count and lower serum albumin were associated with higher levels of cystatin C and lower levels of creatinine. Adjustment for age, gender and race had a greater effect on the association of factors with creatinine than cystatin C. Hence, we found that cystatin C is affected by factors other than GFR which should be considered when the GFR is estimated using serum levels of cystatin C.

Original ArticleFactors other than glomerular filtration rate affect serum cystatin C levels

Cystatin C is an endogenous glomerular filtration marker hence its serum level is affected by the glomerular filtration rate (GFR). To study what other factors might affect it blood level we performed a cross-sectional analysis of 3418 patients which included a pooled dataset of clinical trial participants and a clinical population with chronic kidney disease. The serum cystatin C and creatinine levels were related to clinical and biochemical parameters and errors-in-variables models were used to account for errors in GFR measurements. The GFR was measured as the urinary clearance of 125I-iothalamate and 51Cr-EDTA. Cystatin C was determined at a single laboratory while creatinine was standardized to reference methods and these were 2.1+/-1.1 mg/dL and 1.8+/-0.8 mg/L, respectively. After adjustment for GFR, cystatin C was 4.3% lower for every 20 years of age, 9.2% lower for female gender but only 1.9% lower in blacks. Diabetes was associated with 8.5% higher levels of cystatin C and 3.9% lower levels of creatinine. Higher C-reactive protein and white blood cell count and lower serum albumin were associated with higher levels of cystatin C and lower levels of creatinine. Adjustment for age, gender and race had a greater effect on the association of factors with creatinine than cystatin C. Hence, we found that cystatin C is affected by factors other than GFR which should be considered when the GFR is estimated using serum levels of cystatin C.

Comparison of Drug Dosing Recommendations Based on Measured GFR and Kidney Function Estimating Equations

BACKGROUNDnKidney disease alters the pharmacokinetic disposition of many medications, requiring dosage adjustment to maintain therapeutic serum concentrations. The Cockcroft-Gault (CG) equation is used for pharmacokinetic studies and drug dosage adjustments, but the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study equation is more accurate and more often reported by clinical laboratories than the CG equation.nnnSTUDY DESIGNnDiagnostic test study.nnnSETTINGS & PARTICIPANTSnPooled data set for 5,504 participants from 6 research studies and 4 clinical populations with measured glomerular filtration rate (GFR).nnnINDEX TESTnEstimated kidney function using the MDRD Study and CG equations incorporating actual (CG) or ideal body weight (CG(IBW)) and standardized serum creatinine concentrations.nnnREFERENCE TESTnMeasured GFR assessed by using iodine-125-iothalamate urinary clearance.nnnOUTCOMEnConcordance of assigned kidney function categories designated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance for Industry for pharmacokinetic studies and recommended dosages of 15 medications cleared by the kidneys.nnnRESULTSnConcordance of kidney function estimates with measured GFR for FDA-assigned kidney function categories was 78% for the MDRD Study equation compared with 73% for the CG equation (P < 0.001) and 66% for the CG(IBW) equation (P < 0.001). Concordance between the MDRD Study equation and CG and CG(IBW) equations was 78% and 75%, respectively (P < 0.001). Concordance of kidney function estimates with measured GFR for recommended drug dosages was 88% for MDRD Study equation compared with 85% for the CG equation (P < 0.001) and 82% for the CG(IBW) equation (P < 0.001), with lower concordance when dosing recommendations for drugs included narrow GFR ranges. Concordance rates between the CG and CG(IBW) equations and MDRD Study equation were 89% and 88%, respectively (P < 0.05).nnnLIMITATIONSnResults based on simulation rather than pharmacokinetic studies. Outcome was drug dosage recommendations, rather than observed drug efficacy and safety.nnnCONCLUSIONSnThe MDRD Study equation can also be used for pharmacokinetic studies and drug dosage adjustments. As more accurate GFR-estimating equations are developed, they should be used for these purposes.

Evaluation of the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation for estimating the glomerular filtration rate in multiple ethnicities

An equation from the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) provides more accurate estimates of the glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) than that from the modification of diet in renal disease (MDRD) Study, although both include a two-level variable for race (Black and White and other). Since creatinine generation differs among ethnic groups, it is possible that a multilevel ethnic variable would allow more accurate estimates across all groups. To evaluate this, we developed an equation to calculate eGFR that includes a four-level race variable (Black, Asian, Native American and Hispanic, and White and other) using a database of 8254 patients pooled from 10 studies. This equation was then validated in 4014 patients using 17 additional studies from the United States and Europe (validation database), and in 1022 patients from China (675), Japan (248), and South Africa (99). Coefficients for the Black, Asian, and Native American and Hispanic groups resulted in 15, 5, and 1% higher levels of eGFR, respectively, compared with the White and other group. In the validation database, the two-level race equation had minimal bias in Black, Native American and Hispanic, and White and other cohorts. The four-level ethnicity equation significantly improved bias in Asians of the validation data set and in Chinese. Both equations had a large bias in Japanese and South African patients. Thus, heterogeneity in performance among the ethnic and geographic groups precludes use of the four-level race equation. The CKD-EPI two-level race equation can be used in the United States and Europe across a wide range of ethnicity.

Imprecision of Urinary Iothalamate Clearance as a Gold-Standard Measure of GFR Decreases the Diagnostic Accuracy of Kidney Function Estimating Equations

BACKGROUNDnEvaluating the accuracy of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) derived from serum creatinine (SCr) and serum cystatin C (SCysC) equations requires gold-standard measures of GFR. However, the influence of imprecise measured GFRs (mGFRs) on estimates of equation error is unknown.nnnSTUDY DESIGNnDiagnostic test study.nnnSETTING & PARTICIPANTSn1,995 participants from the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study and African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension (AASK) with at least 2 baseline mGFRs from iodine 125-iothalamate urinary clearances, 1 standardized SCr value, and 1 SCysC value.nnnINDEX TESTSneGFRs calculated using the 4-variable isotope-dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS)-traceable MDRD Study equation, the Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) SCysC equation, the CKD-EPI SCr-SCysC equation, and mGFRs collected from another prerandomization visit.nnnREFERENCE TESTSnA single reference mGFR, average of 2, and average of 3 mGFRs; additional analysis limited to consistent mGFRs (difference <or=25% from reference mGFR).nnnRESULTSnWe found that mGFRs had stable mean values, but substantial variability across visits. Of all mGFRs collected a mean of 62 days apart from the reference visit, 8.0% were outside 30% of the single reference mGFR (1 - P(30)). Estimation equations were less accurate because 12.1%, 17.1%, and 8.3% of eGFRs from the MDRD Study, CKD-EPI SCysC, and CKD-EPI SCr-SCysC equations were outside 30% of the same gold standard (1 - P(30)). However, improving the precision of the reference test from a single mGFR to the average of 3 consistent mGFRs decreased these error estimates (1 - P(30)) to 8.0%, 12.5%, and 3.9%, respectively.nnnLIMITATIONSnStudy population limited to those with CKD.nnnCONCLUSIONSnImprecision in gold-standard measures of GFR contribute to an appreciable proportion of the cases in which eGFR and mGFR differ by >30%. Reducing and quantifying errors in gold-standard measurements of GFR is critical to fully estimating the accuracy of GFR estimates.

Equations to Estimate Creatinine Excretion Rate: The CKD Epidemiology Collaboration

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVESnCreatinine excretion rate (CER) indicates timed urine collection accuracy. Although equations to estimate CER exist, their bias and precision are untested and none simultaneously include age, sex, race, and weight.nnnDESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTSnParticipants (n = 2466) from three kidney disease trials were randomly allocated into equation development (2/3) and internal validation (1/3) data sets. CER served as the dependent variable in linear regression to develop new equations. Their stability was assessed within the internal validation data set. Among 987 individuals from three additional studies the equations were externally validated and compared with existing equations.nnnRESULTSnMean age was 46 years, 42% were women, and 9% were black. Age, sex, race, weight, and serum phosphorus improved model fit. Two equations were developed, with or without serum phosphorus. In external validation, the new equations showed little bias (mean difference [measured - estimated CER] -0.7% [95% confidence interval -2.5% to 1.0%] and 0.3% [95% confidence interval -2.6% to 3.1%], respectively) and moderate precision (estimated CER within 30% of measured CER among 79% [76% to 81%] and 81% [77% to 85%], respectively). Corresponding numbers within 15% were 51% [48% to 54%] and 54% [50% to 59%]). Compared with existing equations, the new equations had similar accuracy but showed less bias in individuals with high measured CER.nnnCONCLUSIONSnCER can be estimated with commonly available variables with little bias and moderate precision, which may facilitate assessment of accuracy of timed urine collections.