CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

www.jasn.org

GFR Normalized to Total Body Water Allows Comparisons across Genders and Body Sizes
Bjrn O. Eriksen,* Toralf Melsom,* Ulla D. Mathisen,* Trond G. Jenssen, Marit D. Solbu,* and Ingrid Toft*
*Section of Nephrology, University Hospital of North Norway; Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Troms, Troms, Norway; and Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway

ABSTRACT
The normalization of GFR to a standardized body-surface area of 1.73 m2 impedes comparison of GFR across individuals of different genders, heights, or weights. Ideally, GFR should be normalized to a parameter that best explains variation in GFR. Here, we measured true GFR by iohexol clearance in a representative sample of 1627 individuals from the general population who did not have diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or kidney disease. We also estimated total body water (TBW), extracellular fluid volume, lean body mass, liver volume, metabolic rate, and body-surface area. We compared two methods of normalizing GFR to these physiologic variables: (1) the conventional method of scaling GFR to each physiologic variable by simple division and (2) a method based on regression of the GFR on each variable. TBW explained a higher proportion of the variation in GFR than the other physiologic variables. GFR adjusted for TBW by the regression method exhibited less dependence on gender, height, and weight compared with the other physiologic variables. Thus, adjusting GFR for TBW by the regression method allows direct comparisons between individuals of different genders, weights, and heights. We propose that regression-based normalization of GFR to a standardized TBW of 40 L should replace the current practice of normalizing GFR to 1.73 m2 of body-surface area.
J Am Soc Nephrol 22: 15171525, 2011. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2010121321

The GFR is arguably one of the most important parameters in human physiology and plays a fundamental role in nephrology. In both clinical practice and research, comparisons of GFR between and within subjects are of vital importance. Because GFR varies with weight and height, it is evident that GFR comparisons must include some adjustment for body size. The traditional adjustment method has been to divide GFR by body-surface area (BSA) and to standardize it to 1.73 m2. This was first proposed in a study of urea clearance by McIntosh in 1928.1 The conventional method has been repeatedly criticized, and it has been suggested that other physiologic variables may be more appropriate for adjusting GFR than BSA. Peters et al.2 showed that normalizing the GFR to the extracellular fluid volume (ECV) was more appropriate for children. In adults, some studies have concluded that ECV
J Am Soc Nephrol 22: 15171525, 2011

should replace BSA,2,3 and others have found BSA superior or similar to other parameters.4,5 A comparison among mammals of different sizes has supported the hypothesis that metabolic rate sets the level of GFR; thus, some researchers have proposed that metabolic rate should be used for normalization.6 Total body water (TBW), height, liver volume, and lean body mass have also been suggested as candidates for a normalizing factor.4,7 In practice, fluid volumes and metabolic rate are cumberReceived December 31, 2010. Accepted March 15, 2011. Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.jasn.org. Correspondence: Dr. Bjrn Odvar Eriksen, Section of Nephrology, University Hospital of North Norway, 9038 Troms, Norway. Phone: 47-466-82-780; Fax: 47-776-69-408; E-mail: bjorn.odvar.eriksen@ unn.no. Copyright 2011 by the American Society of Nephrology ISSN : 1046-6673/2208-1517

1517

CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

www.jasn.org

Table 1. Study population characteristics compared to all eligible subjects

Women Included (n Median age (IQR), years Median height (IQR), cm Median weight (IQR), kg Median body-mass index (IQR), kg/m2 Median body-surface area (IQR), m2 Median estimated GFR (IQR), ml/min per 1.73 m2 b Median unadjusted measured GFR (IQR), ml/min Median measured GFR (IQR), ml/min per 1.73 m2 826) Eligible (n 1542)a Included (n 801) Men Eligible (n 1283)a

57.5 (53.0 to 61.0) 164.4 (160.8 to 168.6) 70.0 (63.1 to 77.7) 25.7 (23.3 to 28.9) 1.77 (1.68 to 1.86)c 89.4 (79.8 to 100.4)c 90.5 (81.0 to 100.2) 87.9 (79.3 to 96.6)

57.0 (53.0 to 60.0) 164.4 (160.3 to 168.5) 69.0 (62.4 to 77.4) 25.6 (23.2 to 28.5) 1.76 (1.67 to 1.86) 88.0 (78.2 to 98.8)

57.0 (53.0 to 60.0) 177.2 (172.9 to 181.1) 85.0 (77.4 to 94.0) 27.1 (25.0 to 29.6)c 2.02 (1.92 to 2.13) 91.9 (82.7 to 101.5) 112.2 (100.6 to 123.9) 95.9 (86.4 to 104.8)

57.0 (53.0 to 60.0) 177.5 (173.0 to 181.7) 84.8 (77.2 to 93.2) 26.9 (24.9 to 29.3) 2.03 (1.92 to 2.13) 91.7 (82.8 to 101.4)

The values represent the baseline measurements taken in the main part of the sixth population survey in Troms. IQR, interquartile range. a Medians and interquartile ranges weighted according to the age stratification of RENIS-T6. b GFR estimated with the recalibrated four-variable Modification of Diet in Renal Disease study equation. c P 0.05 for difference between included and eligible in age-adjusted quantile regression.

some to measure directly and would have to be estimated with equations based on anthropometric measures. In normalizing GFR to body size, at least two issues must be considered. First, the adjustment must facilitate GFR comparisons among individuals by reducing differences that arise from differences in body size as much as possible. The physiologic variables that have been suggested as a basis for adjustment may differ in their abilities to explain interindividual variations in GFR. Second, statistically, there are theoretical problems associated with adjustments that simply divide GFR by a physiologic variable, e.g. the current practice of dividing GFR by BSA (the ratio method). Specific conditions must be met to avoid spurious correlations between such ratio variables and other independent variables.8 This problem was previously pointed out by Tanner in 19499 and illustrated in a simulation study by Lowrie in 1999.10 An alternative method based on regression analysis has been proposed by Turner and Reilly,11 but to date this has received very little attention in the nephrological community. The normalization of GFR has been studied only in small studies of selected subjects or in populations of potential kidney donors. Those results may not be valid for the general population. The purpose of this study was to explore the normalization issue in a representative sample of the general population drawn from the sixth population-based prospective

survey conducted in Troms, Norway (Troms 6). In the Renal Iohexol Clearance Survey in Troms 6 (RENIS-T6), GFR was measured with a precise method in persons between 50 and 62 years without known diabetes, cardiovascular, or renal disease. Our first aim was to investigate the ability of different physiologic variables to explain variations in GFR. Our second aim was to compare the conventional ratio method and the Turner and Reilly regression method for adjusting GFR by the physiologic variables that we estimated with functions based on height and weight.

RESULTS

The RENIS-T6 cohort consisted of a representative sample of 1627 subjects aged 50 to 62 years without diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or kidney disease from the general population. Table 1 shows the baseline measurements made in the main part of the population survey, Troms 6, and compares the included subjects to all eligible subjects. The statistically significant differences between groups were very small. To find the best predictor of GFR from gender, age, weight, and height, multiple linear regression analyses were performed with unadjusted GFR (uGFR) in ml/min as the dependent variable (Table 2). Age, gender, height, and weight were inde-

Table 2. Multiple linear regressions of unadjusted glomerular filtration rate (ml/min) on age, gender, body weight, and height
Independent Variable Intercept Gender (female Age, years Body weight, kg Height, cm Regression Coefficient (ml/min) (95% Confidence Interval) Model 1 1) 133.68 (121.67 to 145.68) 22.27 (20.69 to 23.85) 0.74 ( 0.95 to 0.54) Model 2 100.79 (89.11 to 112.47) 14.68 (12.99 to 16.38) 0.82 ( 1.01 to 0.63) 0.51 (0.46 to 0.57) 14.95 0.437 Model 3 51.82 (26.68 to 76.96) 16.43 (14.21 to 18.65) 0.67 ( 0.87 to 0.46) 0.47 (0.34 to 0.60) 16.24 0.335 15.99 0.356

0, male

Root mean square error Coefficient of determination (R2)

1518

Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

J Am Soc Nephrol 22: 15171525, 2011

www.jasn.org

CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

Table 3. Equations for estimating physiologic variables

Variable Total body water (L) men women Resting energy expenditure (metabolic rate) (kcal/day) Lean body mass (kg) men women Extracellular volume (L) men women Liver volume (mL) Body-surface area (m2) Equation 2.447 (0.3362 weight) (0.1074 height) (0.09516 age) 2.097 (0.2466 weight) (0.1069 height) (9.99 weight) (6.25 height) (4.92 age) (166 gender) Author(s) Watson et al. Reference 20

161

Mifflin et al. Boer

34 7

19.2 48.3

(0.407 (0.252

weight) weight)

(0.267 (0.473

height) height) Silva et al. 14 height) height) (0.025 age) Johnson et al. DuBois and DuBois 35 36

12.424 (0.191 weight) (0.0957 4.027 (0.167 weight) (0.05987 722 (body-surface area)1.176 0.007184 weight0.425 height0.725

Weight is in kilograms, height is in centimeters, and age is in years. Gender is 0 for women and 1 for men. Body-mass index is defined as weight/(height)2

pendently associated with uGFR (P 0.0001). Because of colinearity, weight and height were not included in the same model. The model that incorporated weight (Model 2) had a higher coefficient of determination (R2) than the model that incorporated height (Model 3) (0.437 versus 0.356). All of the possible interactions between the independent variables were tested. Only the interaction between gender and weight was significant (P 0.004), but its partial R2 was only 0.004. No nonlinear effects were found when the same variables were explored in generalized additive models. When the continuous variables in Model 2 were log-transformed, all of the independent variables remained statistically significant, and R2 was 0.404. Physiologic variables were estimated with published equations (Table 3). To explore their ability to explain variation in uGFR, the fit of separate linear regression analyses with uGFR as the dependent variable and each of the physiologic variables

and age as the independent variables were analyzed (Table 4). The analyses were performed both with and without log-transformed variables. For the untransformed variables, all of the intercepts were different form zero (P 0.05), which means that uGFR was not strictly proportional to any of the physiologic variables. For both untransformed and log-transformed variables, TBW had the highest R2. Although the 95% confidence intervals overlapped, these differences in R2 between TBW and each of the other physiologic variables were statistically different with the bootstrap method (P 0.05). Lean body mass and metabolic rate had R2 values similar to that of TBW. The differences in root-mean-square error exhibited the same pattern as R2. The models with log-transformed variables in Table 4 were used to create adjusted GFRs according to the regression method of Turner and Reilly.11 Another set of adjusted GFRs was created by simply dividing the uGFR by each of the phys-

Table 4. Results of linear regressions to determine physiologic factors that influence unadjusted glomerular filtration rate
Intercept (95% Confidence Interval) Glomerular filtration rate (ml/min) total body water, L metabolic rate, kcal/d lean body mass, kg extracellular fluid volume, L liver volume, mL body-surface area, m2 body weight, kg height, cm Log(glomerular filtration rate) log(total body water) log(metabolic rate) log(lean body mass) log(extracellular fluid volume) log(liver volume) log(body-surface area) log(body weight) log(height) 71.33 (59.50 to 83.15) 52.70 (40.35 to 65.05) 69.37 (57.36 to 81.38) 76.48 (64.38 to 88.59) 47.90 (34.71 to 61.09) 30.80 (17.05 to 44.55) 90.08 (77.48 to 102.68) 60.84 ( 82.11 to 39.57) 3.776 (3.281 to 4.272) 0.284 ( 0.323 to 0.891) 3.456 (2.947 to 3.966) 4.431 (3.934 to 4.929) 0.587 ( 1.277 to 0.102) 5.715 (5.224 to 6.207) 4.030 (3.496 to 4.564) 3.906 ( 4.955 to 2.858) Regression Coefficient (95% Confidence Interval) 1.79 (1.69 to 1.89) 0.05 (0.05 to 0.06) 1.32 (1.24 to 1.39) 3.62 (3.40 to 3.84) 0.06 (0.06 to 0.07) 60.09 (56.22 to 63.96) 0.78 (0.72 to 0.83) 1.14 (1.05 to 1.24) 0.696 (0.654 to 0.739) 0.765 (0.718 to 0.813) 0.716 (0.670 to 0.761) 0.726 (0.678 to 0.773) 0.958 (0.891 to 1.024) 1.126 (1.048 to 1.204) 0.609 (0.563 to 0.655) 1.923 (1.754 to 2.092) R2 (95% Confidence Interval) 0.436 (0.397 to 0.473) 0.428 (0.390 to 0.466) 0.424 (0.384 to 0.461) 0.404 (0.365 to 0.443) 0.378 (0.339 to 0.417) 0.378 (0.339 to 0.417) 0.337 (0.297 to 0.377) 0.273 (0.236 to 0.310) 0.401 (0.356 to 0.444) 0.393 (0.347 to 0.436) 0.387 (0.340 to 0.431) 0.370 (0.326 to 0.414) 0.345 (0.300 to 0.391) 0.345 (0.300 to 0.391) 0.310 (0.267 to 0.354) 0.252 (0.210 to 0.294) Root Mean Square Error (95% Confidence Interval) 14.95 (14.32 to 15.64) 15.06 (14.42 to 15.76) 15.11 (14.47 to 15.82) 15.38 (14.73 to 16.06) 15.70 (15.03 to 16.40) 15.70 (15.04 to 16.40) 16.22 (15.54 to 16.90) 16.98 (16.29 to 17.75) 0.159 (0.148 to 0.171) 0.160 (0.149 to 0.172) 0.161 (0.150 to 0.173) 0.163 (0.152 to 0.175) 0.166 (0.155 to 0.179) 0.166 (0.155 to 0.179) 0.171 (0.160 to 0.182) 0.177 (0.167 to 0.190)

Each line represents a separate multiple linear regression of the dependent on the corresponding independent variable. All of the analyses were adjusted for age or log(age) as appropriate. The regression coefficients are given per unit. Natural logarithms were used. Age or log(age) was statistically significant in all the models (P 0.0001). The differences in R2 and root-mean-square error between total body water and each of the other physiologic variables for both transformed and untransformed variables were tested with the bootstrap method and found statistically significant (P 0.05). R2 is the coefficient of determination.

J Am Soc Nephrol 22: 15171525, 2011

Normalization of GFR

1519

CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

www.jasn.org

Table 5. Comparison of methods for normalizing GFR to a physiologic variable: dependence of the normalized GFR variables on gender, body weight, and height in regression analyses for each of the physiologic variables
Method 1: Glomerular Filtration Rate (ml/min) Adjusted by the Ratio Method Physiologic variable used as basis for adjustment by each of the two methods Model 1 Standardized regression coefficient 0.136 0.254 P Model 2 Standardized regression coefficient 0.105 0.227 1) 0.027 0.230 0.33 0.0001 0.055 0.281 1) 0.115 0.184 0.0001 0.0001 0.077 0.402 1) 0.160 0.395 0.0001 0.0001 0.202 0.345 1) 0.299 0.195 0.0001 0.0001 0.415 0.304 1) 0.324 0.096 0.0001 0.0004 0.430 0.219 P Method 2: Glomerular Filtration Rate (ml/min) Adjusted by the Method of Turner and Reilly11 Model 3 Standardized regression coefficient 0.047 0.045 P Model 4 Standardized regression coefficient 0.087 0.089 0.094 0.068 0.001 0.02 0.172 0.159 0.051 0.005 0.07 0.87 0.209 0.225 0.252 0.174 0.0001 0.0001 0.299 0.191 0.307 0.167 0.0001 0.0001 0.420 0.280 0.307 0.167 0.0001 0.0001 0.420 0.280 P

Total body water gender (female 0, male body weight, kg height, cm Metabolic rate gender (female 0, male body weight, kg height, cm Lean body mass gender (female 0, male body weight, kg height, cm Extracellular fluid volume gender (female 0, male body weight, kg height, cm Liver volume gender (female 0, male body weight, kg height, cm Body-surface area gender (female 0, male body weight, kg height, cm

1)

0.0001 0.0001

0.0016 0.0001 0.1072 0.0001 0.02 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

0.10 0.12

0.01 0.01 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

For each physiologic variable, the adjusted variables by each of the two methods were regressed on gender and body weight in Models 1 and 3 and on gender and height in Models 2 and 4. All of the models were adjusted for age. The standardized regression coefficients give the increase as the number of standard deviations of the dependent variable per standard deviation of the independent variables.

iologic variables (the ratio method). We then determined the effects of gender and either height or weight on each adjusted GFR variable (Table 5). The adjusted GFR variables were regressed on gender and on height or weight in age-adjusted models. For the ratio method, all of the adjusted GFR variables were associated with both gender and either weight or height (P 0.05), except metabolic rate, which was not associated with gender (Model 2). For the Turner and Reilly regression method, all of the adjusted GFR variables were associated with both gender and height or weight (P 0.05), except TBW and lean body mass. Neither TBW nor lean body mass adjustments depended on gender or weight (Model 3). For TBW, the regression coefficients for gender and height in Model 4 were smaller than the corresponding coefficients for the other physiologic variables. The regression coefficients in Table 5 were standardized estimates to facilitate comparison across physiologic variables. GFRs normalized to either BSA or TBW by the two methods were compared according to body-mass index (BMI) for different genders (Table 6). In this table, GFR was normalized to the population means of BSA (1.9 m2) and TBW (39.2 L) to
1520
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

facilitate comparisons, rather than to a BSA of 1.73 m2 and a TBW of 40 L. GFR adjusted for TBW by the Turner and Reilly regression method did not differ across the BMI categories for either of the genders. The other adjusted variables varied across BMI categories for one or both genders (P 0.05).

DISCUSSION

When assessing GFR, we want to be able to decide whether a person has a normal GFR, and if not, to measure the deviation from normal. However, the concept of normality in physiology is no less problematic than in other areas of medicine. Conceivably, more detailed knowledge of renal physiology and homeostatic mechanisms would reveal constant relationships between GFR and other physiologic parameters, which would help settle the issue; however, we are far from attaining that knowledge. Currently, our best option is to use statistical methods to adjust GFR for factors that clearly affect variation. The physiologic variables investigated in this study were only able to explain 30 to 45% of the variation in uGFR (Table
J Am Soc Nephrol 22: 15171525, 2011

www.jasn.org

CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

that the intercepts were statistically different from zero for all of the investigated physiologic variables (upper part of Table 4). As a Mean (standard deviation) consequence, the ratio method assigned inWomen Men appropriately-high adjusted GFR values in Unadjusted glomerular filtration rate, ml/min subjects with, for example, low TBW and in2 c c 86.5 (13.9) 25 kg/m body-mass index 105.0 (15.1) 2 appropriately-low adjusted GFR values in 91.3 (14.1) 111.5 (16.6) 25 to 30 kg/m body-mass index 2 subjects with high TBW, even when their uG30 kg/m body-mass index 96.4 (17.6) 122.1 (18.0) FRs could be considered normal, relative to Total body water, L 25 kg/m2 body-mass index 31.0 (2.1)c their TBWs (Figure 1). The example in Fig40.7 (3.0)c 33.6 (2.0) 44.7 (3.1) 25 to 30 kg/m2 body-mass index ure 1 was calculated for the mean age in 30 kg/m2 body-mass index 37.5 (3.0) 50.0 (3.7) the RENIS-T6 cohort. Because age was an Body-surface area, m2 independent predictor of uGFR in the 1.69 (0.11)c 25 kg/m2 body-mass index 1.90 (0.12)c untransformed analyses, the intercept in 1.80 (0.10) 2.03 (0.12) 25 to 30 kg/m2 body-mass index Figure 1 varied with age, which made the 30 kg/m2 body-mass index 1.95 (0.13) 2.18 (0.13) ratio method even more problematic. GFR adjusted to population mean body-surface It has been argued that the error assoarea by the ratio method, ml/min 2 c ciated with the BSA ratio method is too 98.2 (15.3) 25 kg/m body-mass index 105.7 (14.9) small to justify changing the method.16 97.2 (14.8) 105.2 (15.0) 25 to 30 kg/m2 body-mass index However, the error may be larger for in30 kg/m2 body-mass index 94.5 (17.0) 107.2 (15.5) GFR adjusted to population mean body-surface dividuals with atypical body sizes.17 The area by the regression method of Turner and alternative method proposed by Turner Reilly, ml/mina and Reilly on the basis of regression anal99.8 (15.7)c 25 kg/m2 body-mass index 105.8 (15.1) ysis overcomes some of the problems as98.0 (15.0) 104.4 (15.0) 25 to 30 kg/m2 body-mass index sociated with the ratio method, because it 30 kg/m2 body-mass index 94.3 (17.1) 105.5 (15.4) completely removes variation associated GFR adjusted to population mean total body with the variable used to adjust the GFR. water by the ratio method, ml/minb The TBW-regression adjustment of GFR 2 c c 109.8 (17.1) 25 kg/m body-mass index 101.4 (14.4) 2 was less dependent on gender, height, 106.9 (16.3) 97.9 (14.0) 25 to 30 kg/m body-mass index 2 and weight than the other physiologic 30 kg/m body-mass index 101.1 (18.5) 95.9 (14.0) variables (Table 5). Moreover, the BSA GFR adjusted to population mean total body water by the regression method of Turner adjustment depended on one or more of and Reilly, ml/minb gender, height, and weight in both the 102.1 (15.8) 102.4 (14.2) 25 kg/m2 body-mass index ratio and the regression methods. 25 to 30 kg/m2 body-mass index 101.8 (15.3) 101.8 (14.4) We modified Turner and Reillys method 30 kg/m2 body-mass index 99.6 (17.9) 103.1 (14.6) by using the log-transformed linear regresa Study population mean body-surface area was 1.9 m2. sion analyses as the starting point (lower part b Study population mean total body water was 39.2 L. c of Table 4).11 We implemented this transP 0.05 for differences across body-mass index categories within each gender. formation because the untransformed vari4). Some of the residual variation was caused by day-to-day, ables can give negative values for the adjusted variable when within-person variability of iohexol-clearance measurements; uGFR is very low. Log-transformed variables avoid this probthis measurement has been found to have a coefficient of vari- lem because the subtraction of a negative residual is equivalent ation of about 5.5% in other studies,.12,13 In this study, we to division when the antilogarithm is performed. The fits of the found that TBW was superior to BSA and the other physiologic untransformed and transformed models for TBW were not variables in explaining the variation in uGFR, as expressed by significantly different, as estimated by R2 (Table 4). An addiR2 (P 0.05) (Table 4). In addition to the ECV equation de- tional justification for using log transformation was the recogveloped by Silva et al.,14 we tested an alternative equation de- nition of the general assumption that the error in GFR meaveloped by Bird et al.15 that resulted in an even lower R2 (not surement depends on the magnitude of GFR. We also modified shown). the Turner and Reilly method by including an adjustment for The traditional and almost universally used method for ad- log(age) in the regression. However, the final, simplified equajusting GFR has been to scale uGFR by simply dividing by a tion for the TBW adjustment was independent of age, because variable, e.g. uGFR/BSA or uGFR/TBW. The problem with this the age terms canceled out. Our findings indicated that using TBW to adjust the uGFR method is that it assumes strict proportionality between GFR and the physiologic variable, i.e. it assumes an intercept of zero with the regression method of Turner and Reilly had clear adin a regression of uGFR on the physiologic variable. We found vantages over other methods. Daugirdas et al.4 reached a difJ Am Soc Nephrol 22: 15171525, 2011 Normalization of GFR

Table 6. Comparison of unadjusted and adjusted glomerular filtration rates according to body-mass index and gender

1521

CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

www.jasn.org

Figure 1. Total body water (TBW) was used to adjust the GFR with the ratio method. Examples are shown for two patients with 25 and 60 L of TBW. The gray circles indicate the GFR and TBW observed in the RENIS-T6 cohort. The black solid line indicates the regression of GFR on TBW at the mean age in the RENIS-T6 cohort. Although both the example patients had a normal GFR on the basis of the regression line, their GFR to TBW ratios are different. For the first patient, a and b indicate the GFR and TBW, respectively. For the second patient, c and d indicate the GFR and TBW, respectively.

ferent conclusion in their study of 1551 potential kidney donors. BSA and TBW were not analyzed in the regression method of Turner and Reilly, but after adjusting for age and race, they found that GFR/BSA did not depend on gender, but GFR/TBW was markedly higher in women than men. However, the investigated donor population may not have been representative of the general population, because the GFR of the included women was similar to that of the men (106 versus 104 ml/min per 1.73 m2). In contrast, there was a clear gender difference in BSA-adjusted GFR in this study (Table 1). In 1952, McCance and Widdowson18 suggested that TBW was the correct variable for adjusting GFR; however, there is a lack of studies on the relationship between GFR and TBW in the literature. Some authors compared BSA and ECV for adjusting the GFR. In fact, the uGFR/ECV is a particularly attractive adjustment, because the uGFR/ECV is approximately identical to the slope of the terminal exponential of the plasma clearance curve after a bolus injection of a filtration marker.19 In contrast to the single-sample method used in this study, uGFR and ECV can be measured in the same procedure, when GFR is measured by a single-injection, multi-sample method. Visser et al.3 found that GFR/ECV did not depend on gender, BSA, or height in regression analyses but that GFR/BSA depended on gender. That study was performed in healthy volunteers and potential kidney donors. In contrast, White and Strydom5 found that uGFR/BSA and uGFR/ECV produced essentially the same result in 110 patients with uGFRs between 10 and 160 ml/min. Peters et al.2 argued that normalization to ECV was more appropriate for children than for adults, but
1522
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

they included patients with reduced GFR. None of those studies considered the regression method of Turner and Reilly as an alternative to using the ratio method. The diverging results may have been caused by differences between the investigated populations. To our knowledge, this study is the first to examine this issue in a representative sample from the general population. An important limitation of this study was that it relied on estimates, instead of direct measurements, of the physiologic variables. The estimates were all on the basis of age, gender, weight, and/or height, and whereas the BSA equation used only weight and height, the TBW equation included gender and age as well. Direct measurement of the physiologic variables, with the possible exception of ECV, is so complicated and costly that estimation from anthropometric measures is currently the only feasible method in clinical practice and epidemiologic research. Watsons equation for TBW has been validated.20,21 When we repeated the analyses with Chumleas equation for estimating TBW, the results were very similar to those obtained with Watsons equation (not shown). Nevertheless, some caution should be observed in the conclusion that TBW was the best variable for the adjustment of GFR. The fits of the models for TBW, metabolic rate, and lean body mass showed only small differences, and physiologically, there is a high correlation between these variables and ECV. However, TBW, metabolic rate, and lean body mass were clearly different compared with BSA for adjusting GFR; this supports the recommendations that adjustment by BSA should be abandoned. Another limitation was that this study only included middle-aged Caucasians. However, age did not influence the effects of gender, height, and weight on uGFR within the studied age interval because the interactions of these variables with age were not statistically significant. But although basal physiologic relationships can be expected to be invariant across age and ethnicity, our study should be replicated in general populations with other characteristics. Also, our analyses were on the basis of the assumption that variation in GFR caused by gender, height, and body weight in healthy persons in a representative sample of the general population is without biologic significance. Whereas this assumption is usually made about GFR, it is difficult to prove. When investigating effects of variation in GFR, the possibility that the relationship between GFR and body fluid volumes may be different in patient populations, for example as in obese patients, should be kept open. The best approach in such cases may be to use absolute GFR in ml/min as an explanatory variable and to adjust for both TBW and ECV. The results of our study supported the recommendation that the practice of using GFR/BSA scaled to 1.73 m2 should be abandoned and should be replaced with a TBW adjustment of uGFR by the regression method of Turner and Reilly. The regression method is somewhat more complicated than the ratio method, but uGFR currently requires a computer calculation; thus, the calculations could be automated. In practice, we suggest that the measured, unadjusted GFR should be adjusted to
J Am Soc Nephrol 22: 15171525, 2011

www.jasn.org

CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

Table 7. Method for adjustment of GFR to 40 liters of total body water (GFR40)
1. Estimate total body water in liters from Watsons equationa men: 2.447 (0.3362 weight) (0.1074 height) (0.09516 age) women: 2.097 (0.2466 weight) (0.1069 height) 2. Convert the unadjusted GFR to the corresponding GFR in ml/min for the standard individual with 40 liters of total body water (GFR40)b 13.05 unadjusted GFR total body water 0.6963
a b

predefined target. Later, five participants were excluded because the iohexol-clearance measurements were technical failures. Accordingly, a total of 1627 participants were included in the RENIS-T6 cohort for this study. This study was approved by the Norwegian Data Inspectorate and the Regional Ethics Committee of North Norway. All of the subjects provided written consent.

Height is entered in centimeters, weight is in kilograms, and age is in years. Total body water is entered in L.

Measurements
uGFR was measured as single-sample plasma clearance of iohexol at the Clinical Research Unit at the University Hospital of North Norway. This method has been validated against gold standard methods for measuring GFR.2329 The subjects were instructed to avoid large meals with meat and nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs for 2 days before the investigation. The measurements were performed after fasting and abstinence from nicotine. The subjects were reminded to avoid restricting water intake. A Teflon catheter was placed in an antecubital vein, and blood was drawn for a null sample and for creatinine measurements. Five milliliters of iohexol (Omnipaque, 300 mg I/ml; Amersham Health, London, UK) was injected, and the syringe was weighed before and after the injection. The catheter was flushed with 30 ml of isotonic saline and used for iohexol analysis samples.27 The optimal time for measuring iohexol concentration after injection was calculated by Jacobssons method on the basis of the GFR estimated from creatinine.30 To ensure complete distribution of iohexol in the extracellular fluid volume, the shortest sampling time was set at 180 minutes. The exact time from injection to sampling was measured in minutes with a different stop watch for each subject. The serum iohexol concentration was measured by HPLC, as described previously by Nilsson-Ehle.31 The coefficient of variation was 3.0% for the analysis during the study period. The external quality control was provided by Equalis (Equalis AB, Uppsala, Sweden). The GFR was calculated with the formulas described by Jacobsson.30 Extrarenal iohexol clearance was ignored, in accordance with the practice of other authors. Further details about the iohexol analysis and the method for calculating GFR have been described previously.32 Plasma-creatinine analyses were performed on the Hitachi modular model with an enzymatic method that has been standardized against isotope dilution mass spectroscopy (CREA Plus; Roche Diagnostics, GmbH, Mannheim, Germany). Estimated GFR was calculated as ml/min per 1.73 m2 with the recalibrated four-variable Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation,33 as follows: 175 (creatinine/88.4) 1.154 age 0.203 1.212 (if African American) 0.742 (if female). Creatinine was expressed in mol/L.

the corresponding GFR in a person with 40 L of TBW (Table 7). This standard individual was chosen because the mean TBW of men and women is approximately 40 L.21 The algorithm for calculating the adjusted variable with this method is given in Table 7. One of the advantages of this method is that when TBW was used to adjust GFR with the regression method, we observed almost identical values across gender and BMI categories (Table 6). One of the problems with GFR/BSA has been that it assigned inappropriately low values to individuals with high BMI, which resulted in potential confounding by BMI in studies of GFR and cardiovascular disease.22 We conclude that using BSA to adjust uGFR, either by the ratio method or by the regression method of Turner and Reilly, did not remove dependencies on gender, weight, or height. We found that more of the variation in uGFR could be explained by TBW than by BSA. Furthermore, when TBW estimated from gender, age, height, and weight was used to adjust GFR by the regression method, the dependencies on gender, weight, and height were removed. Therefore, we propose a new calculation that adjusts the uGFR to a standardized TBW of 40 L (GFR40) instead of the current practice of using uGFR/BSA standardized to a BSA of 1.73 m2.

CONCISE METHODS Subjects

The Troms Study is a series of population-based prospective surveys in the municipality of Troms, North Norway (current population, 65,000). Our RENIS-T6 cohort was an ancillary part of the sixth Troms study. In the main part of the Troms 6 study, a representative sample of 12,984 adults from the general population participated between October 2007 and December 2008. The invited population included a 40% random sample of individuals aged 50 to 59 years and all individuals aged 60 to 62 years (5464 total subjects in all). A total of 3564 individuals between 50 and 62 years of age completed the main part of Troms 6 (65%). Of these, 739 reported a previous history of myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, stroke, diabetes mellitus, or renal disease. The remaining 2825 eligible subjects were invited to participate in RENIS-T6. Of the 2107 individuals that responded positively, 12 were excluded because of an allergy to contrast media, iodine, or latex; 65 were excluded for other reasons; and 48 did not appear for their appointments. A total of 1982 subjects remained for potential inclusion, but only 1632 were investigated, according to a
J Am Soc Nephrol 22: 15171525, 2011

Statistical Methods
The comparison of differences between included and eligible persons in Table 1 was performed with quantile regression adjusted for age. The medians and interquartile ranges of characteristics of all eligible persons were weighted according to the age and gender stratifications of RENIS-T6. The baseline measurements from the main part of Troms 6 were used for these comparisons. A multiple linear regression analysis was performed with uGFR as the dependent variable and age, gender, weight, and height as the
Normalization of GFR

1523

CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

www.jasn.org

independent variables. All of the possible interactions between the independent variables were tested. Nonlinear effects of the same variables were explored in generalized additive models. Physiologic variables were estimated on the basis of equations from the literature (Table 3).7,14,20,34 36 uGFR was regressed on each variable in separate linear regression analyses. Regressions on height and body weight were included for comparison. All of the analyses were adjusted for age. The analyses were performed both with and without log transformation (natural logarithms) of the dependent and independent variables. The fit of each model was judged by root-mean-square error and R2. The bootstrap method was used to estimate 95% confidence intervals of these statistics and the differences between fits from 2000 resamples of the original observations.37 For each physiologic variable, adjusted GFRs were created by two methods. In the ratio method, uGFRs were adjusted by dividing by the physiologic variable, e.g. uGFR/metabolic rate. In the Turner and Reilly regression method, uGFR was regressed on age and each physiologic variable, with log transformation of the variables.11 For each subject, the residual from this regression (Figure 2) was added to the expected log(uGFR) for a person of the same age, with the logarithm of the physiologic variable set at the population mean. Then the adjusted GFR was the antilogarithm, according to the equation: adjusted GFR exp[log(uGFR) (a b log(P) c log(age)) (a b log(mean P) c log(age))], where P is the physiologic variable, a is the intercept, and b and c are the regression coefficients in the regression of log(uGFR) on log(P) and log(age). The mean P is the arithmetic mean of P in the RENIS-T6 cohort. This equation simplifies to: adjusted GFR exp[log(uGFR) b (log(P) log(mean P))]; this equation does not depend on age. Finally, multiple linear regression models were performed to study how the adjusted GFR created from each physiologic variable by the ratio method and by Turner and Reillys regression method depended on gender, weight, and height. These analyses were adjusted for age. All of the analyses were performed with SAS, version 9.2 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Statistical significance was set at P 0.05.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Britt-Ann Winther Eilertsen, Bjrg Skog Hgset, Saskia van Heusden, and the rest of the staff at the Clinical Research Unit (University Hospital of North Norway) for performing the study; Harald Strand and the staff at the Department of Medical Biochemistry (University Hospital of North Norway) for HPLC analyses of iohexol; Inger Sperstad and Ingrid Dorthea Sandstad (Clinical Research Centre, University Hospital of North Norway) for database support; and Tom Wilsgaard, Sriharan Sivasingarajah, and Kurt Jran Nyland (Department of Community Medicine, University of Troms) for identifying eligible subjects from the Troms 6 cohort.

Figure 2. Total body water (TBW) was used to adjust GFR with the regression method of Turner and Reilly. The gray circles indicate the GFR and TBW observed in the RENIS-T6 cohort. The black solid line indicates the regression of log(GFR) on log(TBW) at the mean log(age) in the RENIS-T6 cohort. A: The residual log(GFR) relative to the regression line is calculated for a subject with GFR of 85 ml/min and TBW of 50 L. B: This residual log(GFR) value is subtracted from the expected log(GFR) (on the basis of the regression line) for an average patient with a TBW of 40 L. The resulting log(GFR) is converted by taking the antilogarithm to give an adjusted GFR of 73 ml/min. This represents the GFR40 for the subject.

REFERENCES
1. McIntosh JF, Moller E, Van Slyke DD: Studies of urea excretion: III. The influence of body size on urea output. J Clin Invest 6: 467 483, 1928 2. Peters AM, Henderson BL, Lui D: Indexed glomerular filtration rate as a function of age and body size. Clin Sci 98: 439 444, 2000 3. Visser FW, Muntinga JHJ, Dierckx RA, Navis G: Feasibility and impact of the measurement of extracellular fluid volume simultaneous with GFR by I-125-iothalamate. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 3: 1308 1315, 2008 4. Daugirdas JT, Meyer K, Greene T, Butler RS, Poggio ED: Scaling of measured glomerular filtration rate in kidney donor candidates by anthropometric estimates of body surface area, body water, metabolic rate, or liver size. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 4: 15751583, 2009

DISCLOSURES
None.

1524

Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

J Am Soc Nephrol 22: 15171525, 2011

www.jasn.org

CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

5. White AJ, Strydom WJ: Normalization of glomerular-filtration rate measurements. Eur J Nucl Med 18: 385390, 1991 6. Singer MA: Of mice and men and elephants: Metabolic rate sets glomerular filtration rate. Am J Kidney Dis 37: 164 178, 2001 7. Boer P: Estimated lean body-mass as an index for normalization of body-Fluid volumes in humans. Am J Physiol 247: F632F636, 1984 8. Kronmal RA: Spurious correlation and the fallacy of the ratio standard revisited. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc 156: 379 392, 1993 9. Tanner JM: Fallacy of per-weight and per-surface area standards, and their relation to spurious correlation. J Appl Physiol 2: 115, 1949 10. Lowrie EG: Indexing physiological measurements to body size: A common practice that should be changed. Semin Dial 12: S55S60, 1999 11. Turner ST, Reilly SL: Fallacy of indexing renal and systemic hemodynamic measurements for body surface area. Am J Physiol 268: R978 R988, 1995 12. Tan GD, Lewis AV, James TJ, Altmann P, Taylor RP, Levy JC: Clinical usefulness of cystatin C for the estimation of glomerular filtration rate in type 1 diabetes: Reproducibility and accuracy compared with standard measures and iohexol clearance. Diabetes Care 25: 2004 2009, 2002 13. Gaspari F, Perico N, Matalone M, Signorini O, Azzollini N, Mister M, Remuzzi G: Precision of plasma clearance of iohexol for estimation of GFR in patients with renal disease. J Am Soc Nephrol 9: 310 313, 1998 14. Silva AM, Wang J, Pierson RN, Wang ZM, Spivack J, Allison DB, Heymsfield SB, Sardinha LB, Heshka S: Extracellular water across the adult lifespan: reference values for adults. Physiol Meas 28: 489 502, 2007 15. Bird NJ, Henderson BL, Lui D, Ballinger JR, Peters AM: Indexing glomerular filtration rate to suit children. J Nucl Med 44: 10371043, 2003 16. Geddes CC, Woo YM, Brady S: Glomerular filtration rate: What is the rationale and justification of normalizing GFR for body surface area? Nephrol Dial Transplant 23: 4 6, 2008 17. Delanaye P, Mariat C, Cavalier E, Krzesinski JM: Errors induced by indexing glomerular filtration rate for body surface area: Reductio ad absurdum. Nephrol Dial Transplant 24: 35933596, 2009 18. Mccance RA, Widdowson EM: The correct physiological basis on which to compare infant and adult renal function. Lancet 263: 860 862, 1952 19. Peters AM: The kinetic basis of glomerular filtration rate measurement and new concepts of indexation to body size. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31: 137149, 2004 20. Watson PE, Watson ID, Batt RD: Total body water volumes for adult males and females estimated from simple anthropometric measurements. Am J Clin Nutr 33: 2739, 1980 21. Chumlea WC, Guo SS, Zeller CM, Reo NV, Baumgartner RN, Garry PJ, Wang J, Pierson RN, Heymsfield SB, Siervogel RM: Total body water reference values and prediction equations for adults. Kidney Int 59: 2250 2258, 2001 22. Delanaye P, Radermecker RP, Rorive M, Depas G, Krzesinski JM:

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29. 30. 31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36. 37.

Indexing glomerular filtration rate for body surface area in obese patients is misleading: Concept and example. Nephrol Dial Transplant 20: 2024 2028, 2005 Brown SC, OReilly PH: Iohexol clearance for the determination of glomerular filtration rate in clinical practice: evidence for a new gold standard. J Urol 146: 675 679, 1991 Sterner G, Frennby B, Mansson S, Nyman U, Van Westen D, Almen T: Determining true glomerular filtration rate in healthy adults using infusion of inulin and comparing it with values obtained using other clearance techniques or prediction equations. Scand J Urol Nephrol 42: 278 285, 2008 Eriksson CG, Kallner A: Glomerular filtration rate: A comparison between Cr-EDTA clearance and a single sample technique with a nonionic contrast agent. Clin Biochem 24: 261264, 1991 Rydstrom M, Tengstrom B, Cederquist I, Ahlmen J: Measurement of glomerular filtration rate by single-injection, single-sample techniques, using 51Cr-EDTA or iohexol. Scand J Urol Nephrol 29: 135 139, 1995 Brandstrom E, Grzegorczyk A, Jacobsson L, Friberg P, Lindahl A, Aurell M: GFR measurement with iohexol and 51Cr-EDTA: A comparison of the two favoured GFR markers in Europe. Nephrol Dial Transplant 13: 1176 1182, 1998 Bird NJ, Peters C, Michell AR, Peters AM: Comparison of GFR measurements assessed from single versus multiple samples. Am J Kidney Dis 54: 278 288, 2009 Stevens LA, Levey AS: Measured GFR as a confirmatory test for estimated GFR. J Am Soc Nephrol 20: 23052313, 2009 Jacobsson L: A method for the calculation of renal clearance based on a single plasma sample. Clin Physiol 3: 297305, 1983 Nilsson-Ehle P: Iohexol clearance for the determination of glomerular filtration rate: 15 years experience in clinical practice. eJIFCC 13: 2006 Eriksen BO, Mathisen UD, Melsom T, Ingebretsen OC, Jenssen TG, Njlstad I, Solbu M, Toft I: Cystatin C is not a better estimator of GFR than plasma creatinine in the general population. Kidney Int 78: 13051311, 2010 Levey AS, Coresh J, Greene T, Stevens LA, Zhang Y, Hendriksen S, Kusek JW, van Lente F for the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration: Using standardized serum creatinine values in the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease study equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med 145:247254, 2006 Mifflin MD, St Jeor ST, Hill LA, Scott BJ, Daugherty SA, Koh YO: A new predictive equation for resting energy expenditure in healthy individuals. Am J Clin Nutr 51: 241247, 1990 Johnson TN, Tucker GT, Tanner MS, Rostami-Hodjegan A: Changes in liver volume from birth to adulthood: A meta-analysis. Liver Transpl 11: 14811493, 2005 DuBois D, DuBois EF: The measurement of the surface area of man. Arch Intern Med 15: 868 881, 1915 Efron B: The Jackknife, the Bootstrap and Other Resampling Plans, Philadelphia, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 1982

J Am Soc Nephrol 22: 15171525, 2011

Normalization of GFR

1525