22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Health inequities and the inappropriate use of race in nephrology

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Chronic kidney disease is an important clinical condition beset with racial and ethnic disparities that are associated with social inequities. Many medical schools and health centres across the USA have raised concerns about the use of race — a socio-political construct that mediates the effect of structural racism — as a fixed, measurable biological variable in the assessment of kidney disease. We discuss the role of race and racism in medicine and outline many of the concerns that have been raised by the medical and social justice communities regarding the use of race in estimated glomerular filtration rate equations, including its relationship with structural racism and racial inequities. Although race can be used to identify populations who experience racism and subsequent differential treatment, ignoring the biological and social heterogeneity within any racial group and inferring innate individual-level attributes is methodologically flawed. Therefore, although more accurate measures for estimating kidney function are under investigation, we support the use of biomarkers for determining estimated glomerular filtration rate without adjustments for race. Clinicians have a duty to recognize and elucidate the nuances of racism and its effects on health and disease. Otherwise, we risk perpetuating historical racist concepts in medicine that exacerbate health inequities and impact marginalized patient populations.

          Abstract

          Here, the authors discuss how structural racism underlies many of the health disparities that affect individuals from minority racial groups. They also examine how the use of race coefficients in estimated glomerular filtration rate equations might contribute to health inequities in Black patients with kidney disease.

          Key points

          • Race and ethnicity are socio-political constructs that are inextricably tied to health outcomes for individuals from racial and ethnic minority groups worldwide.

          • Historically, science has developed and relied on racial frames to artificially organize people into presumed homogeneous and genetically distinct racial groups, to suggest that inherent biological differences exist between the groups.

          • The use of race coefficients in estimated glomerular filtration rate equations reinforces flawed assumptions of race essentialism and potentially perpetuates health inequities for Black individuals with kidney disease.

          • Valid and race-free methods of kidney function estimation should be used to promote high-quality science, guide clinical management decisions and decrease racial bias.

          Related collections

          Most cited references182

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate.

          Equations 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. To develop a new estimating equation for GFR: the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation. Cross-sectional analysis with separate pooled data sets for equation development and validation and a representative sample of the U.S. population for prevalence estimates. Research studies and clinical populations ("studies") with measured GFR and NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey), 1999 to 2006. 8254 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. GFR, 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. In 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%). The sample contained a limited number of elderly people and racial and ethnic minorities with measured GFR. The 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. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Structural racism and health inequities in the USA: evidence and interventions

            The Lancet, 389(10077), 1453-1463
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease: synopsis of the kidney disease: improving global outcomes 2012 clinical practice guideline.

              The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) organization developed clinical practice guidelines in 2012 to provide guidance on the evaluation, management, and treatment of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in adults and children who are not receiving renal replacement therapy. The KDIGO CKD Guideline Development Work Group defined the scope of the guideline, gathered evidence, determined topics for systematic review, and graded the quality of evidence that had been summarized by an evidence review team. Searches of the English-language literature were conducted through November 2012. Final modification of the guidelines was informed by the KDIGO Board of Directors and a public review process involving registered stakeholders. The full guideline included 110 recommendations. This synopsis focuses on 10 key recommendations pertinent to definition, classification, monitoring, and management of CKD in adults.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Nwamaka.eneanya@pennmedicine.upenn.edu
                Journal
                Nat Rev Nephrol
                Nat Rev Nephrol
                Nature Reviews. Nephrology
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                1759-5061
                1759-507X
                8 November 2021
                : 1-11
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.25879.31, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8972, Renal-Electrolyte and Hypertension Division, Perelman School of Medicine, , University of Pennsylvania, ; Philadelphia, PA USA
                [2 ]GRID grid.26009.3d, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7961, Division of General Internal Medicine, , Duke University School of Medicine, ; Durham, NC USA
                [3 ]GRID grid.47100.32, ISNI 0000000419368710, Department of Emergency Medicine, , Yale School of Medicine, ; New Haven, CT USA
                [4 ]GRID grid.266436.3, ISNI 0000 0004 1569 9707, Program for Research on Faith, Justice, and Health, Department of Behavioral and Social Sciences, , University of Houston College of Medicine, ; Houston, TX USA
                [5 ]GRID grid.19006.3e, ISNI 0000 0000 9632 6718, Center for the Study of Racism, Social Justice & Health, Fielding School of Public Health, , University of California, ; Los Angeles, CA USA
                [6 ]GRID grid.19006.3e, ISNI 0000 0000 9632 6718, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, David Geffen School of Medicine, , University of California, ; Los Angeles, CA USA
                [7 ]GRID grid.34477.33, ISNI 0000000122986657, Division of General Internal Medicine, , University of Washington, ; Seattle, WA USA
                [8 ]GRID grid.25879.31, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8972, Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, , University of Pennsylvania, ; Philadelphia, PA USA
                [9 ]GRID grid.21107.35, ISNI 0000 0001 2171 9311, Program for Research on Men’s Health, Hopkins Center for Health Disparities Solutions, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, ; Baltimore, MD USA
                [10 ]GRID grid.62560.37, ISNI 0000 0004 0378 8294, Department of Medicine, , Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, ; Boston, MA USA
                [11 ]GRID grid.261331.4, ISNI 0000 0001 2285 7943, Department of Paediatrics, , Ohio State University College of Medicine, ; Columbus, OH USA
                [12 ]GRID grid.10824.3f, ISNI 0000 0001 2183 9444, Department of Medicine, , Obafemi Awolowo University, ; Ile-Ife, Nigeria
                [13 ]GRID grid.8399.b, ISNI 0000 0004 0372 8259, Clinical Epidemiology and Evidence-Based Medicine Unit of the Edgard Santos University Hospital and Department of Internal Medicine, , Federal University of Bahia, ; Salvador, Brazil
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0508-3410
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0643-1640
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3071-0700
                Article
                501
                10.1038/s41581-021-00501-8
                8574929
                34750551
                11308951-7dff-4d29-88d2-beb39b93166c
                © Springer Nature Limited 2021

                This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.

                History
                : 4 October 2021
                Categories
                Review Article

                culture,end-stage renal disease,medical ethics,health policy

                Comments

                Comment on this article