Diagnosis coding of Chronic Kidney Disease in Type 2 Diabetes in UK primary care

4.1. Cohort

All patients with T2D were considered for inclusion in the study cohort. A burn-in period was defined from the start of data collection (February 2012) to 6th April 2015 to exclude patients with pre-existing CKD (either eGFR-based or coded) prior to the beginning of the study period; any patients with evidence of CKD in their record within the burn-in period or prior to their diagnosis of type 2 diabetes were excluded. The study period ran from the 2015/16 to 2020/21 fiscal years.

4.2. Definitions

The eGFR-based cases of CKD were ascertained using repeated serum creatinine or eGFR measurements, with eGFR calculated from serum creatinine using the 2021 CKD-epi formula(19) without racial adjustment. If both an eGFR and serum creatinine measurement existed on the same day for a patient, the serum creatinine measurement was retained and used to calculate eGFR. Patients were classed as having eGFR-based CKD if they had 2 or more eGFR measurements below 60/ml/min/1.73m²at least 90 days apart, upto a maximum of 15 months apart. Any eGFR measurements occurring between the dates of those observations were required to have a median of below 60/ml/min/1.73m².

An upper limit on the time between qualifying eGFR measurements was imposed to distinguish between a sustained drop in kidney function and two acute episodes of kidney injury or infection. This upper limit was set to 15 months between measures to allow identification of eGFR-based CKD using measurements obtained at two consecutive diabetic annual reviews.

Diagnosis codes were identified using READ v2, READ CTV3 and SNOMED terminologies. Only CKD diagnoses of stages G3-5 (eGFR < 60) were classed as CKD within this analysis. Codelists for each terminology are provided in the supplementary materials (Tables S7, S8 and S9).

4.3. Statistical analysis

The number of patients with a diagnosis code and/or meeting the eGFR-based criteria for CKD were estimated for each included fiscal year, to align with the financial incentives and audits within the National Health Service. We further present the number (and percentage %) of patients that have at least one observation of eGFR (or serum creatinine) during that year, and how many of these have at least one eGFR below 60/ml/min/1.73m².

To estimate the annual incidence of CKD, three “at-risk” cohorts of patients were established (one for each definition of CKD) for each fiscal year from 2015/16 to 2020/21. Patients are considered at-risk if they are registered with a participating GP practice with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes before the end of the fiscal year, and no prior evidence of CKD. Evidence of CKD is defined as having:

1. eGFR-based CKD

2. A CKD diagnosis code

3. eGFR-based CKD or a CKD diagnosis code (composite criteria).

Incidence rates are presented per 100 person-years. Follow-up began at the latest of the beginning of the fiscal year, or their date of type 2 diabetes diagnosis. Follow-up ended at the earliest of death, CKD incidence, deregistration from their GP practice, or the end of the fiscal year. Poisson-based 95% confidence intervals for incidence rates were estimated.

For eGFR-based CKD, we estimated the median time interval between the two qualifying eGFR measurements, and we identified the number and proportion of patients with an observed UACR (and its severity category) in the year prior to their first qualifying eGFR. We quantified the number and proportion of patients with eGFR-based CKD that also received a CKD diagnosis code, and summarised the attributes (age, gender, deprivation, duration of diabetes, eGFR-stage, time between qualifying eGFRs, UACR, and indicators of medication prescribing) of patients with and without CKD diagnosis codes descriptively using the median and interquartile range for continuous measures, and count and percentage for categorical measures. Logistic regression was used to identify which patient attributes were associated with entry of a CKD diagnosis code. Gender, eGFR, UACR, deprivation decile and medication indicators were included as categorical predictors, and age, duration of diabetes, and time between qualifying eGFRs were included as continuous predictors. Deprivation decile is assigned using the postcode of a patient’s GP practice, from 1 = most deprived to 10 = least deprived.

For patients that met the eGFR-based criteria and had a CKD diagnosis code during the follow-up period, we quantified the number and proportion of patients that received a diagnosis code before and after the second qualifying eGFR observation. When a patient met the eGFR-based criteria and had a CKD diagnosis code after their second qualifying measurement, we defined this as clinician-verified CKD. The proportion of patients with eGFR-based CKD that had clinician-verified CKD was estimated and the time to verification was summarised using the median and interquartile range.

All analyses were conducted in R version 4.2.3.

5.1. CKD incidence

Over the study period, the incidence rate of CKD was 2.32 (95% CI: 2.24, 2.41) per 100 person-years of follow-up, using the composite definition of eGFR-based criteria or presence of a CKD diagnosis code. The CKD incidence estimates using eGFR-based criteria and diagnosis codes separately were 1.98 (95% CI: 1.90, 2.05) and 1.06 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.11) respectively. The combined incidence estimate across all fiscal years was significantly higher in the composite criteria than either the eGFR-based criteria (p<0.001) or diagnosis code criteria (p<0.001). Incidence estimates using only CKD diagnosis codes significantly underestimated the overall incidence, as estimated using the composite criteria, across all annual estimates. Incidence estimates using only the eGFR-based criteria were not significantly different from the composite criteria in fiscal years 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 (Figure 2A, supplementary Table S5).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

Amongst people with type 2 diabetes and no previous evidence of CKD stage G3-5, (A) The incidence rates of CKD diagnosis via a diagnosis code (Code), eGFR-based criteria (Lab) or at least one of these (Either), and their 95% confidence intervals. (B) Rates of eGFR measurement, by fiscal year

Few diagnosis code cases did not have evidence of eGFR-based criteria (N=411, 28.1%). However, a large proportion of eGFR-based cases did not have a corresponding diagnosis code (N=1,457, 54.6%). These findings were consistent over time (supplementary Table S5).

There was a statistically significant drop (p<0.001) in both the proportion of patients receiving at least one eGFR (serum creatinine) measurement in the 2020/21 fiscal year to 77.0% (95% CI: 76.5%, 77.5%), from 85.8% (95% CI: 85.4%, 86.2%) in 2019/20. Prior to 2019/20, the proportion of eligible patients with at least one valid eGFR or serum creatinine measurement remained high (Figure 2B). The proportion of patients with an eGFR less than 60 ml/min/1.73m²steadily increases over time from 5.1% (95% CI: 4.8%, 5.4%) in 2015/16 to 9.1% (95% CI: 8.7%, 9.4%) in 2020/21 (Figure 2B).

5.2. Diagnostic coding of patients meeting eGFR-based criteria

In total, 2,667 patients (8.3%) met the eGFR-based criteria for CKD during the study period. Of these, 54.6% patients did not have a corresponding diagnostic code, either before or after meeting the eGFR-based criteria (Table 2).

Patients that had eGFR-based evidence of CKD were more likely to have a diagnosis code if they were younger, had an observed UACR (stage A1), or a higher G-stage of CKD at the first qualifying eGFR observation (Table 3).

5.3. Timeliness of diagnosis coding

The majority of patients (55.2%) with both eGFR-based CKD and a CKD diagnosis code received their CKD diagnosis code after their second qualifying eGFR measurement (Table 4), and the median time from the second qualifying eGFR to entry of a diagnosis code was 9.79 months (IQR: 1.18, 24.34). 23.8% of patients with clinician-verified CKD received a diagnosis code within 30 days of meeting the eGFR-based criteria, 31.6% within 90 days, and 40.1% and 56.1% within 6 and 12 months respectively.

In total, 469 patients had at least one additional eGFR measurement between their CKD-qualifying eGFR less than 60 and entry of a CKD diagnosis code. At least one measurement of an eGFR less than 60ml/min/1.732 was observed in 4,351 patients. However, only 3,000 (68.9%) had a follow-up eGFR (or serum creatinine) within 6 months of their first abnormal result (supplementary table S3). 94 patients had an eGFR on the date of diagnosis coding, and these were on average 2.36 ml/min/1.73m²lower than their CKD-qualifying eGFR (supplementary figure S5, p = 0.019).

6.1. Summary of findings

This analysis has provided concerning evidence of a lack of diagnosis coding of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes in UK primary care, with more than half of patients meeting the eGFR-based criteria for CKD never receiving a diagnosis code. Of those patients that have a CKD diagnosis code after meeting the eGFR-based criteria, the entry of the diagnosis code occurs with a median delay of more than 9 months. Incidence was severely underestimated when using CKD diagnosis codes alone, which prevents reliable quantification of epidemiological estimates and the associated burden of CKD.

6.2. Relation to existing literature

Similarly to González-Pérez et al (20), we have presented crude estimates of CKD incidence per 100 person-years of follow-up by ascertainment criteria (eGFR-based CKD, diagnosis coded CKD or either). However, our combined estimates were considerably lower, likely due to several important differences in our criteria definitions; our study does not identify cases using UACR or albuminuria measurements, which accounted for 49% of González-Pérez et al’s included incidences. Furthermore, their work did not impose an upper limit on the time between qualifying eGFR measurements.

Our reported rates of diagnosis coding were lower than those presented by Molokhia et al(17), who observed that 57.5% of eGFR-based CKD cases in T2D patients in UK primary care had a diagnosis code. However, their data was limited to a single London borough extracted in 2013, their definition of eGFR-based CKD had no upper limit on the time between qualifying eGFRs, and they studied prevalence rather than incidence. Jain et al (16) conducted a similar study to establish whether patients with eGFR-based CKD were included on practice CKD registers, defined using QOF business rules and codelists. They observed that 77.7% of diabetic patients with eGFR-based CKD had a diagnosis code, which is higher than our reported coding rate. However, their study covered an earlier and shorter timeframe (April 2008 to March 2009) and they used a shorter length of time to identify sustained loss of function (two eGFRs < 60/ml/min/1.73m² at least 7 days apart) that does not correspond to current guidelines. Further, they focused on prevalence rather than incidence.

6.3. Strengths and Limitations

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to quantify the rates of CKD diagnosis coding for new incidences of CKD in a type 2 diabetic population in UK primary care. We provide an analysis of recent data that covers the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and therefore any associated impact on the management and identification of CKD. We hypothesise that the observed drop in eGFR measurement rates can be attributed to disruptions to the provision of routine care caused by the COVID-19 pandemic(21).

A limitation to this work is that our data only covers primary care. Patients may be referred to and managed within specialist secondary care centres upon exhibition of kidney function impairment. However, these referrals should be evidenced within the patient’s primary care record. Future work should explore whether and when such referrals take place, and establish how patients diagnosed with CKD in primary care are managed across the care pathway.

A further limitation is that our lab-based CKD definition used only eGFR. Albuminuria and/or an elevated UACR is often an earlier signal for kidney damage than a reduction in kidney filtration and is common in patients with type 2 diabetes. Therefore, further work should also capture patients that present with persistent albuminuria. However, it is well-known that adherence to UACR measurement guidelines is low, so incidence estimates based on UACR derived using routinely collected data are likely to be unreliable.

A final limitation is that the newest CKD-epi equation was used to calculate eGFR, without racial adjustment, which may provide a marginal overestimation of eGFR compared with what may have been calculated in practice. This may have resulted in comparatively fewer identified cases of eGFR-based CKD, however we do not anticipate that this would have a significant impact on the reported estimates since only the subset of patients close to the cut-off of eGFR < 60/ml/min/1.73m²would be affected.

6.4. Implications for clinical practice

A lack of, or delay in, identification and diagnosis coding of CKD could lead to improper management of the condition. CKD progression is strongly associated with poor clinical outcomes and has a significant economic burden. CKD awareness remains profoundly low, in part because CKD is usually silent until its late stages. Physician awareness of CKD is critical in the early identification of the condition as well as the early implementation of evidence-based therapies that can slow progression of kidney dysfunction, prevent metabolic complications, and reduce cardiovascular-related outcomes. Tools including automated CKD patient registry/diagnostic coding within electronic health records to identify and prioritise patients for early intensive management can facilitate the clinical inertia we see in CKD management. (22).