Table 3.

Association of candidate variants with eGFR decline (%/yr)

Variant Characteristics						Previously Reported Effect Estimate (Gorski et al.)			Cross-Ancestry Estimate from Current Meta-Analysis
Identifier	Nearest Gene	Chr	Position	EA	OA	EAF	β a	P	EAF	β b	SEM	P
rs34882080	UMOD-PDILT	16	20361441	A	G	0.82	0.092	3.3×10−62	0.80	−0.27	0.03	7.3×10−24
rs77924615	UMOD-PDILT	16	20392332	G	A	0.80	0.099	3.8×10−69	0.78	−0.30	0.03	4.9×10−27
rs10254101	PRKAG2	7	151415536	T	C	0.28	0.037	1.8×10−14	0.29	−0.10	0.02	8.2×10−6
rs1028455	SPATA7	14	88829975	T	A	0.66	0.024	3.4×10−8	0.65	−0.01	0.02	0.545
rs1458038	FGF5	4	81164723	C	T	0.69	0.028	6.9×10−10	0.70	−0.09	0.02	4.1×10−5
rs4930319	OVOL1	11	65555458	C	G	0.33	0.028	5.3×10−10	0.35	−0.03	0.02	0.098
rs434215	TPPP	5	699046	A	G	0.28	0.032	7.2×10−9	0.30	−0.07	0.02	4.8×10−3
rs28857283	C15ORF54	15	39224711	G	A	0.66	0.030	1.3×10−11	0.63	−0.07	0.02	7.5×10−4
rs13095391	ACVR2B	3	38447232	A	C	0.50	0.025	4.0×10−8	0.53	−0.03	0.02	0.181
rs9998485	SHROOM3	4	77362445	A	G	0.47	0.027	9.8×10−9	0.50	−0.05	0.02	0.014
rs1047891	CPS1	2	211540507	A	C	0.29	0.029	1.2×10−9	0.33	−0.03	0.02	0.209
rs2453533	GATM	15	45641225	A	C	0.42	0.029	1.7×10−11	0.40	−0.02	0.02	0.412

Because of the differing phenotype definitions between the two studies, a positive regression β from the analysis by Gorski et al. indicates a faster eGFR decline, whereas in our analyses a negative β indicates a faster eGFR decline. EA, effect allele; OA, other allele; EAF, effect allele frequency; β, regression estimate, difference in % decline/yr per additional copy of the effect allele; SEM, standard error of the mean.

^aDifference in −1×eGFR decline, ml/min per 1.72 m² per year, per copy of the effect allele, per Gorski et al. PMID 35716955.

^bDifference in the relative annual eGFR decline, %/yr, per copy of the effect allele.