4.6 Article

Prevalence and risk factors of chronic kidney disease: a population study in the Tibetan population

Journal

NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 26, Issue 5, Pages 1592-1599

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfq608

Keywords

chronic kidney disease; epidemiology; high altitude; Tibet

Funding

  1. Scientific and Technologic Committee of Guangdong province [2006A36001002]
  2. Guangzhou Municipal Health Bureau [2007-ZDa-01, 2005-ZDa-001]
  3. Sun Yat-sen University [5010]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. The prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) at high altitude is not known. We conducted a population-based survey in Tibet to identify the prevalence and associated risk factors of CKD in subjects living at altitudes of > 3500 m. Methods. One thousand two hundred and eighty-nine Tibetans (>= 18 years) from four districts of Lhasa city (altitude 3658 m) and eight villages of Dangxiong County (altitude 4200 m) were interviewed and tested for haematuria, albuminuria and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Results. The adjusted prevalence of hypertension, albuminuria, haematuria and reduced eGFR were 38.8% (95% CI: 36.2-41.5%), 16.2% (95% CI: 14.1-18.2%), 3.9% (95% CI: 2.8-4.9%) and 2.1% (95% CI: 1.3-2.9%), respectively. Both the presence of hypertension and the presence of albuminuria were strongly and independently associated with hyperuricaemia and elevated haematocrit. Conclusions. This is the first population-based epidemiological study of CKD in the Tibetan population. We found a higher prevalence of CKD and associated high prevalence of albuminuria, hypertension, hyperuricaemia and high haematocrit in the Tibetan population. The present study indicates the urgent need to develop comprehensive strategies targeted at reducing the CKD burden in this area and may lead to a better understanding of CKD in high-altitude populations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available