4.6 Article

Diabetes Mellitus and Prediabetes on Kidney Transplant Waiting List-Prevalence, Metabolic Phenotyping and Risk Stratification Approach

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 10, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134971

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Novartis Pharma GmbH, Nurnberg, Germany
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  3. Open Access Publishing Fund of University of Tubingen

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Despite a significant prognostic impact, little is known about disturbances in glucose metabolism among kidney transplant candidates. We assess the prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) and prediabetes on kidney transplant waiting list, its underlying pathophysiology and propose an approach for individual risk stratification. Methods All patients on active kidney transplant waiting list of a large European university hospital transplant center were metabolically phenotyped. Results Of 138 patients, 76 (55%) had disturbances in glucose metabolism. 22% of patients had known DM, 3% were newly diagnosed. 30% were detected to have prediabetes. Insulin sensitivity and-secretion indices allowed for identification of underlying pathophysiology and risk factors. Age independently affected insulin secretion, resulting in a relative risk for prediabetes of 2.95 (95% CI 1.38-4.83) with a cut-off at 48 years. Body mass index independently affected insulin sensitivity as a continuous variable. Conclusions The prevalence of DM or prediabetes on kidney transplant waiting list is as high as 55%, with more than one third of patients previously undiagnosed. Oral glucose tolerance test is mandatory to detect all patients at risk. Metabolic phenotyping allows for differentiation of underlying pathophysiology and provides a basis for early individual risk stratification and specific intervention to improve patient and allograft outcome.

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