4.6 Article

Risk factors associated with the discordance in kidney function decline rate in identical twins

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 18, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284154

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to identify the risk factors for high discordance in kidney function decline in identical twins. The results showed that blood hemoglobin level may be associated with individual differences in kidney function decline.
BackgroundThe rate of kidney function decline is different for each individual regardless of any difference in the medical histories. This study set out to identify the risk factors for high discordance in kidney function decline in an identical twin cohort. MethodsThis study included 333 identical twins from the Korean Genome and Epidemiology Study who were categorized into two groups according to the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline: the slow and rapid progressor groups. The mean differences of variables were compared between the two groups. We calculated the difference in the annual eGFR change between twins and analyzed the risk factors associated with high discordance in twins who had > 5 mL/min/1.73 m(2) /yr of the intra-twin difference in the annual eGFR decline. Identical twins with diabetes and baseline eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) were excluded. ResultsThe high discordance twins showed significant differences in body mass index; waist-to-hip ratio; total body fat percentage; and levels of blood hemoglobin, serum fasting glucose, albumin, triglyceride, and uric acid; however, there were no differences in low discordance twins. Multivariable logistic regression showed that blood hemoglobin level is the only significant factor associated with high discordance of eGFR decline in twins. ConclusionsBlood hemoglobin level may play a role in the individual differences in kidney function decline.

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