4.6 Article

Uric Acid Is Independently Associated with Diabetic Kidney Disease: A Cross-Sectional Study in a Chinese Population

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129797

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China [81200582, 81322010, 81300691]
  2. Key Discipline of Public Health of Shanghai [12GWZX0104]
  3. Excellent Young Medical Expert of Shanghai [XYQ2011041]
  4. Shanghai Talent Development Grant [2012041]
  5. National Program for Support of Top-notch Young Professionals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Association between hyperuricaemia and chronic kidney disease has been studied widely, but the influence of uric acid on the kidneys remains controversial. We aimed to summarize the association between uric acid and diabetic kidney disease (DKD), and to evaluate the role of uric acid in DKD. Methods We enrolled 3,212 type 2 diabetic patients in a cross-sectional study. The patients' basic characteristics (sex, age, BMI, duration of disease, and blood pressure) and chemical parameters (triglycerides, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c), microalbuminuria, creatinine, and uric acid) were recorded, and the association between uric acid and DKD was evaluated. Results In the 3,212 diabetic patients, the prevalence of diabetic kidney disease was higher in hyperuricaemic patients than in patients with normouricaemia (68.3% vs 41.5%). The prevalence of DKD increased with increasing uric acid (p<0.0001). Logistic analysis identified uric acid as an independent predictor of DKD (p<0.0001; adjusted OR (95%CI) = 1.005 (1.004-1.007), p<0.0001). Uric acid was positively correlated with albuminuria and creatinine levels (p<0.0001) but negatively correlated with eGFR (p<0.0001) after adjusting for confounding factors. Conclusions Hyperuricaemia is a risk factor for DKD. Serum uric acid levels within the high-normal range are independently associated with DKD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据