4.4 Article

Impaired fasting glucose and development of chronic kidney disease in non-diabetic population: a Mendelian randomization study

期刊

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2020-001395

关键词

insulin resistance; prediabetic state; kidney diseases

资金

  1. Soon Chun Hyang University Research Fund [2020-0003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Diabetes mellitus is a risk factor of chronic kidney disease (CKD); however, the relationship between fasting glucose and CKD remains controversial in non-diabetic population. This study aimed to assess causal relationship between genetically predicted fasting glucose and incident CKD. Research design and methods This study included 5909 participants without diabetes and CKD from the Korean Genome Epidemiology Study. The genetic risk score (GRS(9)) was calculated using nine genetic variants associated with fasting glucose in previous genome-wide association studies. Incident CKD was defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)and/or proteinuria (>= 1+). The causal relationship between fasting glucose and CKD was evaluated using the Mendelian randomization (MR) approach. Results The GRS(9)was strongly associated with fasting glucose (beta, 1.01; p<0.001). During a median follow-up of 11.6 years, 490 (8.3%) CKD events occurred. However, GRS(9)was not significantly different between participants with CKD events and those without. After adjusting for confounding factors, fasting glucose was not associated with incident CKD (OR 0.990; 95% CI 0.977 to 1.002; p=0.098). In the MR analysis, GRS(9)was not associated with CKD development (OR per 1 SD increase, 1.179; 95% CI 0.819 to 1.696; p=0.376). Further evaluation using various other MR methods and strict CKD criteria (decrease in the eGFR of >= 30% to a value of <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) found no significant relationship between GRS(9)and incident CKD. Conclusions Fasting glucose was not causally associated with CKD development in non-diabetic population.

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

4.4
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