4.7 Article

Association between serum complements and kidney function in patients with diabetic kidney disease

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1195966

关键词

serum complement; complement C3; complement C4; diabetic kidney disease; diabetes mellitus; nomogram

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that high concentrations of serum complement C4 were significantly associated with an increased risk of kidney function deterioration in all stages of DKD, while reduced serum C3 levels were associated with an increased risk specifically in the G5 stage.
Objective We aimed to explore the association between serum complements and kidney function of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) in Chinese patients.Methods This is a retrospective study involving 2,441 participants. DKD was diagnosed according to the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) categories. Participants were classified as stages G1-G5 by KDIGO glomerular filtration rate (GFR) categories. Effect sizes are expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).Results After balancing age, gender, systolic blood pressure (SBP), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1C), serum triglyceride (TG), and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) between the G2-G5 and control groups, per 0.1 g/L increment in serum complement C3 was significantly associated with a 27.8% reduced risk of DKD at G5 stage (OR, 95% CI, P: 0.722, 0.616-0.847, <0.001) relative to the G1 stage. Conversely, per 0.1 g/L increment in serum complement C4 was associated with an 83.0-177.6% increased risk of G2-G5 stage (P<0.001). Serum complement C1q was not statistically significant compared to controls at all stages prior to or after propensity score matching.Conclusions Our results indicate that high concentrations of serum C4 were associated with the significantly elevated risk of kidney function deterioration across all stages, and reduced serum C3 levels with an increased risk of DKD stage G5.

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

4.7
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