4.0 Article

Chronic kidney disease among US adults with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases: A national estimate of prevalence by KDIGO 2012 classification

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dsx.2018.11.026

关键词

Chronic kidney disease; Type 2 diabetes; Cardiovascular disease; Prevalence

资金

  1. Merck & Co, Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: Data on prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) among US adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are limited. The aim of this study was to provide such estimates for T2D, both overall and in those with CVD. Materials and methods: Using the NHANES 2007-2014 data, we conducted a cross-sectional analysis of an adult sample with diagnosed and undiagnosed T2D, aged >18 years. CVD was defined based on self reported personal interview data on a broad range of health conditions congestive heart failure, coronary heart disease, angina, stroke, or heart attack. T2D was defined as diagnosed T2D (self-reported provider diagnosis) and undiagnosed T2D (FPG >126 mg/dL or HbAl c > 6.5% without self-reported diagnosis). Participants who started insulin within a year of T2D diagnosis, or were pregnant at the time of health examination were excluded. Appropriate sample weights were used to provide a national estimate. Results: The prevalence of moderate to severe renal impairment based on eGFR below 60 ml/min/1.73 m(2) among T2D was 18.0%. The prevalence of mild renal impairment was 36.9%: 28.3% with UACR<30 mg/g, 7.0% with UACR >30-300 mg/g and 1.6% with UACR >300 mg/g. For T2D and CVD subgroup, the prevalence was 33.6% for moderate to severe renal impairment and 42.8% for mild renal impairment. Conclusions: This study confirms the high prevalence of CKD in patients with multiple comorbidities: T2D and CVD. It also provides estimates of the prevalence of CKD categories based on KDIGO 2012 classification for US adults with T2D. 2018 Diabetes India. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.0
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