4.6 Article

Beneficial effects of weight loss in overweight patients with chronic proteinuric nephropathies

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF KIDNEY DISEASES
卷 41, 期 2, 页码 319-327

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/ajkd.2003.50039

关键词

weight loss; proteinuria decrease; overweight; low-calorie diet; type 2 diabetes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Proteinuria is a recognized complication of obesity, but no study has investigated the effect of weight loss in overweight patients with chronic proteinuric nephropathies of different causes. Methods: We randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) 30 overweight patients (body mass index [BMI] > 27 kg/m(2)) with diabetic and nondiabetic proteinuric nephropathies to either follow a low-calorie normoproteinic diet or maintain their usual dietary intake for 5 months. The primary outcome was change in urinary protein excretion. Secondary outcomes were changes in renal function (serum creatinine level and Cockcroft-Gault creatinine clearance) and lipid profile. Results: Patients in the diet group showed a significant decrease in body weight and BMI, whereas patients in the control group showed a significant increase in body weight and BMI (between-group comparison, P < 0.05). Mean weight loss in the diet group was 4.1% +/- 3%, and 14 of 20 patients in this group lost more than 3%. Proteinuria decreased by 31.2% +/- 37% in the diet group (from protein of 2.8 +/- 1.4 to 1.9 +/- 1.4 g/24 h; P < 0.005), whereas it tended to increase in the control group (between-group comparison, P < 0.05). Changes in renal function did not differ significantly between groups, although renal function remained stable in the diet group and showed significant worsening in the control group. Serum triglyceride levels remained stable in the diet group and tended to increase in the control group (between-group comparison, P < 0.05). Conclusion: Moderate weight loss in overweight patients with chronic proteinuric nephropathies induces a significant decrease in proteinuria.

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