4.7 Article

Low Plasma Level of Cathelicidin Antimicrobial Peptide (hCAP18) Predicts Increased Infectious Disease Mortality in Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis

期刊

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 48, 期 4, 页码 418-424

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1086/596314

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Kidney Foundation
  2. National Institutes of Health [5R01AI065604-02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Human cathelicidin antimicrobial protein (hCAP18) is an antimicrobial and immunomodulatory peptide that has pleiotropic effects and is transcriptionally regulated by vitamin D. Because the administration of vitamin D analogues has been linked to decreased mortality among patients with end-stage renal disease, we hypothesized that low hCAP18 levels would identify those who are at increased risk of death attributable to infection while undergoing hemodialysis. Methods. We performed a case-control study nested in a prospective cohort of patients (n = 10,044) initiating incident hemodialysis. Case patients (n = 81) were those who died of an infectious disease within 1 year; control patients (n = 198) were those who survived at least 1 year while undergoing dialysis. Results. Mean (+/- SD) baseline levels of hCAP18 in case patients and control patients were ng/mL 539 +/- 278 and 650 +/- 353 ng/mL, respectively (P = .006). hCAP18 levels had a modest correlation with 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D levels (r = 0.23; P = .053) but not with 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels (r = -0.06; P = .44). Patients with hCAP18 levels in the lowest tertile had a 2-fold increased risk (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-3.5) of death attributable to infection; after multivariable adjustment, this relationship remained statistically significant (odds ratio, 3.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-11.2). Conclusions. In individuals initiating chronic hemodialysis, low baseline levels of hCAP18, a vitamin D regulated antimicrobial protein, are independently associated with an increased risk of death attributable to infection.

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