4.6 Article

Associations of Diet with Albuminuria and Kidney Function Decline

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.08001109

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [K08 DK066246, R03 DK078551, R01DK066574, R01 HL065582, P01CA055075]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objectives: Sparse longitudinal data exist on how diet influences microalbuminuria and estimated GFR (eGFR) decline in people with well-preserved kidney function. Design, settings, participants, & measurements: Of the 3348 women participating in the Nurses' Health Study who had data on urinary albumin to creatinine ratio in 2000, 3296 also had data on eGFR change between 1989 and 2000. Cumulative average intake of nutrients over 14 years was derived from semiquantitative food frequency questionnaires answered in 1984, 1986, 1990, 1994, and 1998. Microalbuminuria presence and eGFR decline >= 30% were the outcomes of interest. Results: Compared with the lowest quartile, the highest quartile of animal fat (odds ratio (OR): 1.72; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12 to 2.64) and two or more servings of red meat per week (OR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.26) were directly associated with microalbuminuria. After adjustment for other nutrients individually associated with eGFR decline >= 30%, only the highest quartile of sodium intake remained directly associated (OR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.10 to 2.09), whereas beta-carotene appeared protective (OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.89). Results did not vary by diabetes status for microalbuminuria and eGFR outcomes or in those without hypertension at baseline for eGFR decline. No significant associations were seen for other types of protein, fat, vitamins, folate, fructose, or potassium. Conclusions: Higher dietary intake of animal fat and two or more servings per week of red meat may increase risk for microalbuminuria. Lower sodium and higher beta-carotene intake may reduce risk for eGFR decline. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 5: 836-843, 2010. doi: 10.2215/CJN.08001109

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