4.1 Article

Metabolic syndrome and C-reactive protein concentration as independent correlates of chronic kidney disease

期刊

ENDOCRINE RESEARCH
卷 39, 期 3, 页码 94-98

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.3109/07435800.2013.840652

关键词

Chronic kidney disease; C-reactive protein; inflammation; metabolic syndrome

资金

  1. Bureau of Health Promotion, Department of Health, Executive Yuan, Taiwan, Republic of China [DOH95-HP-2103]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inflammation is a common phenotype for cardiometabolic disorders. In this study, we attempted to investigate inter-relationships between metabolic syndrome (MetS), C-reactive protein (an inflammatory biomarker) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). We performed a cross-sectional analysis of data from a representative sample of 4425 Chinese adults in Taiwan. The MetS was defined by a unified criteria set by several major organizations. A CKD event was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 mL/min per 1.73 m(2). Additionly, a CRP cutpoint of 3 mg/L was used to differentiate high and low CRP levels. Overall, 1000 participants had MetS, resulting in a prevalence rate of 22.6%. High CRP level was noted in 782 (17.6%) subjects. In addition, a total of 508 (11.5%) persons qualified as having CKD. Subjects with the MetS had 1.55-fold [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.03-2.32] increased odds of CKD compared with their counterparts without the MetS after multiple adjustments. In addition, there was a significantly graded relationship between increasing levels of serum CRP and prevalent CKD (p for trend = 0.001). Participants in the highest category of serum CRP had a significantly elevated odds of CKD as compared with those in the lowest category [odds ratio (OR), 1.60; 95% CI, 1.21-2.12]. However, there was no interaction in excess of additive scale between the presence of MetS and high CRP level (p = 0.83). These findings suggest that MetS and high CRP were independently associated with increased prevalence of CKD in Chinese adults.

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

4.1
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