4.7 Article

The risk of chronic kidney disease in a metabolically healthy obese population

期刊

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL
卷 88, 期 4, 页码 843-850

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/ki.2015.183

关键词

chronic kidney disease; metabolic health; obesity

资金

  1. Basic Science Research Program (National Research Foundation of Korea - Ministry of Science, Information & Communication Technology) and Future Planning [NRF-2014R1A1A1004798]
  2. Asan Institute of Life Sciences, Republic of Korea [2014-583, 2014-122]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Obesity has become an important risk factor for chronic kidney disease (CKD). The metabolically healthy obese (MHO) phenotype refers to obese individuals with a favorable metabolic profile. However, its prognostic value remains controversial and may depend on the health outcome being investigated. To assess this, we examined the risk of MHO phenotype with incident CKD in a Korean population of 41,194 people without CKD. Individuals were stratified by body mass index (cutoff value, 25.0 kg/m(2)) and metabolic health state (assessed using Adult Treatment Panel-III criteria). Incident CKD was defined as a glomerular filtration rate of o60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) calculated using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation. Over the median follow-up period of 38.7 months, 356 of the individuals developed incident CKD. Compared with the metabolically healthy nonobese (MHNO) group, the MHO group showed increased risk of incident CKD with a multivariate-adjusted hazard ratio of 1.38 (95% CI, 1.01-1.87). Nonobese but metabolically unhealthy individuals were at an increased risk of incident CKD (multivariate-adjusted hazard ratio, 1.37 (95% CI, 1.02-1.93)) than the MHNO group. Metabolically unhealthy obese individuals were at the highest risk of incident CKD. Thus, a healthy metabolic profile does not protect obese adults from incident CKD. Hence, it is important to consider metabolic health along with obesity when evaluating CKD risk.

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