Pesola Gene R, Argos Maria, Chen Yu, Parvez Faruque, Ahmed Alauddin, Hasan Rabiul, Rakibuz-Zaman Muhammad, Islam Tariqul, Eunus Mahbubul, Sarwar Golam, Chinchilli Vernon M, Neugut Alfred I, Ahsan Habibul
Dept. of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States; Dept. of Medicine (Section of Pulmonary/Critical Care), Harlem Hospital affiliated with Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.
Dept. of Health Sciences, University of Chicago, IL, United States.
Prev Med. 2015 Sep;78:72-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.07.009. Epub 2015 Jul 17.
Baseline, persistent, incident, and remittent dipstick proteinuria have never been tested as predictors of mortality in an undeveloped country. The goal of this study was to determine which of these four types of proteinuria (if any) predict mortality.
Baseline data was collected from 2000 to 2002 in Bangladesh from 11,121 adults. Vital status was ascertained over 11-12years. Cox models were used to evaluate proteinuria in relation to all-cause and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality. CVD mortality was evaluated only in those with baseline proteinuria. Persistent, remittent, and incident proteinuria were determined at the 2-year exam.
Baseline proteinuria of 1+ or greater was significantly associated with all-cause (hazard ratio (HR) 2.87; 95% C.I., 1.71-4.80) and CVD mortality (HR: 3.55; 95% C.I., 1.81-6.95) compared to no proteinuria, adjusted for age, gender, arsenic well water concentration, education, hypertension, BMI, smoking, and diabetes mellitus. Persistent 1+ proteinuria had a stronger risk of death, 3.49 (1.64-7.41)-fold greater, than no proteinuria. Incident 1+ proteinuria had a 1.87 (0.92-3.78)-fold greater mortality over 9-10years. Remittent proteinuria revealed no increased mortality.
Baseline, persistent, and incident dipstick proteinuria were predictors of all-cause mortality with persistent proteinuria having the greatest risk. In developing countries, those with 1+ dipstick proteinuria, particularly if persistent, should be targeted for definitive diagnosis and treatment. The two most common causes of proteinuria to search for are diabetes mellitus and hypertension.
在一个不发达国家,从未对基线、持续性、偶发性和缓解性试纸法蛋白尿作为死亡率预测指标进行过测试。本研究的目的是确定这四种类型的蛋白尿(若有)中哪一种可预测死亡率。
2000年至2002年在孟加拉国收集了11121名成年人的基线数据。在11至12年期间确定其生命状态。使用Cox模型评估蛋白尿与全因死亡率和心血管疾病(CVD)死亡率的关系。仅在有基线蛋白尿的人群中评估CVD死亡率。在2年检查时确定持续性、缓解性和偶发性蛋白尿。
与无蛋白尿相比,经年龄、性别、砷井水浓度、教育程度、高血压、体重指数、吸烟和糖尿病校正后,基线蛋白尿为1+或更高与全因死亡率(风险比(HR)2.87;95%置信区间,1.71 - 4.80)和CVD死亡率(HR:3.55;95%置信区间,1.81 - 6.95)显著相关。持续性1+蛋白尿的死亡风险比无蛋白尿高3.49(1.64 - 7.41)倍。偶发性1+蛋白尿在9至10年内的死亡率高1.87(0.92 - 3.78)倍。缓解性蛋白尿未显示死亡率增加。
基线、持续性和偶发性试纸法蛋白尿是全因死亡率的预测指标,其中持续性蛋白尿风险最大。在发展中国家,试纸法蛋白尿为1+的人群,尤其是持续性蛋白尿患者,应作为明确诊断和治疗的目标人群。需要排查的蛋白尿最常见的两个原因是糖尿病和高血压。