-
A total of 7,346 participants were included in this study (3,387 men, 3,959 women). The mean age (standardized deviation, SD) of all participants was 58.91 (9.16) years (Table 1). The participants with higher SUA levels were more likely to be older, of the male gender, hypertensive, smokers, and drinkers. Table 2 depicts the baseline characteristics of the participants in accordance with the kidney function decline status. Those with kidney function decline were more likely to be older, of the male gender, hypertensive, diabetic, and smokers. In addition, they had a higher average eGFR and triglycerides.
Table 1. Participants characteristics at baseline, by SUA levels
Characteristics Overall Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 P Participants, n (%) 7,346 (100.00) 1,528 (20.06) 1,610 (20.02) 1,521 (19.96) 1,411 (20.02) 1,276 (19.95) – Age (years, SD) 58.91 (9.16) 56.37 (8.79) 58.74 (8.85) 58.85 (9.07) 59.16 (8.82) 61.44 (9.56) < 0.001 Sex < 0.001 Men 3,387 (47.26) 280 (23.21) 494 (35.89) 674 (47.58) 856 (58.80) 1,083 (70.98) GDP per capita < 0.001 Low 2,814 (34.43) 488 (29.38) 605 (34.35) 564 (33.35) 550 (35.63) 607 (39.44) Middle 2,150 (27.02) 569 (33.58) 510 (30.39) 441 (28.41) 381 (24.96) 249 (17.71) High 2,382 (38.56) 471 (37.04) 495 (35.26) 516 (38.24) 480 (39.41) 420 (42.85) eGFR (mL/min per 1.73 m2, SD) 92.31 (14.51) 100.09 (10.49) 95.15 (12.37) 93.01 (13.64) 90.05 (13.89) 83.18 (15.92) < 0.001 Hypertension, n (%) 3,195 (43.60) 535 (33.55) 587 (40.99) 609 (41.19) 674 (47.91) 790 (54.39) < 0.001 Diabetes, n (%) 1,146 (15.69) 228 (13.27) 211 (16.13) 206 (13.96) 236 (14.81) 265 (20.27) < 0.001 Smoking < 0.001 Current/former 2,855 (38.79) 315 (25.11) 447 (32.75) 564 (39.75) 682 (45.61) 847 (50.79) Drinking < 0.001 Current/former 2,782 (38.65) 328 (26.70) 449 (31.76) 536 (38.64) 666 (44.60) 803 (51.62) BMI (kg/m2), n (%) < 0.001 Underweight 419 (5.27) 105 (7.46) 94 (6.17) 83 (4.93) 65 (3.44) 72 (4.33) Normal 3,760 (50.00) 818 (56.00) 774 (53.21) 771 (52.45) 705 (45.73) 692 (45.52) Overweight 2,198 (32.15) 393 (27.48) 432 (31.36) 435 (30.33) 485 (36.30) 453 (35.33) Obesity 929 (12.58) 145 (9.06) 164 (9.26) 174 (12.28) 202 (14.53) 244 (32.15) Systolic blood pressure (mmHg, SD) 130.62
(21.28)127.98
(20.00)129.26
(21.33)129.14
(20.83)132.78
(22.45)134.15
(21.17)< 0.001 Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg, SD) 79.30
(52.72)76.25
(34.07)80.30
(63.69)78.68
(54.10)80.06
(43.28)81.37
(62.58)0.116 HbA1c (%, SD) 5.26 (0.81) 5.32 (1.02) 5.22 (0.81) 5.22 (0.74) 5.25 (0.72) 5.27 (0.72) 0.006 Triglycerides (mg/dL, SD) 136.95
(109.57)119.70
(83.88)123.54
(86.50)131.58
(91.28)140.45
(112.50)169.62
(151.69)< 0.001 LDL cholesterol (mg/dL, SD) 115.20
(34.56)114.83
(32.95)116.30
(32.83)115.05
(33.14)116.44
(35.33)113.37
(38.23)0.104 HDL cholesterol (mg/dL, SD) 49.64 (15.24) 51.84 (14.35) 51.29 (13.73) 50.38 (15.86) 48.27 (14.97) 48.38 (16.50) < 0.001 C-reactive protein (mg/L, SD) 2.58 (6.71) 2.08 (5.78) 2.25 (5.74) 2.52 (7.28) 2.99 (7.58) 3.05 (6.89) < 0.001 Note. Q1: 0 to 3.39 mg/dL, Q2: 3.39 to 3.97 mg/dL, Q3: 3.97 to 4.57 mg/dL, Q4: 4.57 to 5.36 mg/dL, Q5: ≥ 5.36 mg/dL. There were 20, 25, 25, 26, 40, 894, 872, 46, and 13 individuals with missing information in hypertension, diabetes, smoking, drinking, BMI, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, HbA1c and LDL-c, respectively. The inverse probability weighting method was applied in calculating the SDs, proportions and P values. SUA, serum uric acid; SD, standard deviation; GDP, gross domestic product; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; BMI, body mass index; HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; HDL, high-density lipoprotein. Table 2. Baseline characteristics of individuals without or with kidney function decline
Characteristics Kidney function decline P No Yes Participants, n (%) 6,342 (86.33) 1,004 (13.67) – Age (years, SD) 58.75 (9.12) 59.93 (9.35) < 0.001 Sex, n (%) < 0.001 Men 2,893 (47.02) 494 (48.82) GDP per capita < 0.001 Low 2,354 (33.29) 460 (41.61) Middle 1,910 (27.90) 240 (21.43) High 2,078 (38.81) 304 (36.96) eGFR (mL/min per 1.73 m2, SD) 91.89 (14.24) 94.96 (15.83) < 0.001 Hypertension, n (%) 2,718 (42.77) 477 (48.80) < 0.001 Diabetes, n (%) 978 (15.38) 168 (17.60) < 0.001 Smoking < 0.001 Current/former 2,434 (38.53) 421 (40.41) Drinking < 0.001 Current/former 2,388 (38.78) 394 (37.85) BMI (kg/m2) < 0.001 Underweight 353 (5.12) 66 (6.22) Normal 3,231 (50.07) 529 (49.55) Overweight 1,910 (31.95) 288 (33.43) Obesity 815 (12.86) 114 (10.80) Systolic blood pressure (mmHg, SD) 129.97 (20.57) 134.52 (24.76) < 0.001 Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg, SD) 79.05 (52.52) 80.83 (53.90) 0.341 SUA (mg/dL, SD) 4.52 (1.32) 4.57 (1.27) 0.219 HbA1c (%, SD) 5.25 (0.80) 5.30 (0.88) 0.076 Triglycerides (mg/dL, SD) 135.32 (98.94) 147.23 (160.85) 0.001 LDL cholesterol (mg/dL, SD) 115.79 (34.33) 111.46 (35.80) < 0.001 HDL cholesterol (mg/dL, SD) 49.61 (15.01) 49.83 (16.64) 0.668 C-reactive protein (mg/L, SD) 2.59 (7.00) 2.49 (4.39) 0.664 Note. There were 20, 25, 25, 26, 40, 894, 872, 46, and 13 individuals with missing information in hypertension, diabetes, smoking, drinking, BMI, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, HbA1c and LDL cholesterol, respectively. SD, standard deviation; GDP, gross domestic product; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; BMI, body mass index; SUA, serum uric acid; HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; HDL, high-density lipoprotein. -
A total of 1,004 individuals (13.67%) developed a kidney function decline during the follow-up of 4 years. After adjusting for all potential covariates (such as age, sex, GDP per capita, baseline eGFR, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, drinking, BMI, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and C-reactive protein), for every additional 1 mg/dL SUA, the risk of kidney function decline increased by 14% (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03–1.27), with a significant dose-response relation (Table 3). After adjusting for all potential covariates, the ORs for the second, third, fourth, and fifth versus the first quintile of SUA were 1.23 (95% CI 0.94–1.62), 1.41 (95% CI 1.06–1.87), 1.72 (95% CI 1.02–2.89), and 1.71 (95% CI 1.18–2.47), respectively. The restricted cubic spline analysis with 2 mg/dL SUA as the reference indicated that SUA > 5 mg/dL (which corresponds to the median of the fourth quintile) was associated with a significantly higher risk of kidney function decline (Figure 1).
Table 3. Odds ratios and 95% CIs for the association of SUA level with kidney function decline
SUA level Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Q1 Ref Ref Ref Q2 1.27 (0.96–1.67) 1.24 (0.95–1.63) 1.23 (0.94–1.62) Q3 1.41 (1.06–1.88)* 1.39 (1.05–1.84)* 1.41 (1.06–1.87)* Q4 1.80 (1.04–3.10)* 1.72 (1.03–2.89)* 1.72 (1.02–2.89)* Q5 1.80 (1.24–2.60)** 1.70 (1.18–2.43)** 1.71 (1.18–2.47)** 1 mg/dL increase 1.14 (1.02–1.28)* 1.13 (1.02–1.26)* 1.14 (1.03–1.27)* Note. Q1: 0– < 3.39 mg/dL, Q2: 3.39– < 3.97 mg/dL, Q3: 3.97– < 4.57 mg/dL, Q4: 4.57– < 5.36 mg/dL, Q5: ≥ 5.36 mg/dL. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. Model 1 was adjusted for age, sex, GDP per capita and baseline eGFR. Model 2 was additionally adjusted for hypertension and diabetes. In Model 3, adjustment further included smoking, drinking, BMI, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides and C-reactive protein. SUA, serum uric acid; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; GDP, gross domestic product; BMI, body mass index; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; HDL, high-density lipoprotein. Figure 1. Restricted cubic splines analysis of the association between the SUA level and kidney function decline The red solid line represents age-adjusted odds ratios. The gray dashed lines represent 95% confidence intervals. The serum uric acid level was modeled by both-tail restricted cubic spline in a multivariable logistic regression model. The reference value is 2 mg/dL. SUA, serum uric acid.
-
After repeating the logistic model adjusted for all potential covariates among males and females, respectively, a significant positive dose-response relation was noted between the SUA and kidney function decline for women (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.03–1.45). Although the dose-response relation was not recorded in men (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97–1.23), the high level of baseline SUA was found to be related to the kidney function decline (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.05–3.17) (Table 4). In different age groups, only those aged < 60 years saw a significant positive dose-response relation between the SUA and kidney function decline (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.05–1.42). Subgroup analyses by hypertension and diabetes status indicated a positive dose–response relation between SUA and kidney function decline only among those without hypertension and without diabetes, with an OR of 1.22 (95% CI 1.06–1.41). Subgroup analyses by hypertension status (not considering the diabetes status) revealed a positive dose-response relation only among those without hypertension (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07–1.39). For those without diabetes (not considering the hypertension status), a positive dose-response relation (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01–1.28) was noted, which was not detected among those with diabetes. The relationship between the SUA level and the risk of kidney function decline may depend on sex, age, or hypertension and diabetes status (All P for interaction < 0.001).
Table 4. Subgroup analyses for dose-response association between SUA and kidney function decline
Subgroup Number Serum uric
acid levelOR Men 3,387 Q1 – Q2 1.38 (0.79–2.41) Q3 1.64 (0.95–2.83) Q4 1.33 (0.77–2.30) Q5 1.83 (1.05–3.17)* 1 mg/dL
increase1.09 (0.97–1.23) Women 3,959 Q1 – Q2 1.16 (0.84–1.59) Q3 1.21 (0.85–1.71) Q4 2.31 (1.13–4.72)* Q5 1.38 (0.75–2.50) 1 mg/dL
increase1.22 (1.03–1.45)* < 60 years 4,026 Q1 – Q2 1.19 (0.82–1.74) Q3 1.43 (0.97–2.12) Q4 2.13 (1.05–4.33)* Q5 2.00 (1.18–3.39)* 1 mg/dL
increase1.22 (1.05–1.42)* 60 to < 70 years 2,323 Q1 – Q2 1.28 (0.80–2.05) Q3 1.41 (0.88–2.27) Q4 1.16 (0.71–1.89) Q5 1.36 (0.77–2.39) 1 mg/dL
increase1.14 (0.99–1.31) ≥ 70 years 997 Q1 – Q2 1.25 (0.63–2.51) Q3 1.20 (0.58–2.45) Q4 1.48 (0.70–3.10) Q5 1.62 (0.72–3.63) 1 mg/dL
increase1.04 (0.85–1.26) Without hypertension &
without diabetes3,664 Q1 – Q2 1.60 (1.08–2.39)* Q3 1.75 (1.18–2.60)** Q4 1.87 (1.22–2.88)** Q5 2.77 (1.71–4.50)*** 1 mg/dL
increase1.22 (1.06–1.41)** With hypertension &
without diabetes2,511 Q1 – Q2 0.77 (0.50–1.17) Q3 0.88 (0.54–1.41) Q4 1.16 (0.48–2.82) Q5 0.78 (0.42–1.43) 1 mg/dL
increase1.02 (0.86–1.22) With diabetes &
without hypertension464 Q1 – Q2 2.52 (0.91–6.95) Q3 3.47 (1.32–9.14)* Q4 2.14 (0.66–6.96) Q5 2.75 (0.77–9.80) 1 mg/dL
increase1.21 (0.91–1.62) With hypertension &
diabetes679 Q1 – Q2 0.82 (0.34–1.99) Q3 1.24 (0.50–3.10) Q4 1.92 (0.80–4.56) Q5 1.43 (0.58–3.52) 1 mg/dL
increase1.12 (0.90–1.40) Note. Q1: 0 to 3.39 mg/dL, Q2: 3.39 to 3.97 mg/dL, Q3: 3.97 to 4.57 mg/dL, Q4: 4.57 to 5.36 mg/dL, Q5: ≥ 5.36 mg/dL. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. The covariates were age, sex, GDP per capita, baseline eGFR, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, drinking, BMI, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides and C-reactive protein. There were 28 individuals with missing information on hypertension (20 individuals) or diabetes (25 individuals). SUA, serum uric acid; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; OR, odds ratio; GDP, gross domestic product; BMI, body mass index; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; HDL, high-density lipoprotein.
doi: 10.3967/bes2023.026
Association between Serum Uric Acid and the Early Marker of Kidney Function Decline among Chinese Middle-Aged and Older Population: Evidence from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study
-
Abstract:
Objective To evaluate the association between serum uric acid (SUA) and kidney function decline. Methods Data was obtained from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study on the Chinese middle-aged and older population for analysis. The kidney function decline was defined as an annual estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decrease by > 3 mL/min per 1.73 m2. Multivariable logistic regression was applied to determine the association between SUA and kidney function decline. The shape of the association was investigated by restricted cubic splines. Results A total of 7,346 participants were included, of which 1,004 individuals (13.67%) developed kidney function decline during the follow-up of 4 years. A significant dose-response relation was recorded between SUA and the kidney function decline (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03–1.27), as the risk of kidney function decline increased by 14% per 1 mg/dL increase in SUA. In the subgroup analyses, such a relation was only recorded among women (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.03–1.45), those aged < 60 years (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.05–1.42), and those without hypertension and without diabetes (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.06–1.41). Although the dose-response relation was not observed in men, the high level of SUA was related to kidney function decline (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.05–3.17). The restricted cubic spline analysis indicated that SUA > 5 mg/dL was associated with a significantly higher risk of kidney function decline. Conclusion The SUA level was associated with kidney function decline. An elevation of SUA should therefore be addressed to prevent possible kidney impairment and dysfunction. -
Key words:
- Uric acid /
- Glomerular filtration rate /
- Kidney function decline
The authors declared no conflict of interest.
注释:1) AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS: 2) CONFLICT OF INTEREST: -
Figure 1. Restricted cubic splines analysis of the association between the SUA level and kidney function decline The red solid line represents age-adjusted odds ratios. The gray dashed lines represent 95% confidence intervals. The serum uric acid level was modeled by both-tail restricted cubic spline in a multivariable logistic regression model. The reference value is 2 mg/dL. SUA, serum uric acid.
Table 1. Participants characteristics at baseline, by SUA levels
Characteristics Overall Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 P Participants, n (%) 7,346 (100.00) 1,528 (20.06) 1,610 (20.02) 1,521 (19.96) 1,411 (20.02) 1,276 (19.95) – Age (years, SD) 58.91 (9.16) 56.37 (8.79) 58.74 (8.85) 58.85 (9.07) 59.16 (8.82) 61.44 (9.56) < 0.001 Sex < 0.001 Men 3,387 (47.26) 280 (23.21) 494 (35.89) 674 (47.58) 856 (58.80) 1,083 (70.98) GDP per capita < 0.001 Low 2,814 (34.43) 488 (29.38) 605 (34.35) 564 (33.35) 550 (35.63) 607 (39.44) Middle 2,150 (27.02) 569 (33.58) 510 (30.39) 441 (28.41) 381 (24.96) 249 (17.71) High 2,382 (38.56) 471 (37.04) 495 (35.26) 516 (38.24) 480 (39.41) 420 (42.85) eGFR (mL/min per 1.73 m2, SD) 92.31 (14.51) 100.09 (10.49) 95.15 (12.37) 93.01 (13.64) 90.05 (13.89) 83.18 (15.92) < 0.001 Hypertension, n (%) 3,195 (43.60) 535 (33.55) 587 (40.99) 609 (41.19) 674 (47.91) 790 (54.39) < 0.001 Diabetes, n (%) 1,146 (15.69) 228 (13.27) 211 (16.13) 206 (13.96) 236 (14.81) 265 (20.27) < 0.001 Smoking < 0.001 Current/former 2,855 (38.79) 315 (25.11) 447 (32.75) 564 (39.75) 682 (45.61) 847 (50.79) Drinking < 0.001 Current/former 2,782 (38.65) 328 (26.70) 449 (31.76) 536 (38.64) 666 (44.60) 803 (51.62) BMI (kg/m2), n (%) < 0.001 Underweight 419 (5.27) 105 (7.46) 94 (6.17) 83 (4.93) 65 (3.44) 72 (4.33) Normal 3,760 (50.00) 818 (56.00) 774 (53.21) 771 (52.45) 705 (45.73) 692 (45.52) Overweight 2,198 (32.15) 393 (27.48) 432 (31.36) 435 (30.33) 485 (36.30) 453 (35.33) Obesity 929 (12.58) 145 (9.06) 164 (9.26) 174 (12.28) 202 (14.53) 244 (32.15) Systolic blood pressure (mmHg, SD) 130.62
(21.28)127.98
(20.00)129.26
(21.33)129.14
(20.83)132.78
(22.45)134.15
(21.17)< 0.001 Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg, SD) 79.30
(52.72)76.25
(34.07)80.30
(63.69)78.68
(54.10)80.06
(43.28)81.37
(62.58)0.116 HbA1c (%, SD) 5.26 (0.81) 5.32 (1.02) 5.22 (0.81) 5.22 (0.74) 5.25 (0.72) 5.27 (0.72) 0.006 Triglycerides (mg/dL, SD) 136.95
(109.57)119.70
(83.88)123.54
(86.50)131.58
(91.28)140.45
(112.50)169.62
(151.69)< 0.001 LDL cholesterol (mg/dL, SD) 115.20
(34.56)114.83
(32.95)116.30
(32.83)115.05
(33.14)116.44
(35.33)113.37
(38.23)0.104 HDL cholesterol (mg/dL, SD) 49.64 (15.24) 51.84 (14.35) 51.29 (13.73) 50.38 (15.86) 48.27 (14.97) 48.38 (16.50) < 0.001 C-reactive protein (mg/L, SD) 2.58 (6.71) 2.08 (5.78) 2.25 (5.74) 2.52 (7.28) 2.99 (7.58) 3.05 (6.89) < 0.001 Note. Q1: 0 to 3.39 mg/dL, Q2: 3.39 to 3.97 mg/dL, Q3: 3.97 to 4.57 mg/dL, Q4: 4.57 to 5.36 mg/dL, Q5: ≥ 5.36 mg/dL. There were 20, 25, 25, 26, 40, 894, 872, 46, and 13 individuals with missing information in hypertension, diabetes, smoking, drinking, BMI, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, HbA1c and LDL-c, respectively. The inverse probability weighting method was applied in calculating the SDs, proportions and P values. SUA, serum uric acid; SD, standard deviation; GDP, gross domestic product; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; BMI, body mass index; HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; HDL, high-density lipoprotein. Table 2. Baseline characteristics of individuals without or with kidney function decline
Characteristics Kidney function decline P No Yes Participants, n (%) 6,342 (86.33) 1,004 (13.67) – Age (years, SD) 58.75 (9.12) 59.93 (9.35) < 0.001 Sex, n (%) < 0.001 Men 2,893 (47.02) 494 (48.82) GDP per capita < 0.001 Low 2,354 (33.29) 460 (41.61) Middle 1,910 (27.90) 240 (21.43) High 2,078 (38.81) 304 (36.96) eGFR (mL/min per 1.73 m2, SD) 91.89 (14.24) 94.96 (15.83) < 0.001 Hypertension, n (%) 2,718 (42.77) 477 (48.80) < 0.001 Diabetes, n (%) 978 (15.38) 168 (17.60) < 0.001 Smoking < 0.001 Current/former 2,434 (38.53) 421 (40.41) Drinking < 0.001 Current/former 2,388 (38.78) 394 (37.85) BMI (kg/m2) < 0.001 Underweight 353 (5.12) 66 (6.22) Normal 3,231 (50.07) 529 (49.55) Overweight 1,910 (31.95) 288 (33.43) Obesity 815 (12.86) 114 (10.80) Systolic blood pressure (mmHg, SD) 129.97 (20.57) 134.52 (24.76) < 0.001 Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg, SD) 79.05 (52.52) 80.83 (53.90) 0.341 SUA (mg/dL, SD) 4.52 (1.32) 4.57 (1.27) 0.219 HbA1c (%, SD) 5.25 (0.80) 5.30 (0.88) 0.076 Triglycerides (mg/dL, SD) 135.32 (98.94) 147.23 (160.85) 0.001 LDL cholesterol (mg/dL, SD) 115.79 (34.33) 111.46 (35.80) < 0.001 HDL cholesterol (mg/dL, SD) 49.61 (15.01) 49.83 (16.64) 0.668 C-reactive protein (mg/L, SD) 2.59 (7.00) 2.49 (4.39) 0.664 Note. There were 20, 25, 25, 26, 40, 894, 872, 46, and 13 individuals with missing information in hypertension, diabetes, smoking, drinking, BMI, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, HbA1c and LDL cholesterol, respectively. SD, standard deviation; GDP, gross domestic product; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; BMI, body mass index; SUA, serum uric acid; HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; HDL, high-density lipoprotein. Table 3. Odds ratios and 95% CIs for the association of SUA level with kidney function decline
SUA level Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Q1 Ref Ref Ref Q2 1.27 (0.96–1.67) 1.24 (0.95–1.63) 1.23 (0.94–1.62) Q3 1.41 (1.06–1.88)* 1.39 (1.05–1.84)* 1.41 (1.06–1.87)* Q4 1.80 (1.04–3.10)* 1.72 (1.03–2.89)* 1.72 (1.02–2.89)* Q5 1.80 (1.24–2.60)** 1.70 (1.18–2.43)** 1.71 (1.18–2.47)** 1 mg/dL increase 1.14 (1.02–1.28)* 1.13 (1.02–1.26)* 1.14 (1.03–1.27)* Note. Q1: 0– < 3.39 mg/dL, Q2: 3.39– < 3.97 mg/dL, Q3: 3.97– < 4.57 mg/dL, Q4: 4.57– < 5.36 mg/dL, Q5: ≥ 5.36 mg/dL. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. Model 1 was adjusted for age, sex, GDP per capita and baseline eGFR. Model 2 was additionally adjusted for hypertension and diabetes. In Model 3, adjustment further included smoking, drinking, BMI, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides and C-reactive protein. SUA, serum uric acid; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; GDP, gross domestic product; BMI, body mass index; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; HDL, high-density lipoprotein. Table 4. Subgroup analyses for dose-response association between SUA and kidney function decline
Subgroup Number Serum uric
acid levelOR Men 3,387 Q1 – Q2 1.38 (0.79–2.41) Q3 1.64 (0.95–2.83) Q4 1.33 (0.77–2.30) Q5 1.83 (1.05–3.17)* 1 mg/dL
increase1.09 (0.97–1.23) Women 3,959 Q1 – Q2 1.16 (0.84–1.59) Q3 1.21 (0.85–1.71) Q4 2.31 (1.13–4.72)* Q5 1.38 (0.75–2.50) 1 mg/dL
increase1.22 (1.03–1.45)* < 60 years 4,026 Q1 – Q2 1.19 (0.82–1.74) Q3 1.43 (0.97–2.12) Q4 2.13 (1.05–4.33)* Q5 2.00 (1.18–3.39)* 1 mg/dL
increase1.22 (1.05–1.42)* 60 to < 70 years 2,323 Q1 – Q2 1.28 (0.80–2.05) Q3 1.41 (0.88–2.27) Q4 1.16 (0.71–1.89) Q5 1.36 (0.77–2.39) 1 mg/dL
increase1.14 (0.99–1.31) ≥ 70 years 997 Q1 – Q2 1.25 (0.63–2.51) Q3 1.20 (0.58–2.45) Q4 1.48 (0.70–3.10) Q5 1.62 (0.72–3.63) 1 mg/dL
increase1.04 (0.85–1.26) Without hypertension &
without diabetes3,664 Q1 – Q2 1.60 (1.08–2.39)* Q3 1.75 (1.18–2.60)** Q4 1.87 (1.22–2.88)** Q5 2.77 (1.71–4.50)*** 1 mg/dL
increase1.22 (1.06–1.41)** With hypertension &
without diabetes2,511 Q1 – Q2 0.77 (0.50–1.17) Q3 0.88 (0.54–1.41) Q4 1.16 (0.48–2.82) Q5 0.78 (0.42–1.43) 1 mg/dL
increase1.02 (0.86–1.22) With diabetes &
without hypertension464 Q1 – Q2 2.52 (0.91–6.95) Q3 3.47 (1.32–9.14)* Q4 2.14 (0.66–6.96) Q5 2.75 (0.77–9.80) 1 mg/dL
increase1.21 (0.91–1.62) With hypertension &
diabetes679 Q1 – Q2 0.82 (0.34–1.99) Q3 1.24 (0.50–3.10) Q4 1.92 (0.80–4.56) Q5 1.43 (0.58–3.52) 1 mg/dL
increase1.12 (0.90–1.40) Note. Q1: 0 to 3.39 mg/dL, Q2: 3.39 to 3.97 mg/dL, Q3: 3.97 to 4.57 mg/dL, Q4: 4.57 to 5.36 mg/dL, Q5: ≥ 5.36 mg/dL. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. The covariates were age, sex, GDP per capita, baseline eGFR, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, drinking, BMI, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides and C-reactive protein. There were 28 individuals with missing information on hypertension (20 individuals) or diabetes (25 individuals). SUA, serum uric acid; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; OR, odds ratio; GDP, gross domestic product; BMI, body mass index; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; HDL, high-density lipoprotein. -
[1] GBD Chronic Kidney Disease Collaboration. Global, regional, and national burden of chronic kidney disease, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet, 2020; 395, 709−33. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30045-3 [2] Xie Y, Bowe B, Mokdad AH, et al. Analysis of the Global Burden of Disease study highlights the global, regional, and national trends of chronic kidney disease epidemiology from 1990 to 2016. Kidney Int, 2018; 94, 567−81. doi: 10.1016/j.kint.2018.04.011 [3] Menè P, Punzo G. Uric acid: bystander or culprit in hypertension and progressive renal disease? J Hypertens, 2008; 26, 2085-92. [4] Bellomo G. The relationship between uric acid, allopurinol, cardiovascular events, and kidney disease progression: a step forward. Am J Kidney Dis, 2015; 65, 525−7. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2015.01.001 [5] Kuma A, Mafune K, Uchino B, et al. Alteration of normal level of serum urate may contribute to decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate decline in healthy Japanese men. Ren Fail, 2021; 43, 1408−15. doi: 10.1080/0886022X.2021.1988969 [6] Bonino B, Leoncini G, Russo E, et al. Uric acid in CKD: has the jury come to the verdict? J Nephrol, 2020; 33, 715-24. [7] Yang C, Ma X, Zhao W, et al. A longitudinal analysis of the relationship between serum uric acid and residual renal function loss in peritoneal dialysis patients. Ren Fail, 2020; 42, 447−54. doi: 10.1080/0886022X.2020.1761387 [8] Mwasongwe SE, Fülöp T, Katz R, et al. Relation of uric acid level to rapid kidney function decline and development of kidney disease: The Jackson Heart Study. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich), 2018; 20, 775−83. doi: 10.1111/jch.13239 [9] Takae K, Nagata M, Hata J, et al. Serum uric acid as a risk factor for chronic kidney disease in a Japanese community- the Hisayama study. Circulat J, 2016; 80, 1857−62. doi: 10.1253/circj.CJ-16-0030 [10] Chonchol M, Shlipak MG, Katz R, et al. Relationship of uric acid with progression of kidney disease. Am J Kidney Dis, 2007; 50, 239−47. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2007.05.013 [11] Madero M, Sarnak MJ, Wang XL, et al. Uric acid and long-term outcomes in CKD. Am J Kidney Dis, 2009; 53, 796−803. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2008.12.021 [12] Weaver DJ. Uric acid and progression of chronic kidney disease. Pediatr Nephrol, 2019; 34, 801−9. doi: 10.1007/s00467-018-3979-2 [13] Zhao YH, Hu YS, Smith JP, et al. Cohort profile: the China health and retirement longitudinal study (CHARLS). Int J Epidemiol, 2014; 43, 61−8. doi: 10.1093/ije/dys203 [14] Cheng HT, Huang JW, Chiang CK, et al. Metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance as risk factors for development of chronic kidney disease and rapid decline in renal function in elderly. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2012; 97, 1268−76. doi: 10.1210/jc.2011-2658 [15] Cao X, Wu LX, Chen ZH. The association between elevated serum uric acid level and an increased risk of renal function decline in a health checkup cohort in China. Int Urol Nephrol, 2018; 50, 517−25. doi: 10.1007/s11255-017-1732-6 [16] Shlipak MG, Katz R, Kestenbaum B, et al. Rapid decline of kidney function increases cardiovascular risk in the elderly. J Am Soc Nephrol, 2009; 20, 2625−30. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2009050546 [17] Rifkin DE, Shlipak MG, Katz R, et al. Rapid kidney function decline and mortality risk in older adults. Arch Intern Med, 2008; 168, 2212−8. doi: 10.1001/archinte.168.20.2212 [18] Inker LA, Schmid CH, Tighiouart H, et al. Estimating glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine and cystatin C. N Engl J Med, 2012; 367, 20−9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1114248 [19] Ye MY, Hu K, Jin J, et al. The association between time-mean serum uric acid levels and the incidence of chronic kidney disease in the general population: a retrospective study. BMC Nephrol, 2018; 19, 190. doi: 10.1186/s12882-018-0982-6 [20] Tangri N, Stevens LA, Griffith J, et al. A predictive model for progression of chronic kidney disease to kidney failure. JAMA, 2011; 305, 1553−9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.451 [21] Kugler E, Cohen E, Goldberg E, et al. C reactive protein and long-term risk for chronic kidney disease: a historical prospective study. J Nephrol, 2015; 28, 321−7. doi: 10.1007/s40620-014-0116-6 [22] Stöhr E, Aksoy A, Campbell M, et al. Hospital admissions during Covid-19 lock-down in Germany: Differences in discretionary and unavoidable cardiovascular events. PLoS One, 2020; 15, e0242653. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242653 [23] Udani S, Lazich I, Bakris GL. Epidemiology of hypertensive kidney disease. Nat Rev Nephrol, 2011; 7, 11−21. doi: 10.1038/nrneph.2010.154 [24] Zhang XX, Kong J, Yun K. Prevalence of diabetic nephropathy among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in China: a meta-analysis of observational studies. J Diabetes Res, 2020; 2020, 2315607. [25] Sharma G, Dubey A, Nolkha N, et al. Hyperuricemia, urate-lowering therapy, and kidney outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis, 2021; 13, 1759720x211016661. [26] Hsieh YP, Chang CC, Yang Y, et al. The role of uric acid in chronic kidney disease patients. Nephrology (Carlton, Vic), 2017; 22, 441−8. doi: 10.1111/nep.12679 [27] Kim WJ, Kim SS, Bae MJ, et al. High-normal serum uric acid predicts the development of chronic kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and preserved kidney function. J Diabetes Complicat, 2014; 28, 130−4. doi: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2013.11.006 [28] Rosolowsky ET, Ficociello LH, Maselli NJ, et al. High-normal serum uric acid is associated with impaired glomerular filtration rate in nonproteinuric patients with type 1 diabetes. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol, 2008; 3, 706−13. doi: 10.2215/CJN.04271007 [29] Zhang LX, Wang F, Wang XY, et al. The association between plasma uric acid and renal function decline in a Chinese population-based cohort. Nephrol Dial Transplant, 2012; 27, 1836−9. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfr597 [30] Siu YP, Leung KT, Tong MKH, et al. Use of allopurinol in slowing the progression of renal disease through its ability to lower serum uric acid level. Am J Kidney Dis, 2006; 47, 51−9. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2005.10.006 [31] Lambert EA, Hachem M, Hemmes R, et al. Serum uric acid and the relationship with subclinical organ damage in adults. J Hypertens, 2017; 35, 745−52. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000001212 [32] Kanellis J, Watanabe S, Li JH, et al. Uric acid stimulates monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 production in vascular smooth muscle cells via mitogen-activated protein kinase and cyclooxygenase-2. Hypertension, 2003; 41, 1287−93. doi: 10.1161/01.HYP.0000072820.07472.3B [33] Gu L, Okada Y, Clinton SK, et al. Absence of monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 reduces atherosclerosis in low density lipoprotein receptor-deficient mice. Mol Cell, 1998; 2, 275−81. doi: 10.1016/S1097-2765(00)80139-2 [34] Mazzali M, Hughes J, Kim YG, et al. Elevated uric acid increases blood pressure in the rat by a novel crystal-independent mechanism. Hypertension, 2001; 38, 1101−6. doi: 10.1161/hy1101.092839 [35] Masi S, Georgiopoulos G, Alexopoulos G, et al. The complex relationship between serum uric acid, endothelial function and small vessel remodeling in humans. J Clin Med, 2020; 9, 2027. doi: 10.3390/jcm9072027 [36] Sanchez-Lozada LG, Tapia E, Santamaria J, et al. Mild hyperuricemia induces vasoconstriction and maintains glomerular hypertension in normal and remnant kidney rats. Kidney Int, 2005; 67, 237−47. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1755.2005.00074.x [37] Kanbay M, Girerd N, Machu JL, et al. Impact of uric acid on hypertension occurrence and target organ damage: insights from the STANISLAS cohort with a 20-year follow-up. Am J Hypertens, 2020; 33, 869−78. doi: 10.1093/ajh/hpaa030 [38] Kodama S, Saito K, Yachi Y, et al. Association between serum uric acid and development of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 2009; 32, 1737−42. doi: 10.2337/dc09-0288 [39] Akasaka H, Yoshida H, Takizawa H, et al. The impact of elevation of serum uric acid level on the natural history of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and its sex difference. Nephrol Dial Transplant, 2014; 29, 1932−9. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfu197 [40] Iseki K, Ikemiya Y, Inoue T, et al. Significance of hyperuricemia as a risk factor for developing ESRD in a screened cohort. Am J Kidney Dis, 2004; 44, 642−50. doi: 10.1016/S0272-6386(04)00934-5 [41] Bravo RC, Gamo MB, Lee HH, et al. Investigating serum uric acid as a risk factor in the development of delayed renal recovery in living kidney donors. Transplant Proc, 2017; 49, 930−4. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2017.03.034 [42] Preitner F, Bonny O, Laverrière A, et al. Glut9 is a major regulator of urate homeostasis and its genetic inactivation induces hyperuricosuria and urate nephropathy. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2009; 106, 15501−6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0904411106 [43] Gades MD, Stern JS, van Goor H, et al. Estrogen accelerates the development of renal disease in female obese Zucker rats. Kidney Int, 1998; 53, 130−5. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1755.1998.00746.x [44] Stier CT Jr, Chander PN, Rosenfeld L, et al. Estrogen promotes microvascular pathology in female stroke-prone spontaneously hypertensive rats. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab, 2003; 285, E232−9. doi: 10.1152/ajpendo.00029.2003 [45] Zhou MY, Zhang XL, Wen XY, et al. Development of a functional glomerulus at the organ level on a chip to mimic hypertensive nephropathy. Sci Rep, 2016; 6, 31771. doi: 10.1038/srep31771 [46] Hart PD, Bakris GL. Hypertensive nephropathy: prevention and treatment recommendations. Expert Opin Pharmacother, 2010; 11, 2675−86. doi: 10.1517/14656566.2010.485612 [47] Mennuni S, Rubattu S, Pierelli G, et al. Hypertension and kidneys: unraveling complex molecular mechanisms underlying hypertensive renal damage. J Hum Hypertens, 2014; 28, 74−9. doi: 10.1038/jhh.2013.55 [48] Koch EAT, Nakhoul R, Nakhoul F, et al. Autophagy in diabetic nephropathy: a review. Int Urol Nephrol, 2020; 52, 1705−12. doi: 10.1007/s11255-020-02545-4 [49] Wang M, Li JJ, Li Y, et al. The effects of hypertension and diabetes on new-onset chronic kidney disease: A prospective cohort study. J Clin Hypertens, 2020; 22, 39−46. doi: 10.1111/jch.13768 [50] De Cosmo S, Viazzi F, Pacilli A, et al. Serum uric acid and risk of CKD in type 2 diabetes. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol, 2015; 10, 1921−9. doi: 10.2215/CJN.03140315