4.3 Article

Ethnic disparity in prevalence of diabetic kidney disease in an Asian primary healthcare cluster

Journal

NEPHROLOGY
Volume 20, Issue 3, Pages 216-223

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nep.12379

Keywords

Asian; diabetic kidney disease; ethnic disparity; prevalence; primary care

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AimsDiabetic kidney disease (DKD) incidence is rising in Singapore. While measures to prevent onset and early detection of diabetes as well as optimal diabetes and blood pressure control are important, early detection and treatment of DKD at primary care are crucial to ameliorate its course. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of DKD in a primary care cluster in Singapore and identify its risk factors in a multi-ethnic Asian population. MethodsA total of 57594 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) followed-up at the National Healthcare Group Polyclinics with estimated glomerular filtration rate and at least two urine albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR) were stratified into DKD stages: normoalbuminuria (UACR <30mg/g), microalbuminuria (MI, UACR 30-299mg/g), macroalbuminuria (MA, 300mg/g) and renal impairment (RI, estimated glomerular filtration rate eGFR <60mL/min per 1.73m(2)). Factors associated with DKD stages were evaluated. ResultsOverall DKD prevalence (T2DM with MI, MA or RI) was high at 52.5%; 32.1% had MI, 5.3% had MA and 15.1% had RI. DKD prevalence within ethnic subpopulations was different: 52.2% of Chinese, 60.4% of Malays and 45.3% of Indians had DKD, respectively. Malays had a 1.42-fold higher DKD prevalence, while Indians had a 0.86-fold lower. Other independent risk factors were age, female gender, duration of diabetes and hypertension, HbA1c and body mass index. ConclusionThe high prevalence of DKD and its interethnic differences suggest need for additional measures to optimize the care of T2DM at primary care to mitigate its progression.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available