4.6 Article

Association between the body mass index and chronic kidney disease in men and women. A population-based study from Israel

Journal

NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 28, Issue -, Pages 130-135

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gft072

Keywords

CKD-EPI equation; body mass index; chronic kidney disease; gender

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Any association between the body mass index (BMI) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) has so far proved inconclusive. Most studies have estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation. This has recently been replaced by the more accurate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation. Methods. In a cross-sectional study, data from a screening centre in Israel, n = 21880 (32% women) were used to assess the prevalence of CKD defined as eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) in relation to BMI categories. The CKD-EPI equation was used to assess the eGFR. Results. CKD was found in 167 men and 45 women. Subjects with a BMI of 25-29.9 kg/m(2), compared with those with a BMI of <25 kg/m(2), had an odds ratio (OR; 95% confidence intervals) for CKD of 1.8 (1.2-2.7) and 3.4 (1.5-7.7) for men and women, respectively. Subjects with a BMI of 30-35 kg/m(2) had an OR of 2.5 (1.6-4.0) and 4.5 (1.7-11.7) for men and women, respectively. In comparable data, for subjects with a BMI >35 kg/m(2) the OR was 2.7 (1.3-5.5) and 15.4 (6.4-36.7) for men and women, respectively. After multivariate adjustment for age, hypertension and diabetes mellitus, no association was found in men yet it persisted for women. This correlation in women, between the BMI and CKD, was attributed to the subcategory of severely obese women with a BMI of >35 kg/m(2). Conclusions. Our study is the first to suggest that morbid obesity may be an independent factor related to CKD in women.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available