4.6 Review

Effects of Hyperuricemia on Renal Function of Renal Transplant Recipients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 7, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039457

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Hyperuricemia is an independent risk factor of nephropathy, but its role in renal transplant recipients (RTRs) is controversial. Methods: Based on the methods of Cochrane systematic reviews, we searched MEDLINE (1948-2011.6), EMBASE (1956-2011.6), CBM (Chinese Biomedicine Database) (1978-2011.6) to identify cohort studies assessing the association between uric acid level and kidney allograft. Two authors independently screened the studies, assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. Unadjusted odds ratio(OR), mean difference (MD), adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) and their corresponding 95%CI were pooled to assess the effects of hyperuricemia on kidney allograft. Results: Twelve cohort studies were included and the quality was moderate to high based on the NEWCASTLE-OTTAWA quality assessment scale. RTRs with hyperuricemia had lower eGFR (P<0.0001, 95%CI-16.34 similar to 6.14) and higher SCr (P<0.00001, 95%CI 0.17 similar to 0.31) than those with normal uric acid level. Meta-analysis showed that hyperuricemia was a risk factor of chronic allograft nephropathy (Unadjusted OR = 2.85, 95%CI 1.84 similar to 4.38, adjusted HR = 1.65, 95%CI 1.02 similar to 2.65) and graft loss (Unadjusted OR = 2.29, 95%CI 1.55 similar to 3.39; adjusted HR = 2.01, 95%CI 1.39 similar to 2.94). Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that hyperuricemia may be an independent risk factor of allograft dysfunction. Hyperuricemia may modestly increase the risk of poor outcomes of RTRs. Future research is needed to verify whether lowering uric acid level could improve the kidney function and prognosis of RTRs with hyperuricemia.

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