4.6 Article

Incidence of renal replacement therapy for diabetic nephropathy in the Netherlands: Dutch diabetes estimates (DUDE)-3

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 5, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005624

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Describe the incidence, prevalence and survival of patients needing renal replacement therapy (RRT) for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) due to diabetes mellitus (DM)-related glomerulosclerosis or nephropathy (diabetic nephropathy, DN) in the Netherlands. Design: Using the national registry for RRT (RENINE-registry), data of all Dutch individuals initiating RRT for ESRD and having DN as primary diagnosis in the period 2000-2012 were obtained. Setting: Observational study in the Netherlands. Patients: Patients with ESRD needing RRT for DN. Outcome measurements: Age and gender adjusted incidence and prevalence of RRT for DN in the period 2000-2012. In addition, trends in time and patient's survival were examined. Results: The prevalence of DM in the general population increased from approximately 466 000 in 2000 to 815 000 in 2011. The number of individuals who started RRT with DN as primary diagnosis was 17.4 per million population (pmp) in 2000 and 19.1 pmp in 2012, with an annual percentage change (APC) of 0.8% (95% CI -0.4 to 2.0). For RRT due to type 1 DN, the incidence decreased from 7.3 to 3.5 pmp (APC -4.8%, 95% CI -6.5 to -3.1) while it increased for type 2 DN from 10.1 to 15.6 pmp (APC 3.1%, 95% CI 1.3 to 4.8). After 2009, the prevalence of RRT for DN remained stable (APC 1.0%, 95% CI -0.4 to 2.5). Compared to the period 2000-2004, patients initiating RRT and dialysis in 2005-2009 had better survival, HRs 0.8 (95% CI 0.7 to 0.8) and 0.8 (95% CI 0.7 to 0.9), respectively, while survival after kidney transplantation remained stable, HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.1). Conclusions: Over the last decade, the incidence of RRT for DN was stable, with a decrease in RRT due to type 1 DN and an increase due to type 2 DN, while survival increased.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据