| Literature DB >> 26452161 |
Huang-Yu Yang1, Cheng-Chieh Hung2, Su-Hsun Liu3, Yi-Gen Guo2, Yung-Chang Chen2, Yi-Ching Ko2, Chiung-Tseng Huang2, Li-Fang Chou2, Ya-Chung Tian2, Ming-Yang Chang2, Hsiang-Hao Hsu2, Ming-Yen Lin4, Shang-Jyh Hwang4, Chih-Wei Yang2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Leptospirosis is the most widespread zoonosis. Chronic human infection and asymptomatic colonization have been reported. However, renal involvement in those with leptospira chronic exposure remains undetermined. METHODS ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26452161 PMCID: PMC4599860 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004105
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Characteristics of the southern county of Taiwan population overall and results of anti-leptospira antibody by microscopic agglutination test (MAT).
| Characteristic | Anti-leptospira antibody |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (N = 3,045) | Positive (N = 1,034) | Negative (N = 2,011) | ||
|
| % (n/N) | % (n/N) | % (n/N) | |
| | 46.6 ± 0.7 | 47.8 ± 0.5 | 45.0 ± 0.9 | <0.001 |
| | 48.8 (1484/3045) | 48.5 (502/1034) | 49.3 (982/2011) | 0.6 |
| | ||||
| | 23.0 (802/3017) | 23.3 (289/1024) | 22.8 (513/1993) | 1.0 |
| | 48.5 (1399/3017) | 48.0 (462/1024) | 48.9 (937/1993) | |
| | 28.5 (816/3017) | 28.7 (273/1024) | 28.3 (543/1993) | |
| | ||||
| | 52.1 (1612/2902) | 49.0 (534/982) | 53.5 (1078/1920) | 0.15 |
| | 47.9 (1290/2902) | 51.0 (448/982) | 46.5 (842/1920) | |
|
| ||||
| | 5.0 (172/3026) | 5.7 (67/1025) | 4.6 (105/2001) | <0.001 |
| | 14.0 (456/3026) | 14.0 (159/1025) | 14.0 (297/2001) | 1.0 |
| | 4.8 (154/3026) | 4.6 (46/1025) | 5.0 (108/2001) | 0.6 |
| | 5.0 (154/3025) | 5.1 (47/1025) | 4.9 (107/2000) | 0.8 |
| | 4.3 (135/3026) | 4.8 (45/1025) | 4.2 (90/2001) | 0.2 |
|
| ||||
| | 18.8 (564/3003) | 19.6 (197/1019) | 18.2 (367/1984) | 0.1 |
| | 11.2 (321/2998) | 11.5 (112/1015) | 11.0 (209/1983) | 0.8 |
| | 5.2 (160/2983) | 5.1 (55/1011) | 5.4 (105/1972) | 0.8 |
| | 25.2 (761/3020) | 25.7 (269/1021) | 24.7 (492/1999) | 0.4 |
| | 16.0 (502/3012) | 15.2 (172/1019) | 16.4 (330/1993) | 0.2 |
| | 18.3 (568/3045) | 19.0 (202/1034) | 18.0 (366/2011) | 0.6 |
|
| ||||
| | 14.2 ± 0.05 | 14.2 ± 0.08 | 14.2 ± 0.03 | 1.0 |
| | 12.9 (383/3045) | 12.1 (123/1034) | 13.6 (260/2011) | 0.01 |
| | 5.0 (166/3045) | 3.9 (45/1034) | 5.4 (121/2011) | 0.02 |
| | 100.0 ± 0.4 | 98.3 ± 0.4 | 100.8 ± 0.6 | <0.001 |
Abbreviations: eGFR, estimated GFR as calculated using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation; SD, standard deviation; DM, diabetes mellitus; HBs Ag, hepatitis B virus surface antigen; HCV, hepatitis C virus.
1Survey-based weighted percentage (raw n/N)
2P-values for Survey-based Chi-squared test
3P-values for survey-based t-test
Fig 1Prevalence and proportion of CKD (chronic kidney disease) stages by MAT titer zero and MAT titer ≥ 100 (A) Prevalence of CKD stages in MAT = 0 and MAT ≥ 100. (B) Proportion of CKD stages by in MAT = 0 and MAT ≥ 100. (C) eGFR (estimated glomerular filtration rate) in MAT = 0 (white bar) and MAT≥ 100 (black bar) of different groups (all, male, and female).
**p<0.001.
Results of Univariate and Multivariate Linear Regression on eGFR derived by CKD-EPI equation.
| Variables | Univariate | Multivariate | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β coefficient (95% CI) |
| β coefficient (95% CI) |
| |||
|
| -4.05 | (-4.99, -3.11) | <0.001 | -3.04 | (-4.15, -1.93) | <0.001 |
|
| -0.78 | (-0.86, -0.69) | <0.001 | -0.74 | (-0.78, -0.71) | <0.001 |
|
| -3.06 | (-5.67, -0.44) | 0.02 | -1.49 | (-2.73, -0.25) | 0.02 |
|
| 4.50 | (1.55, 7.46) | 0.004 | -1.10 | (-2.20, 0.00) | 0.05 |
|
| -14.61 | (-17.15, -12.06) | <0.001 | -2.41 | (-4.84, 0.02) | 0.05 |
|
| -17.42 | (-20.52, -14.32) | <0.001 | -3.56 | (-5.23, -1.90) | <0.001 |
|
| -16.64 | (-19.56, -13.72) | <0.001 | -4.00 | (-6.55, -1.46) | 0.002 |
|
| -12.83 | (-14.74, -10.92) | <0.001 | -5.93 | (-8.41, -3.45) | <0.001 |
|
| -7.79 | (-9.89, -5.69) | <0.001 | 0.88 | (-1.72, 3.48) | 0.5 |
|
| -0.79 | (-2.86, 1.27) | 0.4 | -0.60 | (-1.96, 0.75) | 0.4 |
|
| -0.92 | (-3.60, 1.75) | 0.5 | 2.07 | (0.20, 3.94) | 0.03 |
|
| -6.87 | (-9.84, -3.89) | <0.001 | -1.37 | (-3.93, 1.19) | 0.3 |
|
| -4.68 | (-6.03, -3.32) | <0.001 | -1.30 | (-2.76, 0.17) | 0.08 |
|
| -3.89 | (-5.22, -2.56) | <0.001 | 0.79 | (-0.79, 2.35) | 0.3 |
|
| -11.25 | (-13.62, -8.88) | <0.001 | -1.26 | (-2.76, 0.24) | 0.1 |
Results of Multivariate Linear Regression on eGFR derived by CKD-EPI Equation in DM versus NDM participants.
| DM | NDM | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β coefficient (95% CI) |
| β coefficient (95% CI) |
| |||
|
| -7.53 | (-13.18, -1.9) | 0.009 | -2.84 | (-3.97, -1.70) | <0.001 |
|
| -0.85 | (-1.09, -0.61) | <0.001 | -0.75 | (-0.79, -0.71) | <0.001 |
|
| 2.46 | (-4.91, 9.82) | 0.5 | -1.74 | (-3.00, -0.48) | 0.007 |
|
| -2.69 | (-9.32, 3.94) | 0.4 | -1.18 | (-2.29, -0.06) | 0.04 |
|
| -10.00 | (-16.28, -3.72) | 0.002 | -2.67 | (-4.43, -0.92) | 0.003 |
|
| -7.80 | (-16.94, 1.34) | 0.09 | -3.79 | (-6.48, -1.10) | 0.006 |
|
| -2.81 | (-15.54, 9.93) | 0.7 | -6.15 | (-8.67, -3.63) | <0.001 |
|
| -2.10 | (-13.68, 9.49) | 0.7 | 0.75 | (-1.92, 3.42) | 0.6 |
|
| 12.42 | (5.27, 19.57) | 0.001 | -1.39 | (-2.78, -0.001) | 0.05 |
|
| 6.78 | (-5.67, 19.24) | 0.3 | 1.84 | (-0.05, 3.73) | 0.06 |
|
| -15.40 | (-29.02, -1.77) | 0.03 | -0.63 | (-3.26, 2.00) | 0.6 |
|
| -0.21 | (-7.33, 6.91) | 1.0 | -1.38 | (-2.86, 0.11) | 0.07 |
|
| -3.77 | (-11.67, 4.13) | 0.3 | 0.93 | (-0.67, 2.53) | 0.3 |
|
| -3.22 | (-9.79, 3.35) | 0.3 | -0.74 | (-2.29, 0.81) | 0.4 |
DM: diabetes mellitus; NDM: Non-diabetes mellitus
Characteristics of the cohort population overall and by grouped titers of anti-leptospira antibody by MAT.
| Characteristic | Anti-leptospira antibody MAT titers | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total (n = 88) | MAT negative (n = 12) | MAT = 100–200 (n = 41) | MAT≥400 (n = 35) | |||
|
| 55.8 ± 15.0 | 61.7 ± 14.0 | 56.5 ± 14.1 | 53.1 ± 16.1 | ||
|
| 38.2 | 25.0 | 31.7 | 50.0 | ||
|
| 23.8 ± 3.3 | 22.3 ± 2.8 | 24.4 ± 3.5 | 23.6 ± 3.1 | ||
|
| 81.6 ± 11.1 | 78.1 ± 9.6 | 82.7 ± 11.5 | 81.5 ± 11.2 | ||
|
| 94.8 ± 7.7 | 92.7 ± 7.0 | 96.6 ± 8.1 | 93.5 ± 7.5 | ||
|
| ||||||
| | 20.6 | 14.3 | 19.6 | 24.3 | ||
| | 26.3 | 14.3 | 36.4 | 18.9 | ||
| | 14.4 | 14.3 | 15.2 | 13.5 | ||
|
| ||||||
| | 0.7 ± 0.2 | 0.7 ± 0.2 | 0.8 ± 0.2 | 0.8 ± 0.2 | ||
| | 105.9 ± 17.4 | 104.6 ± 20.0 | 105.0 ± 16.3 | 107.4 ± 18.0 | ||
| | 41.7 ± 3.9 | 41.0 ± 4.1 | 41.2 ± 4.5 | 42.7 ± 2.7 | ||
| | 4.7 ± 0.6 | 4.4 ± 0.5 | 4.7 ± 0.5 | 4.8 ± 0.6 | ||
| | 14.0 ± 1.6 | 13.8 ± 1.6 | 13.7 ± 1.9 | 14.3 ± 1.1 | ||
| | 13.6 ± 4.9 | 14.0 ± 2.9 | 14.1 ± 6.3 | 12.8 ± 3.1 | ||
| | 27.8 ± 10.9 | 26.5 ± 4.7 | 28.4 ± 13.2 | 27.4 ± 9.5 | ||
| | 25.4 ± 12.8 | 23.6 ± 7.9 | 25.4 ± 14.4 | 26.4 ± 11.9 | ||
| | 51.2 ± 13.3 | 49.9 ± 8.9 | 51.0 ± 12.8 | 51.8 ± 15.1 | ||
| | 123.2 ± 28.8 | 130.3 ± 33.6 | 119.4 ± 25.9 | 125.3 ± 30.5 | ||
| | 200.9 ± 32.2 | 208.0 ± 32.5 | 196.6 ± 33.2 | 203.4 ± 31.2 | ||
| | 120.9 ± 107.6 | 92.6 ± 61.1 | 114.9 ± 60.9 | 137.4 ± 152.0 | ||
| | 6.3 ± 1.6 | 5.5 ± 0.8 | 6.6 ± 1.8 | 6.2 ± 1.5 | ||
Values expressed with a plus/minus sign are the mean ± SD; AST indicates aspartate aminotransferase; ALT indicates alanine aminotransferase;
1The eGFR, estimated GFR, was calculated using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation
Fig 2The eGFR in the township cohort study (n = 88).
(A) eGFR for cohort in 2009 and 2011. (B) eGFR of participants grouped by three different MAT titers in two-year cohort of W township. (C) eGFR of participants with MAT≥400 in 2009 grouped by three different MAT titers change in two-year cohort of W township over time. * p<0.05.
Fig 3Kidney injury molecule–1 creatinine ratio (KIM1/Cr) level of three different MAT titer groups for township cohort in 2011 (Negative, titer = 100–200, titer ≥400).
*p<0.05, **p<0.001.
Comparison results of selected biomarkers associated with acute or chronic kidney injuries in the cohort population overall and by MAT titers at follow-up in 2011.
| Biomarkers | Total (n = 88) | MAT = 0 (n = 32) | MAT = 100–200 (n = 39) | MAT≥400 (n = 17) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 78.5 ± 36.4 | 79.1 ± 39.9 | 74.8 ± 36.1 | 82.2 ± 34.0 |
|
| 34.9 ± 63.2 | 45.4 ± 87.0 | 27.0 ± 47.2 | 31.0 ± 43.4 |
|
| 0.609 ± 0.346 | 0.569 ± 0.34 | 0.544 ± 0.327 | 0.826 ± 0.322 |
|
| 229.5 ± 152.7 | 261.9 ± 177.3 | 194.8 ± 127.5 | 250.1 ± 148.6 |
1 P<0.05 for oneway ANOVA between MAT = 1, MAT≥ 100, and MAT≥400.
2 P<0.05 for MAT = 0 vs MAT≥ 100.
3 P<0.05 for MAT = 0 vs MAT≥ 400.
4 P<0.05 for MAT≥ 100 vs MAT≥ 400.
5neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL), kidney injury molecule–1 creatinine ratio (KIM–1/Cr), and monocyte chemoattractant protein–1 (MCP–1).
Fig 4The eGFR, MAT titer and kidney injury marker changes in two cases with leptospira DNA positive urine.
(Case I: dark blue; Case 2: light blue).