| Literature DB >> 27478910 |
Jian Gao, Fei Wang, Xinyu Kuang, Rong Chen, Jia Rao, Bin Wang, Wenyan Li, Haimei Liu, Qian Shen, Xiang Wang, Hong Xu1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The illegal use of melamine in powdered baby formula resulted in a widespread outbreak of melamine-associated pediatric urolithiasis and kidney damage in China in 2008. We conducted this study because more needs to be known about the long-term effects of melamine-associated urolithiasis and kidney damage.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27478910 PMCID: PMC6074399 DOI: 10.5144/0256-4947.2016.252
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Saudi Med ISSN: 0256-4947 Impact factor: 1.526
Figure 1Enrollment and outcomes in the assessment of melamine-associated pediatric urolithiasis.
Logistic regression analysis of patient factors influencing the passage of calculi at 18 months after initial presentation (n=91).
| Characteristics | Persistent stones, n (%) | Passed stone, n (%) | Odds ratio (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Male | 3 (5.5) | 52 (94.5) | 5.401 (0.971–31.811) | .062 |
| Female | 6 (16.7) | 30 (83.3) | 1.0 | |
| 0 to ≤12 | 1 (2.9) | 33 (97.1) | 22.206 (0.874–546.488) | .060 |
| >12 to ≤36 | 2 (6.9) | 27 (93.1) | 3.054 (0.423–21.879) | .269 |
| >36 to ≤72 | 6 (21.4) | 22 (78.6) | 1.0 | |
| ≤6 | 1 (9.1) | 30 (90.9) | 0.519 (0.044–6.115) | .602 |
| 6–12 | 3 (5.9) | 32 (94.1) | 2.959 (0.332–26.407) | .331 |
| >12 | 5 (16.7) | 20 (83.3) | 1.0 | |
| High | 7 (14.3) | 42 (85.7) | 0.154 (0.014–1.643) | .121 |
| Middle | 1 (11.1) | 11 (91.7) | 0.562 (0.016–20.315) | .753 |
| Low | 1 (11.1) | 29 (96.7) | 1.0 | |
| ≤5 | 6 (6.6) | 60 (90.9) | 5.838 (4.259–8.000) | <.001 |
| >5 to ≤10 | 3 (3.3) | 11 (78.6) | 1.0 | |
| >10 | 0 (0)* | 11 (100.0) | ||
Comparison of urinary microprotein profiles at 6 and 18 months of follow-up.
| Urinary microprotein profiles | First follow-up (6 mo), n=76 | Second follow-up (18 mo), n=77 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| ALBU/CR | Abnormal number, n (%) | 21 (27.6) | 5 (6.4) | .001 |
| Value (mg/g) | 26.06 (17.78) | 13.64 (3.65) | <.001 | |
| IgG/CR | Abnormal number, n (%) | 13 (17.1) | 4 (5.1) | .018 |
| Value (mg/g) | 15.9 (10.53) | 9.63 (2.30) | .038 | |
| NAG/CR | Abnormal number, n (%) | 16 (21.1) | 10 (12.8) | .173 |
| Value (u/mmol) | 0.92 (0.34) | 0.66 (0.32) | .026 | |
Values are mean (standard deviation).
Linear regression analysis of factors influencing urinary microprotein profiles at 18 months after initial presentation.*
| Factors | B | 95% CI | R2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| ALBU/CR | Concentration of melamine consumed | −1.528 | −2.779–−0.277 | .018 | 0.213 |
| Age | −1.778 | −3.338–−0.218 | .026 | ||
| IgG/CR | Concentration of melamine consumed | −1.435 | −2.468–−0.402 | .007 | 0.144 |
| Size of stones | 1.685 | 0.231–3.140 | .024 | ||
| NAG/CR | Concentration of melamine consumed | −0.130 | −0.273–0.012 | .072 | 0.100 |
The table only shows the statistically significant independent factors for the three dependent variables. Other independent variables included sex, age, duration of exposure, size of calculi at initial presentation, and status of calculi during follow-up.
Figure 2Changes in the mean urinary microprotein profiles between 6 and 18 months.
Comparison of the reductiona in urinary microprotein from 6 to 18 months between patients with and without persistent stones by ANCOVA.b
| Status of calculi | ALBU/CR | IgG/CR | NAG/CR | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reduced extent (mg/g) | Reduced extent (mg/g) | Reduced extent (u/mmol) | |||||
|
| |||||||
| First follow-up (6 months) | Passed stones (n=40) | 10.45 (21.23) | .387 | 0.25 (0.66) | .086 | 0.39 (0.52) | .019 |
| Persistent stones (n=15) | 14.25 (22.07) | 0.06 (0.52) | 0.05 (0.57) | ||||
| Second follow-up (18 months) | Passed stones (n=48) | 7.68 (13.00) | <.001 | 0.24 (0.66) | .225 | 0.36 (0.55) | .041 |
| Persistent stones (n=7) | 4.44 (4.98) | −0.03 (0.23) | −0.13 (0.41) | ||||
| Within 6 months (n=39) | Passed stones | 4.53 (5.47) | .506 | 0.25 (0.67) | .276 | 0.38 (0.55) | .120 |
| After 6 but before 18 months (n=6) | 4.95 (9.96) | −0.05 (0.35) | 0.012 (0.35) | ||||
The mean of the second follow-up minus the mean of the first follow-up.
ANCOVA was used to eliminate the impact of the first follow-up measures on the extent of reduction.