| Literature DB >> 29078775 |
Kun Zhang1, Qin Li1, Yi Chen1, Ningjian Wang1, Yingli Lu2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lipid accumulation product (LAP) is a novel and effective index of visceral adiposity distribution based on waist circumference and triglycerides concentration. Few studies investigated the relationship between LAP and eGFR. We aimed to explore whether LAP was associated with declined renal function (eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73m2), and also whether it exhibited obvious superiority in predicting kidney impairment compared with other obesity indices.Entities:
Keywords: Declined renal function; LAP index; Visceral adiposity dysfunction
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29078775 PMCID: PMC5658976 DOI: 10.1186/s12944-017-0597-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Lipids Health Dis ISSN: 1476-511X Impact factor: 3.876
Characteristics of study population by quartiles of LAP
| LAP value | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≤13.03 | 13.04–24.96 | 24.97–45.62 | ≥45.63 | ||
| Male, % | 36.4 | 40.5 | 41.0 | 46.8 | <0.001 |
| Age, year | 47.38 (13.95) | 52.98(12.56) | 56.41 (11.86) | 56.61 (11.56) | <0.001 |
| Body mass index, kg/m2 | 21.45 (2.48) | 23.79 (2.44) | 25.41 (2.81) | 27.43 (3.24) | <0.001 |
| Waist circumference, cm | 69.35 (5.76) | 78.29 (6.08) | 84.08 (6.81) | 90.52 (8.18) | <0.001 |
| Neck circumference, cm | 31.61 (2.98) | 33.06 (2.91) | 34.08 (3.86) | 35.54 (3.57) | <0.001 |
| Hip circumference, cm | 87.97 (5.21) | 92.39 (5.37) | 95.05 (6.09) | 98.39(6.85) | <0.001 |
| eGFR, mL/min/1.73 m2 | 94.63 (14.99) | 89. 88 (14.59) | 86.03 (14.91) | 85.22 (15.16) | <0.001 |
| Body adiposity index | 25.28 (3.60) | 27.32(3.64) | 28.72 (4.20) | 29.91 (4.86) | <0.001 |
| Triglycerides, mmol/L | 0.88 (0.32) | 1.16 (0.41) | 1.58 (0.53) | 3.07 (2.53) | <0.001 |
| Cholesterol, mmol/L | 4.75 (1.06) | 4.98 (1.04) | 5.30 (1.04) | 5.59 (1.17) | <0.001 |
| HDL, mmol/L | 1.59 (0.32) | 1.46 (0.30) | 1.39 (0.30) | 1.27 (0.27) | <0.001 |
| LDL, mmol/L | 2.69 (0.64) | 2.98 (0.70) | 3.27 (0.77) | 3.40 (0.81) | <0.001 |
| Hypertension, % | 23.9 | 40.0 | 54.4 | 66.4 | <0.001 |
| Diabetes, % | 4.9 | 8.9 | 13.8 | 26.3 | <0.001 |
| Smoker, % | 82.7 | 80.2 | 78.4 | 73.8 | <0.001 |
| Drinker, % | 91.2 | 87.1 | 85.4 | 84.0 | <0.001 |
Continuous variables are presented as the mean (standard deviation), and categorical variables are expressed as a proportion (%). P for trend was calculated by ANOVA and Chi-square test
Fig. 1The prevalence of declined renal function in each quartile of LAP
Association of eGFR with different obesity indices
| Independent variable | eGFR (Dependent variable) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
| Log-LAP | −0.217(0.157)** | −0.067(0.138)** | −0.073(0.144)** |
| BMI | −0.152(0.043)** | −0.071(0.036)** | −0.075(0.038)** |
| WC | −0.213(0.015)** | −0.030(0.014)* | −0.033(0.014)* |
| BAI | −0.147(0.034)** | −0.007(0.033) | −0.006(0.034) |
| Log-VAI | −0.136(0.512)** | −0.064(0.429)** | −0.069(0.442)** |
The data from linear regression analysis are expressed as Beta coefficients (standard errors). *P < 0.05, **P < 0.001. Model 1 was unadjusted. Model 2 controls for age, sex, smoking and drinking. Model 3 additionally controls for diabetes and hypertension. VAI and LAP were log-transformed because of their skewed distribution
Association of LAP with declined renal function (eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2)
| LAP value | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 (≤13.03) | 1.0(ref.) | 1.0(ref.) | 1.0(ref.) |
| Q2 (13.04–24.96) | 2.09(1.36, 3.22) | 1.50(0.96,2.34) | 1.45(0.93,2.27) |
| Q3 (24.97–45.62) | 3.95(2.65,5.89) | 2.20(1.45,3.33) | 2.04(1.34,3.09) |
| Q4 (≥45.63) | 4.62(3.12,6.85) | 2.61(1.74,3.93) | 2.32(1.52, 3.53) |
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
The data from logistic regression analysis are expressed as odds ratio (95% CI) unless otherwise indicated. Model 1 was unadjusted, Model 2 controls for age (continuous variable), sex, smoking, and drinking. Model 3 additionally controls for diabetes and hypertension
AUCs of LAP and other obesity indices to predict declined renal function
| Index | AUC ROC |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| LAP | 0.644 (0.618, 0.670) | <0.001 | |
| VAI | 0.621 (0.594, 0.647) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| BAI | 0.578 (0.546, 0.609) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| BMI | 0.574 (0.543, 0.605) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| WC | 0.616 (0.588, 0.645) | <0.001 | <0.001 |
AUC area under the curve, ROC receiver operating characteristic. P value 1: the diagnostic value for ROC, two tail significance. P value 2: the comparisons of AUC between LAP and other obesity indices (Z-test)
Fig. 2The association between LAP and declined renal function. In our study, we found that LAP was strongly associated with declined renal function. LAP has the largest area under curves among these five obesity indices, suggesting LAP can be a promosing predictive index for declined renal function