| Literature DB >> 31817083 |
Zumin Shi1, Ming Zhang2, Jianghong Liu3.
Abstract
We aimed to assess the association between chili consumption and kidney function and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Data from 8429 adults attending the China Health and Nutrition Survey were used. Chili intake was assessed using a 3 day, 24 h food record in combination with household food inventory between 1991 and 2009. CKD was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, as measured in 2009. Logistic regression was used to assess the association. Of the 8429 participants, 1008 (12.0%) fit the definition of CKD. The prevalence of CKD was 13.1% in non-consumers of chili and 7.4% among those with chili intake above 50 g/day. After adjusting for demographics, lifestyle factors (i.e., smoking, alcohol drinking, physical activity), dietary patterns, and chronic conditions, the odds ratio (OR) (95% CI) for CKD across chili consumption levels of none, 1-20 g/day, 20.1-50 g/day, ≥50.1 g/day were 1.00 (reference), 0.82 (0.67-1.01), 0.83 (0.65-1.05), and 0.51 (0.35-0.75), respectively (p for trend 0.001). There was no interaction between chili intake with gender, income, urbanization, hypertension, obesity, or diabetes. This longitudinal large population-based study suggests that chili consumption is inversely associated with CKD, independent of lifestyle, hypertension, obesity, and overall dietary patterns.Entities:
Keywords: Chinese; adults; chili intake; chronic kidney disease
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31817083 PMCID: PMC6949978 DOI: 10.3390/nu11122949
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Sample flowchart of participants attending the China Health and Nutrition Survey in 2009.
Sample characteristics in 2009 by levels of cumulative mean chili intake (N = 8429) 1. CRP: C-reactive protein; CKD: chronic kidney disease; MET: metabolic equivalent of task.
| None | 1–20 g/day | 20.1–50 g/day | ≥50.1 g/day | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | 3390 | 2617 | 1733 | 689 | |
| Chili intake (g/day), mean (SD) | 0.0 (0.0) | 9.7 (5.6) | 32.8 (8.4) | 74.5 (25.8) | <0.001 |
| Traditional dietary pattern, mean (SD) | −0.1 (0.9) | −0.0 (0.8) | 0.2 (0.7) | 0.4 (0.8) | <0.001 |
| Modern dietary pattern, mean (SD) | 0.4 (1.0) | 0.2 (0.8) | 0.0 (0.8) | −0.1 (0.7) | <0.001 |
| Energy intake (kcal/day), mean (SD) | 2074.1 (610.7) | 2117.2 (648.7) | 2196.0 (630.5) | 2310.8 (699.8) | <0.001 |
| Fat intake (g/day), mean (SD) | 71.8 (33.1) | 74.1 (35.9) | 77.2 (37.9) | 79.7 (40.5) | <0.001 |
| Protein intake (g/day), mean (SD) | 65.7 (22.2) | 65.0 (23.2) | 66.6 (22.3) | 69.6 (25.6) | <0.001 |
| Carbohydrate intake (g/day), mean (SD) | 286.9 (100.9) | 291.5 (101.1) | 303.9 (98.3) | 324.0 (110.2) | <0.001 |
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 50.3 (16.0) | 52.2 (14.1) | 51.3 (14.3) | 48.9 (14.7) | <0.001 |
| BMI (kg/m2), mean (SD) | 23.4 (3.5) | 23.5 (3.5) | 23.3 (3.4) | 22.9 (3.3) | <0.001 |
| BMI status, | 0.004 | ||||
| Underweight | 222 (6.7%) | 157 (6.1%) | 98 (5.8%) | 42 (6.3%) | |
| Normal | 2102 (63.0%) | 1612 (62.7%) | 1091 (64.3%) | 469 (70.2%) | |
| Overweight | 859 (25.7%) | 682 (26.5%) | 454 (26.8%) | 135 (20.2%) | |
| Obese | 153 (4.6%) | 120 (4.7%) | 54 (3.2%) | 22 (3.3%) | |
| Sex, | 0.006 | ||||
| Men | 1546 (45.6%) | 1226 (46.8%) | 852 (49.2%) | 358 (52.0%) | |
| Women | 1844 (54.4%) | 1391 (53.2%) | 881 (50.8%) | 331 (48.0%) | |
| Income, | <0.001 | ||||
| Low | 901 (26.9%) | 753 (29.0%) | 484 (28.4%) | 226 (33.3%) | |
| Medium | 1161 (34.7%) | 757 (29.2%) | 583 (34.2%) | 242 (35.6%) | |
| High | 1286 (38.4%) | 1086 (41.8%) | 638 (37.4%) | 211 (31.1%) | |
| Education, | 0.31 | ||||
| Low | 1373 (40.5%) | 1092 (41.8%) | 730 (42.2%) | 305 (44.4%) | |
| Medium | 1183 (34.9%) | 872 (33.4%) | 586 (33.9%) | 238 (34.6%) | |
| High | 830 (24.5%) | 647 (24.8%) | 412 (23.8%) | 144 (21.0%) | |
| Hypertension, | 964 (28.6%) | 765 (29.5%) | 430 (25.1%) | 135 (19.9%) | <0.001 |
| Diabetes, | 388 (11.4%) | 305 (11.7%) | 150 (8.7%) | 61 (8.9%) | 0.002 |
| Urbanization, | <0.001 | ||||
| Low | 514 (15.2%) | 390 (14.9%) | 236 (13.6%) | 85 (12.3%) | |
| Medium | 1014 (29.9%) | 1015 (38.8%) | 677 (39.1%) | 322 (46.7%) | |
| High | 1862 (54.9%) | 1212 (46.3%) | 820 (47.3%) | 282 (40.9%) | |
| Smoking, | 0.006 | ||||
| Non-smoker | 2389 (70.5%) | 1776 (67.9%) | 1174 (67.8%) | 456 (66.3%) | |
| Ex-smoker | 126 (3.7%) | 90 (3.4%) | 51 (2.9%) | 15 (2.2%) | |
| Current smoker | 874 (25.8%) | 749 (28.6%) | 507 (29.3%) | 217 (31.5%) | |
| High sensitivity CRP (mg/dL), mean (SD) | 1.0 (0.0–2.0) | 1.0 (0.0–2.0) | 1.0 (0.0–2.0) | 1.0 (0.0–2.0) | 0.71 |
| CKD, | 445 (13.1%) | 305 (11.7%) | 207 (11.9%) | 51 (7.4%) | <0.001 |
| Physical activity (MET hour/week), mean (SD) | 120.4 (105.1) | 130.0 (112.6) | 121.3 (104.5) | 120.8 (106.2) | 0.006 |
1 Data are presented as mean (SD) for continuous measures, and n (%) for categorical measures.
Odds ratios (95% CI) for chronic kidney disease according to cumulative chili intake among Chinese adults (N = 8429) 1.
| None | 1–20 g/day | 20.1–50 g/day | ≥50.1 g/day | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N = 3390 | N = 2617 | N = 1733 | N = 689 | ||
| Model 1 | 1.00 | 0.82 (0.68–0.98) | 0.97 (0.79–1.19) | 0.63 (0.45–0.89) | 0.057 |
| Model 2 | 1.00 | 0.81 (0.66–0.99) | 0.83 (0.66–1.05) | 0.48 (0.33–0.71) | 0.001 |
| Model 3 | 1.00 | 0.82 (0.67–1.01) | 0.83 (0.65–1.05) | 0.51 (0.35–0.75) | 0.001 |
| Sensitivity analysis | 1.00 | 0.78 (0.54–1.11) | 0.73 (0.49–1.08) | 0.47 (0.26–0.85) | 0.012 |
1 Model 1 was adjusted for age in 2009, gender, intake of energy. Model 2 was further adjusted for education (low, medium and high), income, urbanization level (tertiles), smoking, alcohol drinking, physical activity, and dietary patterns (average scores between 1991 and 2009). Model 3 was further adjustment for overweight/obesity, hypertension, and diabetes. Sensitivity analysis was Model 3 including only those who attended all seven waves of the survey.
Figure 2Non-linear association between chili intake and CKD. Values were the marginal probability of CKD derived from a multivariable logistic regression model adjusted for age, gender, intake of energy, education, income, urbanization level, smoking, alcohol drinking, physical activity, dietary patterns, overweight/obesity, hypertension, and diabetes. The p for the quadratic term of chili intake was 0.307 in the model.
Figure 3Marginal means of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) by levels of chili intake among participants who attended all seven waves of the dietary survey (N = 2088). Values were marginal means derived from a multivariable regression model adjusted for age, gender, intake of energy, education, income, and urbanization level.
Odds ratios (95% CI) for chronic kidney disease according to cumulative chili intake among Chinese adults by sociodemographic factors and health conditions (N = 8429) 1.
| None | 1–20 g/day | 20.1–50 g/day | ≥50.1 g/day | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||||
| Men | 1.00 | 0.74 (0.52–1.06) | 0.74 (0.50–1.10) | 0.47 (0.25–0.89) | 0.920 |
| Women | 1.00 | 0.87 (0.67–1.13) | 0.90 (0.66–1.21) | 0.53 (0.32–0.87) | |
| Income | |||||
| Low | 1.00 | 0.77 (0.53–1.11) | 0.59 (0.38–0.90) | 0.45 (0.24–0.85) | 0.310 |
| Medium | 1.00 | 0.68 (0.44–1.03) | 0.93 (0.61–1.42) | 0.53 (0.29–0.99) | |
| High | 1.00 | 1.05 (0.76–1.45) | 1.14 (0.77–1.70) | 0.51 (0.23–1.16) | |
| Urbanization | |||||
| Low | 1.00 | 0.98 (0.50–1.90) | 0.36 (0.14–0.94) | 0.30 (0.09–1.05) | 0.769 |
| Medium | 1.00 | 0.83 (0.57–1.22) | 0.84 (0.56–1.26) | 0.47 (0.26–0.85) | |
| High | 1.00 | 0.82 (0.63–1.08) | 0.93 (0.68–1.28) | 0.62 (0.35–1.12) | |
| Overweight/obesity | |||||
| No | 1.00 | 0.88 (0.68–1.12) | 0.75 (0.56–1.00) | 0.50 (0.32–0.78) | 0.350 |
| Yes | 1.00 | 0.71 (0.49–1.04) | 1.06 (0.70–1.61) | 0.55 (0.25–1.23) | |
| Hypertension | |||||
| No | 1.00 | 0.85 (0.64–1.13) | 0.78 (0.57–1.06) | 0.57 (0.36–0.91) | 0.616 |
| Yes | 1.00 | 0.78 (0.57–1.06) | 0.91 (0.63–1.32) | 0.40 (0.20–0.80) | |
| Diabetes | |||||
| No | 1.00 | 0.87 (0.69–1.09) | 0.79 (0.61–1.02) | 0.51 (0.33–0.77) | 0.303 |
| Yes | 1.00 | 0.62 (0.37–1.03) | 1.21 (0.64–2.26) | 0.50 (0.18–1.35) |
1 Models adjusted for age in 2009, gender, intake of energy, education (low, medium, high), income (low, medium, high), urbanization level (tertiles), smoking, alcohol drinking, physical activity, dietary patterns (average scores between 1991 and 2009), overweight/obesity, hypertension, and diabetes. All the stratification variables were not adjusted in the corresponding models.