Longitudinal trends in renal function among first time sugarcane harvesters in Guatemala.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic kidney disease of unknown origin (CKDu) is an epidemic concentrated in agricultural communities in Central and South America, including young, male sugarcane harvesters. The purpose of this analysis is to understand early changes in kidney function among a cohort of first-time sugarcane harvesters and to determine risk factors for kidney function decline.
METHODS: Joint latent class mixed models were used to model sub-population kidney function trajectory over the course of 4 years (2012-2016). Probability weighted logistic regression was used to determine personal health, community, and individual behavior risk factors associated with sub-population assignment. Data analysis occurred in 2019.
RESULTS: Of 181 new workers median age 19 years old (IQR: 4), 39 (22%) were identified as having non-stable kidney function with an annual age-adjusted decline of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of -1.0 ml/min per 1.73 m2 (95% CI: -3.4, 1.3). Kidney function (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.93, 0.98), mild hypertension (OR: 5.21; 95% CI: 2.14, 13.94), and having a local home of residence (OR: 7.12; 95% CI: 2.41, 26.02) prior to employment in sugarcane were associated with non-stable eGFR sub-population assignment.
CONCLUSIONS: Mild hypertension may be an early indicator of the development of CKDu. A better understanding of preexisting risk factors is needed to determine why individuals are entering the workforce with reduced kidney function and elevated blood pressure and increased risk of renal function decline.

Introduction

Chronic kidney disease of unknown origin (CKDu) is an emerging epidemic concentrated in agricultural communities in Central and South America [1]. Unlike other forms of chronic kidney disease, CKDu is defined in the absence of traditional risk factors such as diabetes and hypertension [2, 3]. Characterized as a form of tubulointerstitial nephritis with varying degrees of fibrosis [4], clinical and epidemiologic studies have shown that young men are at the greatest risk for developing the disease with the age at diagnosis most often between 30 and 50 years [2].

Because the epidemic is concentrated in areas where a high percentage of the labor force conducts physically demanding manual labor [5] one of the leading hypotheses is that CKDu is caused, at least in part, by carrying out heavy work in hot climates while under a state of dehydration [1, 6–8]. Much of the research has been focused in either agricultural worker cohorts or community cohorts where a large percentage of the population is composed of current or former agricultural workers [2, 9–13]. These cross-sectional studies have implicated sugarcane harvesting and the number of years of work in agriculture as predictors of development of disease [10, 11]. However, some recent lines of evidence suggest that CKDu may also be occurring in communities among individuals who are not agricultural workers [14-17]. Recent studies suggest that there may be early indicators of renal damage among adolescents [18, 19], suggesting the possibility that there may be non-occupational contributors to the development of disease.

In order to better understand the possible combined contributions of individual health, community, and work-related risk factors to renal function decline, we conducted a four-year longitudinal analysis of apparently healthy, asymptomatic young men seeking their first job as sugarcane harvesters in southwest Guatemala. We hypothesized that there are multifactorial community, personal health, and lifestyle risk factors present prior to employment that contribute to observed changes in renal function over the course of their time employed in sugarcane.

Methods

Cohort

Workers from the region surrounding a sugarcane mill in southwest Guatemala (local workers), as well as migrant workers from other parts of Guatemala, are recruited annually by a large agribusiness. Each year, prior to the start of the 6-month sugarcane harvest, the agribusiness conducts a pre-employment screening which includes a medical exam (blood pressure, heart rate, height, and weight), questionnaire (demographic, lifestyle, medical, and occupational history questions), and venipuncture for measurement of serum creatinine of each individual seeking employment as a sugarcane harvester. Full details on recruitment and pre-employment screening are published elsewhere [20].

Subjects for our analysis were retrospectively selected from workers seeking employment as sugarcane harvesters between November 2012 and November 2015 at the agribusiness. To be included in this analysis, workers must have 1) reported never working a previous sugarcane harvest, whether at this company or another, 2) been hired and worked at least one week of the harvest after hiring date, and 3) have returned for pre-employment screening the subsequent year. Once this cohort was identified, the agribusiness used employment records to verify that these individuals had not previously worked for the company.

Data from the pre-employment screenings and information on the productivity of workers (to verify employment and attrition) were provided by the agribusiness. Data analysis occurred in 2019. As this was a secondary evaluation of de-identified data collected for business purposes, informed consent was not obtained. Ethics review and approval for our evaluation of these data was received from Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board (COMIRB).

Outcome

Creatinine measures were collected at the time of pre-employment screenings. Blood samples were sent to an independent, licensed clinical laboratory (Herrera Llerandi laboratory, Guatemala City, Guatemala). The Creatinine Jaffe Generation 2 method was used to determine serum creatinine. Further detail on the laboratory methods has been published elsewhere [21]. The primary outcome was the pattern of change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over a period of up to 4 years (2012–2016). Data on eGFR from 2016 were used for follow-up eGFR measurements only. To calculate the eGFR we used the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) formula [22]. Race was considered “non-black” and all workers were male. From 2009 to 2015 it was the policy of the company to only hire workers with a serum creatinine of 1.45 mg/dL or less. The policy has since been updated (2017) to only hire cane cutters with an eGFR above 90 ml/min per 1.73 m2.

Covariates and potential risk factors

Baseline covariates were defined based on the first pre-employment screening of an individual. These included eGFR, age, body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, location of home residence, home drinking water source, alcohol consumption, and smoking status.

Pre-employment blood pressure measurements were taken by a licensed nurse following standard protocol. If there was doubt regarding the reading, a medical doctor in charge of pre-employment evaluation obtained a second measurement. The worker was notified of his result. We used the cut-off of systolic blood pressure ≥130 or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 80 to define mild hypertension in accordance with the 2017 American Academy of Cardiology guidelines [23].

Statistical methods

Because kidney function at time of hire is related to attrition from the workforce [24] we used joint latent class mixed models to model the shape of longitudinal kidney function change while simultaneously modeling loss to follow-up [25]. In our analysis, time was treated as season (1–5 harvest seasons) in the linear mixed model. The longitudinal change in eGFR was modelled with a quadratic time trend with random terms for intercept and 2-degree polynomial time. Unconditional models were used to determine class-membership. Class-specific baseline risk functions were adjusted for continuous age. A full discussion of our modelling approach and final model specifications can be found in the Supporting Information. The R package “lcmm” was used [26].

Sub-population assignment

Each individual was assigned a probability for sub-population assignment from the joint latent class mixed model. Annual change in eGFR for each sub-population was calculated using an age-adjusted Bayesian generalized linear multilevel model with random intercept for individual [27]. Age-adjusted associations between baseline covariates, as measured by their first pre-employment survey as described above, and probability of sub-population assignment were assessed using probability weighted logistic regression. Models were then further adjusted for baseline eGFR. For descriptive tables, individuals were assigned to the sub-population with which they had the highest probability. Comparisons between groups were done using Chi-squared, Fisher’s Exact, or T-tests as appropriate. All analyses were conducted in R version 3.4.3 [28].

Sensitivity analysis

To address the potential misclassification of individuals with mild hypertension we conducted a sensitivity analysis. We took random samples of 20% and 40% of the workers with mild hypertension and re-classified them as non-hypertensive. We re-ran the sub-population assignment analysis as described above with the updated datasets to assess the stability of the hypertension estimates.

Results

Cohort and follow-up

We identified 534 male individuals who were hired and worked at least one week as first time sugarcane harvester between 2012 and 2015. Of these, 181 (34%) returned the subsequent year for the next pre-employment screening, making up the analysis cohort (S1 Fig). Of the 181 workers with longitudinal measurements of eGFR, subsequent measures of eGFR were available for 100 workers for one year, 52 workers for two years, 26 workers for three years, and 3 workers for four years. A comparison between those selected and not selected for the cohort is provided in the Supporting Information (S1 Table).

eGFR sub-populations

We identified two distinct sub-populations of first year sugarcane harvesters: those who slightly declined in kidney function over time (non-stable) and those who remained stable (Fig 1). Most workers fell into the stable category (78%; n = 142); however, almost a quarter (22%; n = 39) were identified in the non-stable category. The average annual change in eGFR for workers in the non-stable group was -1.0 ml/min per 1.73 m2 (95% CI: -3.4, 1.3) compared to 0.3 ml/min per 1.73 m2 (95% CI: -0.9, 1.5) for the stable group.

Fig 1

Individual longitudinal eGFR patterns stratified by assigned sub-population.

The two groups did significantly differ on baseline eGFR. While no workers in our analysis had baseline kidney dysfunction when hired (defined as eGFR < 60 ml/min per 1.73 m2) [29], five workers assigned to the non-stable group had eGFR < 90 ml/min per 1.73 m2 at the time of hire (Minimum: 84 ml/min per 1.73 m2). Those in the non-stable group had on average a baseline eGFR 17 ml/min per 1.73 m2 lower (95% CI: -21 ml/min per 1.73 m2, -12 ml/min per 1.73 m2) than those in the stable group (Table 1). They also tended to be older. The average baseline BMI for those in the non-stable group was higher than those in the stable group.

Table 1

Baseline covariates of new sugarcane workers by assigned sub-population in mean (SD) or n (%).

Data collected from workers seeking first time work as sugarcane harvesters in Guatemala from 2012–2015.

Baseline Characteristic	Non-stableKidney Function (n = 39)	StableKidney Function (n = 142)	p-value
Creatinine, mg/dL	0.97 (0.12)	0.86 (0.10)	<0.001
eGFR, ml/min per 1.73 m2	105.24 (12.43)	123.33 (10.11)	<0.001
Age, years	28 (7)	20 (2)	<0.001
BMI, kg/m2	23.75 (2.70)	22.60 (2.15)	0.005
Systolic, mmHg	111 (10)	110 (12)	0.686
Diastolic, mmHg	76 (7)	73 (8)	0.050
Hypertensiona	26 (67%)	59 (42%)	0.009
Stage 1	25 (64%)	49 (35%)	0.002
Stage 2	1 (3%)	10 (7%)	0.461
Local home of residence (vs. migrant)	16 (41%)	46 (32%)	0.314
Well water source	11 (28%)	42 (30%)	0.868
Consumes alcohol	2 (5%)	7 (5%)	0.868
Current or former smoker	0 (0%)	12 (9%)	0.072
Weeks worked first year	26 (1)	26 (2)	0.500

aStage 1 hypertension defined as systolic blood pressure ≥130 or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 80; Stage 2 hypertension defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90.

There were notable differences in the distribution of blood pressure between the non-stable and stable groups (Fig 2). A total of 85 workers (47%) in this analysis met the definition of mild hypertension. The proportion of individuals with mild hypertension differed significantly between groups, with 26 (67%) individuals in the non-stable eGFR group having mild hypertension compared to 59 (42%) in the stable eGFR group (p-value: 0.01).

Fig 2

Blood pressure measurements at the time of first hire for first year sugarcane harvesters.

Adjusted associations with non-stable kidney function

In age-adjusted probability weighted models, baseline eGFR and baseline creatinine were associated with non-stable eGFR sub-population assignment (Table 2). Odds of assignment into the non-stable group decreased as baseline eGFR increased (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.93, 0.98). In models that adjusted both for age and baseline eGFR, new workers with a local home of residence had 7.12 times the odds of being in the non-stable subgroup (95% CI: 2.41, 26.02) compared to those from other regions. Those with a well water source at home had 6.1 times the odds of being in the non-stable subgroup (95% CI: 1.80, 26.82) compared to all other sources of home water. Water source was highly correlated with region, with 60% of those with a local home of residence using well water compared to 13% from other regions (p-value: <0.001). Notably, the individuals with mild hypertension at the time of hire had 5.2 times the odds of assignment to the non-stable group (95% CI: 2.14, 13.94) compared to those with normal blood pressure. In a sensitivity analysis with 20% of the mild hypertensive workers randomly re-assigned to non-hypertensive, the results held (OR: 6.00; 95% CI: 2.24, 18.98; p-value: 0.002). Estimates were unstable in the extreme case of 40% of mild hypertensive workers randomly re-classified (OR: 0.54; 95%CI: 0.22, 1.33; p-value 0.17). A summary of all sensitivity analysis results is presented in S2 Table.

Table 2

Age-adjusted and age- and baseline eGFR-adjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI) of non-stable eGFR sub-population assignment.

Data collected from workers seeking first time work as sugarcane harvesters in Guatemala from 2012–2015.

	Age-adjusted OR for Non-stable	p-value	Age- and baseline eGFR adjustedOR for Non-stable	p-value
Baseline Creatinine (per 0.10 mg/dL)	1.56 (1.15, 2.15)	0.005
Baseline eGFR, ml/min per 1.73 m2	0.96 (0.93, 0.98)	0.004
Baseline BMI, kg/m2	0.98 (0.81, 1.22)	0.864	0.84 (0.67, 1.05)	0.122
Baseline Systolic (per 10 mmHg)	0.96 (0.64, 1.44)	0.850	0.95 (0.66, 1.36)	0.769
Baseline Diastolic (per 10 mmHg)	1.45 (0.80, 2.64)	0.225	1.72 (0.97, 3.10)	0.066
Baseline Hypertensiona	2.80 (1.20, 6.74)	0.020	5.21 (2.14, 13.94)	0.001
Local home of residence vs. migrant	3.95 (1.40, 13.42)	0.016	7.12 (2.41, 26.02)	0.001
Well water source	3.48 (1.19, 12.94)	0.038	6.07 (1.80, 26.82)	0.009
Weeks worked	1.19 (0.70, 1.91)	0.488	1.01 (0.57, 1.62)	0.964

aHypertension defined as systolic blood pressure ≥130 or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 80.

Discussion

To our knowledge this is the first longitudinal analysis examining kidney function decline in a young, new worker population at a risk of developing CKDu. This analysis established that among newly hired sugarcane cutters, between 20% and 25% are expected to experience non-stable eGFR, with an average decline in eGFR at a rate of 1 ml/min per 1.73 m2 per year after adjusting for age. Workers who entered the workforce with lower levels of kidney function and mild hypertension were at a greater risk for experiencing declines in kidney function. Coupled with home of residence being an additional predictive risk factor for decline in kidney function suggests early exposures and community level factors play a role in the development of CKDu.

Mild hypertension at time of hire increased the odds of non-stable eGFR group assignment 5-fold. In addition, elevations of continuous diastolic blood pressure were also suggestive of non-stable eGFR in our age- and baseline eGFR-adjusted models. This is a notable finding because CKDu has been defined in absence of hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥140 or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90) but has not been examined in relationship to mild elevations of blood pressure. Our findings show that the non-stable group had both a higher prevalence of mild hypertension as well as lower baseline eGFR. Systemic arterial hypertension is almost always associated with, and likely driven by, subtle renal disease [30]. This, coupled with our findings presented here, suggest mild hypertension as an early indicator of the development of CKDu. Blood pressure screening in conjunction with renal function screenings should become a routine part of health monitoring for workers and community members at risk of CKDu, specifically those performing intense labor in hot environments. In addition, more research is warranted on the role of elevations of blood pressure, longitudinal changes in blood pressure, and the development of CKDu.

Our analysis showed that location of home of residence was associated with non-stable eGFR group assignment after adjusting for age and baseline eGFR. Workers living locally come from the communities surrounding the mill, which are at lower altitudes and closer to the coast than the seasonal migrant workers who generally are from the highlands, which are more mountainous, and at a higher altitude. Previous studies have shown that lower altitude and coastal home of residence are risk factors for CKDu [16, 31, 32] potentially due to differences in climatic factors and job history differences between these regions. While we are confident that the workers included in this analysis had never worked in sugarcane, we did not account for their job histories. There is the potential that the individuals evaluated here have had previous employment in other agricultural settings or participated in subsistence agriculture, which can differ by region, potentially explaining some of the differences we found between local and migrant workers. Limited research has been conducted to identify other differences in CKDu risk factors between local and migrant communities, but possible explanations could include differences in diets [33], airborne exposures [34], or water sources [35] which we showed to increase non-stable group assignment 6-fold and was highly associated with home of residence. Understanding differences in childhood and adolescent exposures may help determine why some young men enter the workforce with lower than expected eGFR and with elevated blood pressure.

This analysis carries several strengths. The models we employed help overcome common obstacles in most studies of CKDu, mainly the need for repeated measurements of eGFR, assumptions of linear trends in eGFR decline, and loss to follow-up. First, we had measurements on 181 first time sugarcane harvesters for up to four years, longer than any study we are aware of in the CKDu literature. Second, the joint linear mixed model allowed us to be flexible with the functional form of time when identifying sub-populations of renal function change. Third, informative loss to follow up in longitudinal worker cohorts is an issue, because workers with lower kidney function at the start of the harvest season are less likely to return to work [24]. Using joint linear mixed models allowed us to leverage this information.

Limitations

Despite these strengths, this analysis does face some limitations. We were limited in our ability to determine factors associated with a lower baseline eGFR, higher baseline blood pressure, and factors that differentiate local and migrant workers. Because these data were collected for hiring purposes, we were limited in our ability to examine additional hypothesized risk factors such as heat exposure [6, 11], use of pesticides [36, 37], and exposure to heavy metals [34, 38]. Due to the structure of our data, we were unable to assess the differences in recurrent dehydration [11], NSAID use [20], and other factors previously implicated in the development of the disease between the two identified groups. There is a possibility of nondifferential misclassification of survey variables including smoking status and alcohol intake. Due to the low number of respondents to questions regarding smoking and alcohol consumption we were unable to test the relationship with group assignment. We would be remiss not to mention that hypertension is clinically defined by elevated measurements at two time points, however we were limited in our classification to the single measurement taken at the time of hire. Finally, we lost many individuals to follow-up, limiting how many individuals for whom we had more than two time points. While we used a modeling approach that leveraged this information, it cannot be ignored that there are both observed and unobservable differences between those who choose to seek employment in subsequent years. Additionally, as loss to follow-up is associated with reduced kidney function [24], our analysis may underestimate the true rate of renal function decline as well as the association between renal function decline and mild-elevations in blood pressure.

Conclusions

To our knowledge this is the first cohort that examines the course of renal function change in newly hired, first time sugarcane harvesters who are at risk of CKDu. We identified nearly a quarter of the apparently healthy young men who experience on average a decline in eGFR of 1 ml/min per 1.73 m2 per year. Risk factors for this decline were decreased baseline eGFR, elevated baseline blood pressure, and residing locally in communities near the mill. A better understanding of non-occupational exposures and individual risk factors are needed to determine why these individuals are entering the workforce at higher risk. Improved surveillance practices of blood pressure and kidney function measurement are needed in the workplace in order to identify individuals at risk of kidney function decline. Workplaces should implement eGFR hiring cutoffs at 90 ml/min per 1.73 m2 as our study shows that all workers who had an eGFR < 90 ml/min per 1.73 m2 at the time of hire were assigned to the non-stable group. Studies of the possible mechanisms by which the combination of community, individual, and workplace risk factors contribute to renal function decline are needed.

The analysis cohort was drawn from workers seeking employment as first time sugarcane harvesters between November 2012 and November 2015.

Study flow showing timeline along with the number of new workers screened and the number returning each subsequent year.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Modelling approach and model selection.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Spanish versions of the pre-employment data collection form created and used by Pantaleon.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

English versions of the pre-employment data collection form created and used by Pantaleon.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Baseline characteristics between those identified as first year sugarcane harvesters who sought subsequent employment (included in the analysis) and those who only worked a single harvest (excluded from the analysis).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Age-adjusted and age- and baseline eGFR-adjusted associations of non-stable eGFR subgroup assignment (referent: Stable) by hypertension with a random sample of 20% and 40% of hypertensive workers reclassified as non-hypertensive.

Presented as Odds Ratio (95% Confidence Interval).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

21 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-32490

Longitudinal trends in renal function among first time sugarcane harvesters in Guatemala

PLOS ONE

Dear Ms. Dally,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 06 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Davide Bolignano, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section:

This evaluation was supported in part by Pantaleon; the Chancellor, CU Anschutz; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC.gov) (U19 OH01127 to LSN) and National Institutes of Health (NIH.gov) (R21 ES028826 to LSN). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, or the Department of Health and Human Services.

The funders had no role in the evaluation design, data analysis, or data interpretation. Co-authors employed by the company (AC, CA, WDP) participated on the writing team. They provided details regarding work practices, but did not modify the results or conclusions of this report. The corresponding author had full access to all the raw data and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. University of Colorado and Pantaleon are separate, independent organizations. University of Colorado employed appropriate research methods in keeping with academic freedom, based conclusions on critical analysis of the evidence and reported findings fully and objectively. The terms of this arrangement have been reviewed and approved by the University of Colorado in accordance with its conflict of interest policies.

We note that you received funding from a commercial source: Pantaleon

Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc.

Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your amended Competing Interests Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In Mesoamerica, chronic kidney disease of un-known origin (CKDu) is an important public health problem and this is because of several reasons: 1) This pidemic entity affects young and middle-aged men, resulting in high social-economic costs for health system. 2) Many causal risk factors have been hypothesized, but pathogenesis is still unexplained, therefore further studies are necessary. 3) Patients are often not aware of the disease, until CKDu reach final stages. Moreover, most patients have not the chance for renal replacement therapy and CKDu has become a leading cause of mortality. In this article Authors discuss on kidney disease development, trying to find new causes. One of the underlying factors is the presence of mild hypertension among this cohort, the unexpected prevalence of this latter, even among young men, raises new questions.

Comments:

- According to the esponential relationship between eGFR and creatinine, normal values of this latter can be related to an eGFR range between 50 and 180 ml/min. In other words, initial changes in eGFR determine little variations of creatinine, while pathological filtrates are associated to greater alterations of creatinine. Thus, resulting in a low sensitivity for this relationship in the earlier states of renal failure. The high current cut-off adopted by Company (serum creatinine level of 1.45 mg/dL or less) determines enrollment of individuals with impaired renal function. The Authors may concern about the need to decrease this value.

- The baseline covariates, defined at the screening visit, included: eGFR, age, body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, location of home residence, home drinking water source, alcohol consumption, and smoking status. However, potentially implicated factors have not been included, such as: daily water intake amount (dehydration could be contributing to heat stress), use of NSAIDs (very common among this populations). These latter should be mentioned in Limitations.

- Regarding paragraph on pre-employment blood pressure measurements, it seems to be much descriptive. They should be summarized in some extents.

- The Authors found that mild hypertension (≥130/80 mmHg) could be one of the underlying causes of CKDu. This evidence is remarkable because other Authors had already depicted the linear relationship between blood pressure and kidney damage, even starting from normal values. However, the authors should mention that in non-adjusted and in age- and baseline eGFR- adjusted OR for non-stable eGFR, the study does not reach statistical significance on highly suspect causes implicated in CKDu such as: well water source, current or past smoking, alcohol consumption.

- Patients loss at the follow up can cause bias, workers may have been absent due to the kidney disease. It should be mentioned that loss can lead to underestimation of renal function decline, influencing relationship between eGFR and risk factor.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Michele Provenzano

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

3 Feb 2020

Dear Dr. Bolignano,

We would like to thank Dr. Provenzano for taking the time to provide feedback on our manuscript, Longitudinal trends in renal function among first time sugarcane harvesters in Guatemala. Below, in bold, we have addressed each point brought up by Dr. Provenzano as well as editorial concerns.

Reviewer #1: In Mesoamerica, chronic kidney disease of un-known origin (CKDu) is an important public health problem and this is because of several reasons: 1) This pidemic entity affects young and middle-aged men, resulting in high social-economic costs for health system. 2) Many causal risk factors have been hypothesized, but pathogenesis is still unexplained, therefore further studies are necessary. 3) Patients are often not aware of the disease, until CKDu reach final stages. Moreover, most patients have not the chance for renal replacement therapy and CKDu has become a leading cause of mortality. In this article Authors discuss on kidney disease development, trying to find new causes. One of the underlying factors is the presence of mild hypertension among this cohort, the unexpected prevalence of this latter, even among young men, raises new questions.

Comments:

- According to the esponential relationship between eGFR and creatinine, normal values of this latter can be related to an eGFR range between 50 and 180 ml/min. In other words, initial changes in eGFR determine little variations of creatinine, while pathological filtrates are associated to greater alterations of creatinine. Thus, resulting in a low sensitivity for this relationship in the earlier states of renal failure. The high current cut-off adopted by Company (serum creatinine level of 1.45 mg/dL or less) determines enrollment of individuals with impaired renal function. The Authors may concern about the need to decrease this value.

Response: We agree that use of a creatinine of 1.45 mg/dL as a cutoff for hiring is too lax. In 2017, in response to our recommendations, the company changed the hiring cutoff to an eGFR above 90 ml/min per 1.73 m2. Despite the lenient hiring value during the time of our cohort construction, no worker in our analysis had a serum creatinine level above 1.20 mg/dL. The lowest observed baseline eGFR in our study was 84 ml/min per 1.73 m2. There were 5 individuals with a baseline eGFR below 90 ml/min per 1.73 m2 included in our analysis. We have updated the results section to mention this. We have also updated the conclusions to emphasize the need for a strict hiring cut-off.

- The baseline covariates, defined at the screening visit, included: eGFR, age, body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, location of home residence, home drinking water source, alcohol consumption, and smoking status. However, potentially implicated factors have not been included, such as: daily water intake amount (dehydration could be contributing to heat stress), use of NSAIDs (very common among this populations). These latter should be mentioned in Limitations.

Response: We agree that a limitation of our study was our inability to assess factors previously implicated in the development of CKDu. We have updated our limitations section to more clearly reflect this.

- Regarding paragraph on pre-employment blood pressure measurements, it seems to be much descriptive. They should be summarized in some extents.

Response: Thank you, we agree that we erred on the side of providing too much information and have summarized the blood pressure collection methodology.

- The Authors found that mild hypertension (≥130/80 mmHg) could be one of the underlying causes of CKDu. This evidence is remarkable because other Authors had already depicted the linear relationship between blood pressure and kidney damage, even starting from normal values. However, the authors should mention that in non-adjusted and in age- and baseline eGFR- adjusted OR for non-stable eGFR, the study does not reach statistical significance on highly suspect causes implicated in CKDu such as: well water source, current or past smoking, alcohol consumption.

Response: Thank you for pointing out this concern to us. We have updated the limitation section to mention our inability to test smoking and alcohol consumption. We have updated the results and discussion to mention an association with well water source.

- Patients loss at the follow up can cause bias, workers may have been absent due to the kidney disease. It should be mentioned that loss can lead to underestimation of renal function decline, influencing relationship between eGFR and risk factor.

Response: We agree that loss to follow-up and the “healthy worker effect” is a concern for research examining kidney function decline in worker cohorts. We have updated our limitations section to emphasize this.

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response: We have updated the manuscript and supporting documents to meet the style requirements and file naming.

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

Response: We have included both a Spanish and English copy of the pre-employment survey that was developed and administered by the business in the supporting information. Full specifications on how we implemented the joint latent class models is provided in the supporting information.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section:

This evaluation was supported in part by Pantaleon; the Chancellor, CU Anschutz; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC.gov) (U19 OH01127 to LSN) and National Institutes of Health (NIH.gov) (R21 ES028826 to LSN). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, or the Department of Health and Human Services.

The funders had no role in the evaluation design, data analysis, or data interpretation. Co-authors employed by the company (AC, CA, WDP) participated on the writing team. They provided details regarding work practices, but did not modify the results or conclusions of this report. The corresponding author had full access to all the raw data and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. University of Colorado and Pantaleon are separate, independent organizations. University of Colorado employed appropriate research methods in keeping with academic freedom, based conclusions on critical analysis of the evidence and reported findings fully and objectively. The terms of this arrangement have been reviewed and approved by the University of Colorado in accordance with its conflict of interest policies.

We note that you received funding from a commercial source: Pantaleon

Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc.

Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your amended Competing Interests Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

Response: We have updated the Competing Interests Statement to reflect that our affiliation with Pantaleon does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials and have included this in our cover letter.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

Response: We have no changes to address currently.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

6 Feb 2020

Longitudinal trends in renal function among first time sugarcane harvesters in Guatemala

PONE-D-19-32490R1

Dear Dr. Dally,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Davide Bolignano, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Michele Provenzano

27 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-32490R1

Longitudinal trends in renal function among first time sugarcane harvesters in Guatemala

Dear Dr. Dally:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Davide Bolignano

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE