| Literature DB >> 33218070 |
Cecilia J Sorensen1,2,3,4, Lyndsay Krisher1,3,4, Jaime Butler-Dawson1,3,4, Miranda Dally1,3,4, Lynn Dexter1, Claudia Asensio5, Alex Cruz5, Lee S Newman1,3,4,6.
Abstract
An epidemic of chronic kidney disease of unknown origin (CKDu) has emerged in the past two decades in agricultural communities, characterized by progressive renal failure with a dearth of early clinical symptoms. The aim of this study is to improve understanding of the natural history of this disease and to evaluate the impact of an educational and behavioral intervention on the trajectories of renal decline among a cohort of Guatemalan sugarcane workers. We identified groups of workers based on their kidney function during a longitudinal parent study conducted among sugarcane workers during the 2016-2017 harvest season. At the study's first time point in February 2017, workers who developed abnormal kidney function (AKF) (estimated glomerular filtration rate, eGFR, <60 mL/min per 1.73 m2) were placed in the AKF group, workers with reduced kidney function (RKF) (eGFR 60-89) were placed in the RKF group, and workers who maintained normal kidney function (NKF) (eGFR ≥ 90) were placed in the NKF group. As part of the study, a health promotion, behavioral and educational intervention centered on water, electrolytes, rest, and shade (WERS) was provided to all study participants. We then prospectively analyzed renal function at the three study time points in February, March, and April. Additional data collected from previous harvests allowed for retrospective analysis and we compared the rate of change in eGFR over the previous five years (2012 to 2016) for each identified group. Mixed effects linear regression with random intercepts for the workers was used to investigate the difference in rates of change for the three groups and to assess the impact of the intervention study on rate of change of kidney function during the study compared to each group's prior trajectory, utilizing the retrospective data collected during the five years prior to the study intervention. Between 2012 and 2016, eGFR declined at a rate of 0.18 mL/min per 1.73 m2 per year for the NKF group (95% CI: -0.66, 0.29, p = 0.45), 2.02 per year for the RKF group (95% CI: 1.00, 3.03, p = 0.0001) and 7.52 per year for the AKF group (95% CI: 6.01, 9.04, p < 0.0001). All study groups stabilized or improved their trajectory of decline during the intervention. This study supports the need to institute WERS interventions and to include mid-harvest screening protocols and longitudinal tracking of kidney function among sugarcane workers at high risk of CKDu. Early detection of rapid kidney function decline combined with appropriate interventions hold promise for stopping or slowing progression of renal insufficiency among these workers.Entities:
Keywords: Central America; agricultural workers; heat stress; kidney disease; occupational interventions
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33218070 PMCID: PMC7698805 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17228552
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Comparison of 2016 pre-employment data for workers excluded from current study due to missing eGFR values in Febuary 2017 or missing both March and April 2017 values.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Age, years | 30.6 (8.6) | 28.8 (7.9) | 30.7 (8.7) | 0.21 |
| Number of harvests worked | 2.9 (1.2) | 2.8 (1.4) | 2.9 (1.2) | 0.68 |
| Body mass index ( | 23.2 (2.5) | 23.8 (2.7) ( | 23.2 (2.5) ( | 0.17 |
| Creatinine, mg/dL | 0.90 (0.16) | 0.90 (0.12) ( | 0.90 (0.17) ( | 0.96 |
| eGFR, ml/min per 1.73 m2 | 111.1 (16.7) | 113.4 (14.2) ( | 110.9 (16.8) ( | 0.41 |
|
| ||||
| Latino | 145 (30.3%) | 8 (26.7%) | 137 (30.6%) | 0.65 |
| Indigenous | 333 (69.7%) | 22 (73.3%) | 311 (69.4%) | |
| Home residence, | ||||
| Local (Zona) | 330 (63.8%) | 11 (32.4%) | 319 (66.1%) | <0.0001 |
| Highland (Altiplano) | 187 (36.2%) | 23 (67.7%) | 164 (33.9%) | |
|
| ||||
| Cane Cutter | 418 (80.9%) | 32 (94.1%) | 386 (79.9%) | 0.04 |
| Production Worker | 99 (19.2%) | 2 (5.9%) | 97 (20.1%) | |
| Smoking, | 52 (11.0%) | 4 (13.8%) ( | 48 (10.2%) ( | 0.55 ** |
| Mild hypertension *, | 162 (33.9%) | 8 (26.7%) ( | 154 (34.4%) ( | 0.39 |
| Alcohol intake, | 45 (9.5%) | 4 (13.3%) ( | 41 (9.2%) ( | 0.51 ** |
|
| ||||
| Municipal | 369 (77.4%) | 24 (80.0%) | 345 (77.2%) | 0.53 |
| Well | 90 (18.9%) | 4 (13.3%) | 86 (19.2%) | |
| Surface Water | 18 (3.8%) | 2 (6.7%) | 16 (3.6%) | |
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| ||
| February eGFR, ml/min per 1.73 m2 | 110.3 (24.7) | 113.1 (30.7) | 110.2 (24.4) | 0.56 |
* Mild hypertension: systolic blood pressure = 130–139 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure = 80–89 mmHg. ** Fisher’s Exact Text. *** Missing 8 values from cohort of 517 study workers with no 2017 February morning eGFR data.
Figure A1Work history of study participants.
Figure 1Study Design and Management of Study Screening Creatinine Outcomes. WERS: water, electrolytes, rest, and shade.
Baseline * Pre-Harvest Demographic and Clinical Characteristics by Assigned Kidney Function Group.
| Characteristics | All Workers ( | AKF Workers ( | RKF Workers ( | NKF Workers ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | ||
| Age, years | 28.6 (8.5) | 29.2 (6.7) | 33.5 (8.7) | 27.7 (8.2) | <0.0001 |
| Number of harvests worked | 2.9 (1.2) | 3.5 (1.3) | 3.1 (1.3) | 2.8 (1.2) | 0.01 |
| Body mass index, kg/m2 ( | 23.1 (2.6) | 23.4 (2.6) ( | 23.8 (2.7) ( | 23.0 (2.5) ( | 0.11 |
| eGFR, ml/min per 1.73 m2 | 112.38 (15.02) | 102.6 (18.4) | 102.2 (17.4) | 114.8 (13.3) | <0.0001 |
|
| |||||
| Latino | 137 (30.6%) | 3 (15.0%) ( | 24 (36.4%) ( | 110 (30.4%) ( | 0.19 |
| Indigenous | 311 (69.4%) | 17 (85.0%) | 42 (63.6%) | 252 (69.6%) | |
|
| |||||
| Local (Zona) | 319 (66.1%) | 19 (86.4%) | 57 (81.4%) | 243 (62.2%) | 0.0009 |
| Highland (Altiplano) | 164 (34.0%) | 3 (13.6%) | 13 (18.6%) | 148 (37.9%) | |
|
| |||||
| Cane Cutter | 386 (79.9%) | 19 (86.4%) | 59 (84.3%) | 308 (78.8%) | 0.42 |
| Production Worker | 97 (20.1%) | 3 (13.6%) | 11 (15.7%) | 83 (21.2%) | |
| Mild hypertension ** | 120 (49.4%) | 8 (57.1%) ( | 14 (34.2%) ( | 98 (52.1%) ( | 0.09 |
| Smoking, | 29 (9.2%) | 3 (18.8%) ( | 9 (18.4%) ( | 17 (6.8%) ( | 0.01 *** |
| Alcohol intake, | 22 (6.9%) | 2 (12.5%) ( | 6 (12.2%) ( | 14 (5.6%) ( | 0.11 *** |
* Baseline is defined as the first-recorded harvest worked between the years 2012–2016. ** Mild hypertension: systolic blood pressure = 130–139 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure = 80–89 mmHg. *** Fisher’s Exact Test.
Mixed effects linear regression analyses showing yearly rate of decline in eGFR by kidney function group, 2012–2016 harvest seasons, N = 479 *.
| Effect | Estimate (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| NKF ( | −0.18 (−0.66, 0.29) | 0.451 |
| RKF ( | −2.02 (−3.03, −1.00) | 0.0001 |
| AKF ( | −7.52 (−9.04, −6.01) | <0.0001 |
* Models controlled for baseline age, baseline eGFR, and home residence.
Mixed effects linear regression analyses showing annual change in eGFR values between kidney function groups, 2012–2016 harvest seasons, N = 479 *.
| Group Comparisons | Rate of Yearly Change in eGFR, Between Group Comparisons | |
|---|---|---|
| NKF, | Effect (95% CI) | |
| RKF, | ||
| AKF, | ||
| RKF vs. NKF | −1.83 (−2.95, −0.71) | 0.0014 |
| AKF vs. NKF | −7.34 (−8.93, −5.76) | <0.0001 |
| AKF vs. RKF | −5.51 (−7.33, −3.69) | <0.0001 |
* Models controlled for baseline age, baseline eGFR, and home residence.
Figure 2Fitted regression line showing annual change in eGFR values between kidney function groups, 2012–2016 harvest seasons.
2016 Pre-Harvest Demographic and Clinical Characteristics by Assigned Kidney Function Group.
| Characteristics | All Workers ( | AKF Workers ( | RKF Workers ( | NKF Workers ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | ||
| Age, years | 30.7 (8.7) | 32.2 (6.5) | 36.0 (8.8) | 29.7 (8.4) | <0.0001 |
| Body mass index, kg/m2 ( | 23.2 (2.5) | 22.8 (1.5) ( | 23.5 (2.5) ( | 23.1 (2.6) ( | 0.46 |
| Creatinine, mg/dL | 0.90 (0.17) | 1.27 (0.22) | 1.00 (0.17) | 0.86 (0.12) | <0.0001 |
| eGFR, ml/min per 1.73 m2 | 110.9 (16.8) | 77.3 (19.5) | 96.9 (16.4) | 115.4 (12.8) | <0.0001 |
| Mild hypertension *, | 154 (34.4%) | 5 (25.0%) ( | 29 (43.9%) ( | 120 (33.2%) ( | 0.16 |
| Smoking, | 48 (10.8%) | 4 (20%) ( | 6 (9.1%) ( | 38 (10.6%) ( | 0.37 |
| Alcohol intake, | 41 (9.2%) | 3 (15.0%) ( | 6 (9.1%) ( | 32 (8.9%) ( | 0.66 |
|
| |||||
| Municipal | 345 (77.2%) | 13 (65.0%) | 55 (84.6%) | 277 (76.5%) | 0.19 ** |
| Well | 86 (19.2%) | 6 (30.0%) | 10 (15.4%) | 70 (19.3%) | |
| Surface Water | 16 (3.6%) | 1 (5.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 15 (4.1%) | |
* Mild hypertension: systolic blood pressure =130–139 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure = 80–89 mmHg. ** Fisher’s Exact Test.
Mixed effects linear regression analysis of cross-season changes in eGFR values by kidney function group in the 2016-2017 harvest season, N = 448 *.
| Rate of Change in eGFR | NKF ( | RKF ( | AKF ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-intervention (August 2016–February 2017), ml/min/1.73m2 (95% CI) | 0.71 (0.41, 1.02) | <0.0001 | −3.36 (−4.08, −2.64) | <0.0001 | −4.37 (−5.68, −3.06) | <0.0001 |
| Post-intervention (February–April 2017), ml/min/1.73m2 (95% CI) | 1.31 (−0.61, 3.23) | 0.181 | 6.05 (1.55, 10.54) | 0.008 | 5.62 (−2.65, 13.89) | 0.183 |
| Difference in monthly rate of eGFR change between pre-intervention and post-intervention (95% CI) | 0.60 (−1.34, 2.54) | 0.548 | 9.41 (4.85, 13.96) | <0.0001 | 9.99 (1.62, 18.36) | 0.019 |
* Models controlled for 2016 pre-harvest age, BMI, mild hypertension, and home residence. Missing blood pressure data on 35 workers. Mild hypertension: systolic blood pressure = 130–139 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure = 80–89 mmHg.
Figure 3Loess line graph of change in pre-shift eGFR by kidney function group, pre- and post-WERS intervention during 2016–2017 harvest season.
Figure A2Change in eGFR, all subjects, by subject group, pre- and post-WERS intervention during 2016–2017 harvest season.