| Literature DB >> 35999502 |
Wushan Pan1, Yong Han2,3, Haofei Hu4,5, Yongcheng He6.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Anemia has been reported as a risk factor for chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression. However, there are still few studies examining the relationship between specific hemoglobin (Hb) levels and renal prognosis and renal function decline simultaneously. Meanwhile, the possible non-linear relationship between Hb and CKD progression also deserves further exploration. On that account, our primary goal is to explore the link of Hb on renal prognosis and renal function decline in patients with CKD.Entities:
Keywords: Chronic kidney disease; Cox proportional-hazards model; Hemoglobin; Non-linear; Progression; linear regression model
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35999502 PMCID: PMC9400271 DOI: 10.1186/s12882-022-02920-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Nephrol ISSN: 1471-2369 Impact factor: 2.585
Fig. 1Flowchart of study participants. Figure 1 showed the inclusion of patients. 1,138 patients were assessed for eligibility in the original study. We excluded patients with missing values of Hb(n = 2), and follow-up time was less than 3 months (n = 174). The final analysis included 962 subjects in the present study
Baseline characteristics of all the patients at enrollment (n = 962)
| HB | Q1 (< 10.4) | Q2(10.4–12.0) | Q3(12.0–13.6) | Q4(≥ 13.6) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 231 | 232 | 247 | 252 | ||
| 71.54 ± 12.13 | 69.02 ± 13.27 | 67.03 ± 13.00 | 62.30 ± 14.03 | < 0.001 | |
| 140.81 ± 21.86 | 140.14 ± 22.19 | 136.89 ± 20.74 | 139.83 ± 22.53 | 0.206 | |
| 23.15 ± 4.46 | 23.78 ± 4.05 | 23.54 ± 3.91 | 24.50 ± 3.78 | 0.002 | |
| 9.19 ± 0.94 | 11.14 ± 0.45 | 12.76 ± 0.46 | 14.84 ± 0.99 | < 0.001 | |
| 3.53 ± 0.61 | 3.77 ± 0.54 | 4.01 ± 0.52 | 4.15 ± 0.56 | < 0.001 | |
| 2.65 (1.91–3.99) | 2.08 (1.50–2.92) | 1.43 (1.10–1.96) | 1.25 (1.06–1.55) | < 0.001 | |
| 19.83 ± 12.94 | 25.93 ± 13.25 | 37.53 ± 16.00 | 47.28 ± 15.64 | < 0.001 | |
| 1.75 (0.53–4.50) | 1.22 (0.21–3.15) | 0.28 (0.07–1.57) | 0.27 (0.05–1.07) | < 0.001 | |
| < 0.001 | |||||
| | 126 (54.55%) | 148 (63.79%) | 171 (69.23%) | 225 (89.29%) | |
| | 105 (45.45%) | 84 (36.21%) | 76 (30.77%) | 27 (10.71%) | |
| < 0.001 | |||||
| | 93 (40.26%) | 74 (31.90%) | 45 (18.22%) | 32 (12.70%) | |
| | 79 (34.20%) | 84 (36.21%) | 114 (46.15%) | 108 (42.86%) | |
| | 30 (12.99%) | 40 (17.24%) | 43 (17.41%) | 65 (25.79%) | |
| | 29 (12.55%) | 34 (14.66%) | 45 (18.22%) | 47 (18.65%) | |
| 71 (30.74%) | 101 (43.53%) | 70 (28.34%) | 68 (26.98%) | < 0.001 | |
| 220 (95.24%) | 217 (93.53%) | 220 (89.07%) | 209 (82.94%) | < 0.001 | |
| 83 (35.93%) | 70 (30.17%) | 56 (22.67%) | 49 (19.44%) | < 0.001 | |
| 112 (48.48%) | 97 (41.81%) | 90 (36.44%) | 65 (25.79%) | < 0.001 | |
| 156 (67.53%) | 175 (75.43%) | 160 (64.78%) | 135 (53.57%) | < 0.001 | |
| 127 (54.98%) | 121 (52.16%) | 117 (47.37%) | 94 (37.30%) | < 0.001 | |
| 123 (53.25%) | 81 (34.91%) | 60 (24.29%) | 48 (19.05%) | < 0.001 |
Continuous variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation and median with interquartile ranges. Categorical data are presented as numbers and percentages
Abbreviations: BMI Body mass index, Scr Serum creatinine, SBP Systolic blood pressure, HB Hemoglobin, ALB Serum albumin, CVD Cardiovascular disease, CKD Chronic kidney disease, eGFR estimated glomerular filtration rate, RAAS Renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system, UPCR Urinary protein/creatinine ratio, g/gCr gram per gram creatinine
Fig. 2Distribution of hemoglobin. Figure 2. It presented a normal hemoglobin distribution while being in the range from 5.9 to 18.0 g/dL, with an average of 12.1 g/dL
Fig. 3Data visualization of hemoglobin of all participants from the renal composite endpoint and non- renal composite endpoint groups. Figure 3 indicated that the distribution level of Hb in the renal composite endpoint group was lower. In contrast, the Hb level in the non-renal composite endpoint group was relatively higher
Fig. 4The renal composite endpoint incidence rate of age stratification by 20 intervals. Figure 4 showed that in age stratification by 20 intervals, when age < 60, male subjects had a higher incidence of renal composite endpoint than female subjects. In contrast, when age > 60, male subjects had a lower incidence of renal composite endpoint than female subjects
Incidence rate of the renal composite endpoint
| HB | Participants(n) | Renal composite endpoint events(n) | Incidence rate(95% CI)(%) | Cumulative incidence( Per 100 person-year) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 962 | 252 | 26.20(23.41–28.98) | 0.99 | |
| 231 | 112 | 48.48(41.99–54.98) | 2.33 | |
| 232 | 81 | 34.91(28.73–41.09) | 1.37 | |
| 247 | 42 | 17.00(12.29–21.72) | 0.58 | |
| 252 | 17 | 6.75(3.63–9.86) | 0.23 | |
| < 0.0001 |
Fig. 5Incidence of renal composite endpoint according to the quintiles of hemoglobin. Figure 5. Compared with the lowest Hb group, participants with a high Hb had a lower incidence of the renal composite endpoint (p < 0.0001 for trend)
The results of univariate analysis for renal prognosis
| Variable | Statistics | Effect size HR(95%CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 67.352 ± 13.558 | 0.992 (0.983, 1.001) | 0.07672 | |
| | 670 (69.647%) | 1.0 | |
| | 292 (30.353%) | 1.064 (0.816, 1.385) | 0.64813 |
| | 244 (25.364%) | 1.0 | |
| | 385 (40.021%) | 0.185 (0.136, 0.254) | < 0.00001 |
| | 178 (18.503%) | 0.295 (0.208, 0.419) | < 0.00001 |
| | 155 (16.112%) | 0.174 (0.110, 0.277) | < 0.00001 |
| | 23.756 ± 4.072 | 1.027 (0.995, 1.059) | 0.09929 |
| | 139.388 ± 21.853 | 1.017 (1.012, 1.022) | < 0.00001 |
| | 12.055 ± 2.213 | 0.691 (0.651, 0.733) | < 0.00001 |
| | 2.144 ± 1.469 | 1.449 (1.396, 1.505) | < 0.00001 |
| | 33.037 ± 18.007 | 0.917 (0.906, 0.929) | < 0.00001 |
| | 3.874 ± 0.605 | 0.349 (0.299, 0.407) | < 0.00001 |
| | 652 (67.775%) | 1.0 | |
| | 310 (32.225%) | 1.658 (1.290, 2.130) | 0.00008 |
| | 2.037 ± 3.189 | 1.208 (1.183, 1.234) | < 0.00001 |
| | 96 (9.979%) | 1.0 | |
| | 866 (90.021%) | 4.070 (1.920, 8.627) | 0.00025 |
| | 704 (73.181%) | 1.0 | |
| | 258 (26.819%) | 1.262 (0.962, 1.655) | 0.09277 |
| | 598 (62.162%) | 1.0 | |
| | 364 (37.838%) | 2.699 (2.101, 3.466) | < 0.00001 |
| | 336 (34.927%) | 1.0 | |
| | 626 (65.073%) | 1.727 (1.293, 2.308) | 0.00022 |
| | 503 (52.287%) | 1.0 | |
| | 459 (47.713%) | 1.724 (1.338, 2.221) | 0.00002 |
| | 650 (67.568%) | 1.0 | |
| | 312 (32.432%) | 2.197 (1.715, 2.815) | < 0.00001 |
Fig. 6Kaplan–Meier event-free survival curve. Figure 6. Kaplan–Meier event-free survival curve. Kaplan–Meier analysis of incident renal composite endpoint-free survival based on Hb groups (log-rank, P < 0.0001)
Relationship between HB and the renal composite endpoint in different models
| Crude model (HR,95%CI, P) | Model I(HR,95%CI, P) | Model II (HR,95%CI, P) | Model III (HR,95%CI, P) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.691 (0.651, 0.733) < 0.00001 | 0.681 (0.640, 0.725) < 0.00001 | 0.836 (0.770, 0.907) 0.00002 | 0.863 (0.790, 0.944) 0.00123 | |
| | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| | 0.569 (0.427, 0.758) 0.00012 | 0.572 (0.426, 0.769) 0.00022 | 0.713 (0.518, 0.981) 0.03764 | 0.978 (0.697, 1.373) 0.89912 |
| | 0.237 (0.166, 0.338) < 0.00001 | 0.241 (0.167, 0.349) < 0.00001 | 0.522 (0.348, 0.783) 0.00168 | 0.743 (0.483, 1.142) 0.17528 |
| | 0.093 (0.056, 0.154) < 0.00001 | 0.082 (0.048, 0.139) < 0.00001 | 0.332 (0.181, 0.610) 0.00038 | 0.382 (0.203, 0.719) 0.00286 |
| | < 0.00001 | < 0.00001 | 0.00005 | 0.00669 |
Crude model: we did not adjust other covariants
Model I: we adjust age, gender, BMI, SBP, hypertension, diabetes, and history of CVD
Model II: we adjust age, gender, BMI, SBP, hypertension, diabetes, history of CVD, UPCR, eGFR, ALB, urinary occult blood, use of RAAS inhibitor, use of calcium channel blocker, use of diuretics
CI Confidence, Ref Reference
Model III: we adjust age(smooth), gender, BMI(smooth), SBP(smooth), hypertension, diabetes, history of CVD, UPCR(smooth), eGFR(smooth), ALB(smooth), urinary occult blood, use of RAAS inhibitor, use of calcium channel blocker, use of diuretics
HR Hazard ratios, CI Confidence, Ref Reference
Relationship between HB and the renal composite endpoint in different models with competing risk of mortality
| Crude model (SHR,95%CI, P) | Model I(SHR,95%CI, P) | Model II (SHR,95%CI, P) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.69 (0.65, 0.73) < 0.0001 | 0.68 (0.64, 0.72) < 0.0001 | 0.84 (0.77, 0.91) < 0.0001 | |
| | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| | 0.57(0.43, 0.76) 0.0001 | 0.57 (0.43, 0.77) 0.0002 | 0.72 (0.53, 0.99) 0.0462 |
| | 0.24 (0.17, 0.34) < 0.0001 | 0.24 (0.17, 0.35) < 0.0001 | 0.53 (0.35, 0.79) 0.0019 |
| | 0.09 (0.06, 0.15) < 0.0001 | 0.08 (0.05, 0.14) < 0.00001 | 0.34(0.18, 0.62) 0.0004 |
| | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 |
Crude model: we did not adjust other covariants
Model I: we adjust age, gender, BMI, SBP, hypertension, diabetes, and history of CVD
Model II: we adjust age, gender, BMI, SBP, hypertension, diabetes, history of CVD, UPCR, eGFR, ALB, urinary occult blood, use of RAAS inhibitor, use of calcium channel blocker, use of diuretics
SHR Subdistribution hazard ratios, CI Confidence, Ref Reference
Relationship between Hb and renal function decline in different models
| Crude model (β,95%CI, P) | Model I (β,95%CI, P) | Model II (β,95%CI, P) | Model III (β,95%CI, P) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -0.298 (-0.551, -0.045) 0.02118 | -0.340 (-0.620, -0.061) 0.01731 | -0.436 (-0.778, -0.093) 0.01288 | -0.428 (-0.777, -0.079) 0.01638 | |
| | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| | 0.767 (-0.847, 2.381) 0.35164 | 0.789 (-0.802, 2.381) 0.33126 | 0.745 (-0.876, 2.365) 0.36799 | 0.976 (-0.631, 2.583) 0.23427 |
| | -0.186 (-1.775, 1.404) 0.81898 | 0.205 (-1.414, 1.825) 0.80377 | -0.163 (-1.949, 1.623) 0.85844 | 0.059 (-1.719, 1.837) 0.94813 |
| | -1.322 (-2.903, 0.260) 0.10184 | -1.509 (-3.250, 0.232) 0.08964 | -2.118 (-4.201, -0.034) 0.04661 | -1.795 (-3.868, 0.278) 0.08996 |
| | 0.05020 | 0.07445 | 0.04345 | 0.06906 |
Crude model: we did not adjust other covariants
Model I: we adjust age, gender, BMI, SBP, hypertension, diabetes, history of CVD, and etiology of CKD
Model II: we adjust age, gender, BMI, SBP, hypertension, diabetes, etiology of CKD, history of CVD, UPCR, eGFR, ALB, urinary occult blood, use of RAAS inhibitor, use of calcium channel blocker, use of diuretics
CI Confidence, Ref Reference
Model III: we adjust age(smooth), gender, BMI(smooth), SBP(smooth), hypertension, etiology of CKD, diabetes, history of CVD, UPCR(smooth), eGFR(smooth), ALB(smooth), urinary occult blood, use of RAAS inhibitor, use of calcium channel blocker, use of diuretics
CI Confidence, Ref Reference
Relationship between Hb and renal prognosis and renal function decline in different sensitivity analyses
| Exposure | Model I(HR,95%CI, P) | Model II (β,95%CI, P) |
|---|---|---|
| Hb | 0.837 (0.757, 0.926) 0.00053 | -0.408 (-0.789, -0.027) 0.03608 |
| Hb Quartile | ||
| Q1 | Ref | Ref |
| Q2 | 0.928 (0.586, 1.470) 0.75033 | 0.680 (-1.351, 2.711) 0.51203 |
| Q3 | 0.600 (0.352, 1.021) 0.05944 | -0.009 (-2.116, 2.097) 0.99313 |
| Q4 | 0.380 (0.193, 0.748) 0.00508 | -1.789 (-4.141, 0.563) 0.13641 |
| P for trend | 0.00195 | 0.07496 |
| Hb | 0.622 (0.474, 0.815) 0.00058 | -0.201 (-0.625, 0.223) 0.35305 |
| Hb Quartile | ||
| Q1 | Ref | Ref |
| Q2 | 0.380 (0.140, 1.029) 0.05683 | 0.956 (-1.518, 3.429) 0.44930 |
| Q3 | 0.172 (0.044, 0.678) 0.01188 | 0.014 (-2.370, 2.398) 0.99059 |
| Q4 | 0.145 (0.022, 0.946) 0.04357 | -0.396 (-3.061, 2.269) 0.77110 0.49540 |
| P for trend | 0.0066 | |
Model I was a sensitivity analysis of the relationship between Hb and renal prognosis. We adjusted age, gender, BMI, SBP, hypertension, diabetes, history of CVD, UPCR, eGFR, ALB, urinary occult blood, use of RAAS inhibitor, use of calcium channel blocker, use of diuretics
Model II was a sensitivity analysis of the relationship between Hb and kidney function decline. We adjusted age, gender, BMI, SBP, hypertension, diabetes, history of CVD, UPCR, eGFR, ALB, urinary occult blood, use of RAAS inhibitor, use of calcium channel blocker, use of diuretics
HR Harzard ratios, CI Confidence, Ref Reference
Fig. 7The non-linear relationship between hemoglobin and the risk of CKD progression. A We used a Cox proportional hazards regression model with cubic spline functions and smooth curve fitting (penalized spline method) to evaluate the relationship between Hb and renal prognosis. The result showed that the relationship between Hb and the renal prognosis was non-linear after adjusting for age, gender, BMI, SBP, hypertension, diabetes, history of CVD, UPCR, eGFR, ALB, urinary occult blood, use of RAAS inhibitor, use of calcium channel blocker and use of diuretics. B We also used a GAM and smooth curve fitting to evaluate the relationship between Hb and the annual decline in eGFR. The result showed that there was no non-linear relationship between hemoglobin and the annual decline in eGFR
The result of the two-piecewise Cox regression model and linear regression model
| Fitting model by two-piecewise Cox regression | |
| Inflection point of Hb | 8.6 g/dL |
| ≤ 8.6 g/dL | 1.257 (0.841, 1.878) 0.2650 |
| > 8.6 g/dL | 0.789 (0.715, 0.870) < 0.0001 |
| P for log-likelihood ratio test | 0.026 |
| Fitting model by two-piecewise linear regression | |
| Inflection point of Hb | 15.5 g/dL |
| ≤ 15.5 g/dL | -0.551 (-0.920, -0.182) 0.0035 |
| > 15.5 g/dL | 1.527 (-0.830, 3.883) 0.2045 |
| P for log-likelihood ratio test | 0.096 |
HR Hazard ratios, CI Confidence interval
We adjusted age, gender, BMI, SBP, hypertension, diabetes, history of CVD, UPCR, eGFR, ALB, urinary occult blood, use of RAAS inhibitor, use of calcium channel blocker, and use of diuretics
Results of subgroup analysis and interaction analysis
| Characteristic | participants | HR (95%CI) P for interacion | β(95%CI) P for interacion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age(years) | 0.6636 | 0.5920 | |
| < 60(years) | 218 | 0.859 (0.747, 0.988) | -0.308 (-0.881, 0.264) |
| ≥ 60(years) | 744 | 0.829 (0.751, 0.914) | -0.466 (-0.831, -0.102) |
| Gender | 0.8543 | 0.6664 | |
| Male | 670 | 0.844 (0.766, 0.930) | -0.480 (-0.868, -0.092) |
| Female | 292 | 0.831 (0.722, 0.956) | -0.304 (-1.026, 0.417) |
| Urinary occult blood | 0.1975 | 0.5015 | |
| No | 652 | 0.874 (0.786, 0.972) | -0.380 (-0.760, -0.001) |
| Yes | 310 | 0.788 (0.697, 0.892) | -0.566 (-1.080, -0.052) |
| BMI(kg/m2) | 0.5280 | 0.1642 | |
| < 23.5 | 492 | 0.825 (0.737, 0.924) | -0.715 (-1.168, -0.262) |
| ≥ 23.5 | 470 | 0.866 (0.775, 0.968) | -0.304 (-0.752, 0.144) |
| SBP(mmHg) | 0.0276 | 0.3823 | |
| < 140 | 514 | 0.741 (0.651, 0.843) | -0.317 (-0.740, 0.107) |
| ≥ 140 | 448 | 0.871 (0.791, 0.959) | -0.536 (-0.961, -0.111) |
| UPCR (g/gCr) | 0.0145 | 0.2201 | |
| < 0.5 | 458 | 0.683 (0.548, 0.851) | -0.217 (-0.742, 0.308) |
| ≥ 0.5 | 504 | 0.903 (0.832, 0.981) | -0.637 (-1.075, -0.199) |
| Etiology of CKD | 0.3714 | 0.9391 | |
| Diabetic nephropathy | 44 | 0.781 (0.692, 0.881) | -0.498 (-1.049, 0.053) |
| Nephrosclerosis | 85 | 0.943 (0.786, 1.130) | -0.391 (-0.846, 0.064) |
| Glomerulonephritis | 178 | 0.799 (0.605, 1.055) | -0.566 (-1.227, 0.096) |
| Other | 155 | 0.868 (0.613, 1.230) | -0.338 (-0.990, 0.314) |
| Use of RAAS inhibitor | 0.9565 | 0.7207 | |
| No | 336 | 0.830 (0.712, 0.967) | -0.496 (-0.974, -0.018) |
| Yes | 626 | 0.834 (0.761, 0.913) | -0.404 (-0.789, -0.018) |
| Hypertension | 0.0173 | 0.6052 | |
| No | 96 | 0.435 (0.257, 0.734) | -0.716 (-1.657, 0.225) |
| Yes | 866 | 0.842 (0.775, 0.915) | -0.457 (-0.823, -0.091) |
| History of CVD | 0.0978 | 0.1901 | |
| No | 704 | 0.862 (0.787, 0.944) | -0.323 (-0.706, 0.059) |
| Yes | 258 | 0.755 (0.652, 0.874) | -0.694 (-1.212, -0.175) |
| Diabetes | 0.7648 | 0.1948 | |
| No | 598 | 0.819 (0.728, 0.922) | -0.592 (-1.005, -0.179) |
| Yes | 364 | 0.837 (0.759, 0.923) | -0.208 (-0.697, 0.280) |
| Use of calcium channel blocker | 0.2353 | 0.7644 | |
| No | 503 | 0.791 (0.698, 0.897) | -0.474 (-0.901, -0.047) |
| Yes | 459 | 0.869 (0.783, 0.965) | -0.398 (-0.821, 0.024) |
| Use of diuretics | 0.0271 | 0.3428 | |
| No | 650 | 0.903 (0.811, 1.005) | -0.615 (-1.010, -0.220) |
| Yes | 312 | 0.761 (0.676, 0.856) | -0.329 (-0.854, 0.195) |
| ALB(g/dL) | 0.8595 | 0.1032 | |
| < 4 | 465 | 0.837 (0.768, 0.911) | -0.716 (-1.129, -0.303) |
| ≥ 4 | 497 | 0.852 (0.711, 1.021) | -0.280 (-0.718, 0.159) |
Note 1:Above model adjusted for age, gender, BMI, SBP, hypertension, diabetes, history of CVD, UPCR, eGFR, ALB, urinary occult blood, use of RAAS inhibitor, use of calcium channel blocker, and use of diuretics
Note 2:In each case, the model is not adjusted for the stratification variable