Sex differences in risk factors for end-stage kidney disease and death in type 2 diabetes: A retrospective cohort study

2Citations
Citations of this article
11Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: This study investigated the sex differences in the risk of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and mortality, as well as the effect modification of sex on associated factors in patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: This multicenter observational cohort study included 4328 patients with type 2 diabetes. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of sex for ESKD and death were estimated using Cox proportional regression with adjustment for baseline covariates. For assessing risk modification, HRs and incidence rates for ESKD and death were compared between sexes across patient characteristics using Cox proportional and Poisson regression models. Results: During a median follow-up of 7 years, 276 patients (70% men) developed ESKD, and 241 patients (68% men) died. Men had higher risks of ESKD (HR 1.34; 95% CI 1.02–1.75; p =.034) and death (HR 1.64; 95% CI 1.24–2.16; p =.001) versus women after adjusting for multiple covariates. Among patients with microalbuminuria, men had a substantially higher risk of ESKD versus women, compared to those with normo- and macroalbuminuria (p for interaction.04). Incidence rates were also increased in men versus women with albuminuria of around 300 mg/g. No differences were detected in the association of sex and death across baseline patient subgroups. Conclusions: In type 2 diabetes, men had an increased risk of ESKD and death versus women. Moderately increased albuminuria was strongly associated with sex difference in developing ESKD.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Oshima, M., Iwata, Y., Toyama, T., Kitajima, S., Hara, A., Sakai, N., … Wada, T. (2023). Sex differences in risk factors for end-stage kidney disease and death in type 2 diabetes: A retrospective cohort study. Journal of Diabetes, 15(3), 246–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-0407.13367

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free