Nested case-control study shows higher oxidative-inflammation biomarkers correlate with incident CKD in individuals at high cardiovascular risk, suggesting prevention strategies.
Aim: To assess oxidative–inflammatory biomarker prediction of incident CKD after 1-year follow-up in a population with overweight/obesity and metabolic syndrome. Methods: Prospective nested case–control study comprising 117 CKD incident cases and 117 matched controls free of CKD after 1-year follow-up conducted in 55–75-year-old participants. Controls were time-matched 1:1 to cases by intervention group, age (≤65 vs. >65 years), and sex. Serum creatinine (SCr), cystatin C (CyC), and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) were measured at baseline, and CKD Epidemiology Collaboration equations for Caucasians were used to assess SCr, CyC, and CyC-SCr-based estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR). Baseline levels of malondialdehyde (MDA), carbonyls, tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFα), interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-1ra, IL-6, monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 (MCP-1), and leptin were determined from fasting serum samples. An inflammatory-oxidative stress score based on these biomarkers was calculated. Incident CKD was defined by eGFR-SCr <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, and/or UACR ≥30 mg/g in the absence of CKD at baseline. Results: UACR positively correlated with pro-inflammatory markers (IL-1β; TNFα) and oxidative damage marker (MDA); eGFR-cyC showed negative correlations with IL-1β and IL-1ra, and eGFR-SCr with leptin. The odds ratios (OR; 95% CI) for incident CKD in the highest vs. the lowest tertile of IL-1ra IL-6 and TNFα were (2.22; 1.22–4.04), (7.03; 2.88–17.14), and (3.79; 1.79–8.02), respectively. The inflammatory–oxidative stress score was associated with incident CKD (OR per 1-SD increment: 2.06; 1.49–2.83). Conclusions: Inflammatory/oxidative stress is associated with CKD incidence in individuals with high cardiovascular risk, underscoring the importance in identify early inflammation to prevent this disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Quetglas‐Llabrés et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: