Cross-sectional analysis finds higher urinary sodium correlates with prevalent anemia risk, suggesting dietary adjustments may be beneficial.
Background While excessive dietary sodium intake is an established risk factor for cardiovascular and renal complications, its potential association with anemia remains largely unexplored. Objective We hypothesized that, based on the observed benefits of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in correcting anemia through alterations in renal tubular metabolism and oxygen homeostasis, elevated urinary sodium excretion, as a surrogate of dietary sodium intake, may increase the risk of prevalent anemia. Methods This nationwide cross-sectional study analyzed 54,802 adults from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2014-2023). Participants were stratified by spot urine sodium-to-creatinine ratio (Na+/Cr) quartiles (first quartile [Q1], second quartile [Q2], third quartile [Q3], and fourth quartile [Q4]). Anemia was defined as hemoglobin <13 g/dL for men and <12 g/dL for women. Results Anemia prevalence increased progressively across spot urine Na+/Cr quartiles (Q1: 925/13,700, 6.8%, Q2: 1126/13,701, 8.2%, Q3: 1393/13,701, 10.2%, and Q4: 1893/13,700, 13.8%). Multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that participants in the highest quartile had 43% higher odds of anemia compared with the lowest quartile (adjusted odds ratio 1.429, 95% CI 1.269-1.610; P<.001). Each 1-unit log increase in spot urine Na+/Cr conferred a 67% increase in odds of anemia (adjusted odds ratio 1.674, 95% CI 1.452-1.930; P<.001). Sensitivity analyses using tertiles, quintiles, estimated 24-hour sodium excretion, and restriction to preserved kidney function consistently confirmed these associations. Conclusions Higher urinary sodium excretion exhibits a robust, graded association with increased anemia prevalence in the general population. These findings suggest that dietary sodium restriction may provide additional benefits beyond cardiovascular protection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Suh et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: