Why the study?
Does cigarette smoking increase the risk of proteinuria in men with Type 2 diabetes?
Does cigarette smoking increase the risk of proteinuria in men with Type 2 diabetes?
There is a clear dose-response relationship between cigarette smoking and the development of proteinuria in men with Type 2 diabetes, reinforcing the urgent need for smoking cessation.
Supports dose-dependent smoking-proteinuria link in type 2 diabetes men; leaves open whether cessation reduces incidence.
AIMS: Cigarette smoking is a well-known risk factor associated with diabetic nephropathy. The objective of this study was to further investigate the dose-response effect of tobacco exposure on proteinuria in males with Type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Five hundred and nine males with Type 2 diabetes were selected from a cohort participating in a glucose control study in Taiwan. Pack-years of cigarette smoking were calculated to define tobacco exposure. Proteinuria was identified if albumin-to-creatinine ratio was > or = 30 mg/g in at least two of three consecutive urine tests. Logistic regression and trend tests were used to delineate the association between smoking status and proteinuria. RESULTS: Compared with non-smokers, those who had smoked 15-30 or more than 30 pack-years were respectively 2.78 (95% CI 1.34-5.76, P < 0.01) and 3.20 (95% CI 1.74-5.86, P < 0.001) times more likely to develop proteinuria. The dose-response effect of tobacco exposure on the development of proteinuria is highly significant in all subjects (P = 0.001) and in subgroups with relatively short duration of diabetes mellitus (P < 0.001), good blood pressure control (P = 0.001) and those of young age (P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The current study shows a clear dose-response effect of cigarette smoking on development of proteinuria in male Type 2 diabetic patients. These findings reinforce the urgent need to encourage diabetic patients to stop smoking regardless of age, duration of diabetes mellitus or status of blood pressure control.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hsu et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: