Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Oct 26;18(10):e0293459. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293459

Relationship between evacuation after the Great East Japan Earthquake and new-onset hyperuricemia: A 7-year prospective longitudinal study of the Fukushima Health Management Survey

Kazuya Honda 1,2,#, Kanako Okazaki 3,4,5,#, Kenichi Tanaka 1,6,*, Eri Kobari 1,, Sakumi Kazama 3,6,, Shigeatsu Hashimoto 2,3,, Tetsuya Ohira 3,5,#, Akira Sakai 3,7,, Seiji Yasumura 3,8,, Masaharu Maeda 3,9,, Hirooki Yabe 3,10,, Mitsuaki Hosoya 3,11,, Atsushi Takahashi 3,12,, Mayumi Harigane 3,, Hironori Nakano 3,5,, Fumikazu Hayashi 3,5,, Masanori Nagao 3,5,, Michio Shimabukuro 3,13,, Hitoshi Ohto 3,, Kenji Kamiya 3,14,, Junichiro J Kazama 1,3,6,
Editor: Mohammad Reza Mahmoodi15
PMCID: PMC10602330  PMID: 37883474

Abstract

Introduction

On March 11, 2011, the Great East Japan Earthquake occurred in Japan, with a nuclear accident subsequently occurring at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. The disaster forced many evacuees to change particular aspects of their lifestyles. However, the effect of evacuation on the new-onset of hyperuricemia have not been sufficiently elucidated. This study assessed the association between evacuation and new-onset hyperuricemia after the earthquake based on the Fukushima Health Management Survey from a lifestyle and socio-psychological perspective.

Materials and methods

This is a 7-year prospective longitudinal study included 18,140 residents (6,961 men and 11,179 women) with non-hyperuricemia who underwent both the Comprehensive Health Check and the Mental Health and Lifestyle Survey in fiscal year 2011. Associations between new-onset hyperuricemia and lifestyle- and disaster-related factors, including evacuation, were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model analysis. Hyperuricemia was defined as uric acid levels > 7.0 mg/dL for men and > 6.0 mg/dL for women.

Results

During a median follow-up of 4.3 years, 2,996 participants (1,608 men, 23.1%, 1,388 women, 12.4%) newly developed hyperuricemia. Significant associations were observed between evacuation and onset of hyperuricemia in women (adjusted hazard ratio 1.18, 95% confidence interval, 1.05–1.32, p = 0.007), but not in men (adjusted hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval, 0.99–1.24, p = 0.067).

Discussion

Evacuation after a natural disaster is an independent risk factor for the new-onset of hyperuricemia in women. The possibility of hyperuricemia developing in response to natural disasters should be considered.

Introduction

Uric acid is an oxidative end product of purine metabolism and a potent antioxidant. In humans, about half of the antioxidants in plasma are uric acid [1]. Therefore, uric acid is an essential substance for humans. In fact, there is a certain correlation between uric acid levels and lifespan in primates [2]. However, hyperuricemia has been reported to increase the risk of end-stage renal failure [3], cardiovascular disease, and death [48]. In addition to hypertension [911], hyperuricemia is also associated with obesity, diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia [12], a condition deeply related to lifestyle habits, such as alcohol consumption and diet.

On March 11, 2011, the Great East Japan Earthquake, registering 9.0 on the moment magnitude scale, occurred in Japan. The earthquake provoked a tsunami that struck the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, resulting in more than 160,000 Fukushima Prefecture residents being evacuated to other parts of Japan as well as abroad.

Evacuation immediately following a major disaster leads to significant lifestyle changes, particularly changes in housing, family structure, and employment; it also causes stress, insomnia, and decreased physical activity [1315]. These changes can result in increased body weight, which is associated with an increase in lifestyle-related diseases and hyperuricemia [1620]. Recently, we reported a cross-sectional study that suggested that evacuation after the Great East Japan Earthquake had significant and positive associations with uric acid levels both in men and women [21]. However, to date, no study has analyzed the effect of evacuation on the new-onset of hyperuricemia adjusting for physical and socio-psychological factors, and it is still unclear whether evacuation after an earthquake is related to the increased risk for hyperuricemia, in spite the fact that hyperuricemia could be a crucial comorbidity associated with mortality, cardiovascular disease, and end-stage kidney disease. Therefore, revealing the relationship of evacuation to hyperuricemia is needed in health assessment for the victims after a natural disaster. The purpose of the present study was to validate the relationship between evacuation and new-onset hyperuricemia after a disaster using long-term longitudinal data of a 7-year follow-up in the Fukushima Health Management Survey (FHMS).

Materials and methods

Study population

The subjects of this study were Japanese men and women living near the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Fukushima prefecture, in communities including Tamura City (2010 Census population, 42,085), Minami-Soma City (71,661), Kawamata-machi (16,065), Hironomachi (5495), Naraha-machi (7927), Tomioka-machi (15,854), Kawauchi-mura (3074), Okuma-machi (11,553), Futaba-machi (7171), Namie-machi (21,551), Katsurao-mura (1582), Iitate-mura (6584) and Date City (67,684), with a total 2010 population of 278,286. After the disaster, the government designated the 20-km radius around the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant a restricted area requiring compulsory evacuation. The government subsequently designated the 20- to 30-km area around the plant as an evacuation-prepared area in case of emergency, and areas near the 30-km radius where high-level radiation exposure was expected (>20 mSv/y) as deliberate evacuation areas (evacuation over a period of roughly one month). As a result, all residents of Hirono-machi, Naraha-machi, Tomioka-machi, Kawauchi-mura, Okuma-machi, Futaba-machi, Namie-machi, Katsurao-mura, and Iitate-mura evacuated from their homes; this was also the case for some areas of Tamura City, Minami-Soma City, Kawamata-machi, and Date City.

In this study, a total of 123,314 residents (62,161 men and 61,153 women) between 40 and 74 years old were registered from the above areas in fiscal year 2011. A total of 33,559 participants (14,135 men and 19,424 women) aged 40 to 74 years completed the Comprehensive Health Check of the FHMS in fiscal year 2011. Among them, 9,502 participants who did not respond to the Mental Health and Lifestyle Survey and nine participants without serum uric acid data were excluded. Moreover, those who met the diagnosis of hyperuricemia at baseline, those who did not undergo the Comprehensive Health Check of the FHMS from fiscal years 2012 to 2017, and participants without evacuation status data were excluded (5,908 participants). Thus, 18,140 participants (6,961 men and 11,179 women) were included in the final analysis (Fig 1). This corresponded to approximately 14.7% of the population between 40 and 74 years of age who were registered in the above areas in fiscal year 2011 (approximately 11.2% of men and 18.3% of women). The Comprehensive Health Check, which was conducted by the FHMS, evaluated subjective symptoms, family history, smoking and drinking history, and laboratory findings, such as blood counts, liver function, kidney function, and lipids. Detailed descriptions of the survey methods have been summarized in previous literature [13]. The Mental Health and Lifestyle Survey was conducted by the FHMS to evaluate changes in mental status and living conditions after the disaster.

Fig 1. Consort diagram displaying how individuals were recruited and studied during the trial.

Fig 1

This study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine (approval numbers 1319, 2020–239, 29064) and conformed to the ethical guidelines of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki. The need for consent from participant was waived by Ethics Committee by obtaining consent from community representatives to conduct an epidemiological study based on the guidelines of the Council for International Organizations of Medical Science [22].

Study design

This was a prospective longitudinal study. The primary outcome was new-onset of hyperuricemia defined as serum uric acid levels > 7.0 mg/dL for men and > 6.0 mg/dL for women, respectively. Those who did not have hyperuricemia as of fiscal year 2011 were followed until fiscal year 2017 to examine the factors associated with new-onset hyperuricemia, using multivariate analyses based on the results of medical examinations and interview items. In particular, we examined whether "evacuation" poses a significant risk of new-onset hyperuricemia, even after adjusting for multiple models. Due to the large sex-related differences in uric acid levels, the analysis was conducted separately for men and women.

Measurements

Sex, age at the beginning of fiscal year (April 1, 2011), height, body weight, body mass index (BMI), systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, use of antihypertensive medication, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose, use of hypoglycemic agents, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), triglycerides, use of drugs for dyslipidemia, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), γ-glutamyl transpeptidase (γ-GT), uric acid, and serum creatinine were measured during the Comprehensive Health Check that was conducted in 13 municipalities in the evacuation zone. Body weight (kg) and height were measured without shoes and in light clothing. BMI was calculated by dividing body weight (kg) by height squared (m2). Obesity was defined as a BMI ≥ 25.0 kg/m2. Hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mmHg, or being treated for hypertension. Diabetes was defined as fasting blood glucose ≥ 126 mg/dL or random blood glucose ≥ 200 mg/dL, and/or hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥ 6.5%, or being treated for diabetes. Dyslipidemia was defined as low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥ 140 mg/dL, fasting triglycerides ≥ 150 mg/dL, and/or high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) < 40 mg/dL, or being treated for dyslipidemia. Abnormal liver function was defined as AST ≥ 31 U/L, ALT ≥ 31 U/L, or γ-GT ≥ 51 U/L. Abnormal renal function was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 or urine protein ≥ +1. Since hyperuricemia has different cutoff values for men and women according to previous literature [2325], hyperuricemia was defined as serum uric acid levels > 7.0 mg/dL for men and > 6.0 mg/dL for women, respectively.

In the Mental Health and Lifestyle Survey, the Japanese versions of the Kessler 6-item scale (K6) [26] and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL) [15] were used to assess the participants’ mental health. The K6 consists of six brief questions about depressive and anxiety symptoms during the past 30 days, with overall scores ranging from 0 to 24. We defined psychological distress as corresponding to a K6 score ≥ 13 [27]. The PCL is a tool used to evaluate symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) during the past 30 days. The PCL consists of 17 items, and the overall score ranges from 17 to 85. We classified participants as having probable PTSD if their overall PCL score was ≥ 44 [15]. Detailed information and their reliability were described in previous studies [15, 26, 27]. In addition to the K6 and PCL, data on medical history and various lifestyle factors, such as cigarette smoking status, drinking status, physical activity, sleep satisfaction, and changes in work situation were obtained from other questionnaires. Changes in work situation included unemployment or a job change after the accident. Furthermore, because this study was disaster-related, we assessed the presence of changes in residence and evacuation, and the subjects’ experiences of the tsunami, as well as their experiences of the nuclear accident.

Definitions of evacuation, evacuees, and non-evacuees

Evacuation was defined as an experience of moving into shelter or temporary housing at the time of the survey. The term “evacuees” were defined as residents of the thirteen municipalities whose entire area was evacuated or those with a self-reported experience of moving into shelters or temporary housing.

Non-evacuees were defined as the residents of the four municipalities whose residence at the time of the survey was not a shelter or temporary housing. However, among the non-evacuation categories, those whose residence at the time of the survey was a shelter or temporary housing were defined as evacuees.

Statistical analysis

We first conducted t-tests for continuous variables and χ2 tests for categorical variables to perform comparisons between evacuees and non-evacuees for analysis of the characteristics of the target population who did not have hyperuricemia at baseline.

Next, as the cutoff values for hyperuricemia were different between men and women and the clinical impact of hyperuricemia might also be different, Cox proportional hazards regression model analyses with the onset of hyperuricemia as the dependent variable were performed separately for men and women. First, referring to previous cross-sectional studies [21], we adjusted for the independent variables of age, evacuation, BMI, systolic blood pressure, fasting blood glucose, triglycerides, eGFR, smoking status, drinking status, and unemployment in Model 1. Next, in order to consider physical and socio-psychological factors, in addition to Model 1, sleep dissatisfaction, physical activity, tsunami experience, nuclear accident experience, and PTSD were adjusted as independent variables for Model 2. Since HDL-C, LDL-C, and triglycerides statistically strongly correlate with each other, triglyceride level was adopted as representative of dyslipidemia, as in previous reports [28]. Since there was a strong correlation between K6 score and PCL score, PTSD (PCL score ≥ 44) was adopted as an independent factor in this study.

In the present study, the dependent variable excluded missing data, while the explanatory variables included missing data. Specifically, dummy variables were created for missing and non-missing values, with missing values set to "1" and non-missing values set to "0" and used in the multivariate analysis.

All analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). A two-tailed test was performed, with a significance level of p < 0.05.

Results

A total of 18,140 patients, including 6,961 men and 11,179 women, met the conditions of this study (Fig 1).

Table 1 shows the results of the Comprehensive Health Check for the target group that did not have hyperuricemia at baseline between evacuees and non-evacuees stratified by sex. In men, the evacuee group was significantly younger, had a higher BMI, lower blood pressure, higher triglycerides, more liver dysfunction, higher eGFR, and higher uric acid levels than the non-evacuee group. In women, in addition to the above, the evacuee group had significantly lower fasting blood glucose levels than the non-evacuee group. The results of the Mental Health and Lifestyle Survey at baseline between evacuees and non-evacuees stratified by sex are shown in Table 2. In men, there were significant differences in smoking and drinking status, sleep satisfaction, changes in work situation, unemployment experience, nuclear accident experience, psychological distress, and PTSD between the evacuee and non-evacuee groups. In women, in addition to the above, there were significant differences in physical activity between the evacuee and non-evacuee groups.

Table 1. Clinical and biochemical characteristics of the 18,140 participants stratified by sex and evacuation status.

Men Women
Total Evacuees Non-evacuees p Total Evacuees Non-evacuees p
n (%) 6,961 3,231 (46.4) 3,730 (53.6) 11,179 5,174 (46.3) 6,005 (53.7)
Age (years) 61.2 (8.6) 60.8 (8.5) 61.5 (8.6) 0.001 59.2 (9.1) 58.6 (9.1) 59.7 (9.0) <0.001
BMI (kg/m2) 24.3 (3.0) 24.5 (3.1) 24.2 (3.0) 0.001 23.4 (3.5) 23.5 (3.6) 23.2 (3.4) <0.001
BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 (%) 39.2 41.4 37.2 <0.001 28.5 30.2 27.1 <0.001
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) 133 (15) 132.6 (15) 133.4 (15) 0.037 129 (16) 128 (16) 129 (16) <0.001
Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) 81 (10) 80.6 (10) 81.1 (10) 0.035 77 (10) 77 (10) 78 (10) <0.001
Hypertension (%) 57.3 57.0 57.5 0.718 43.3 42.5 43.9 0.136
HbA1c (%) 5.6 (0.8) 5.6 (0.9) 5.6 (0.8) 0.805 5.5 (0.6) 5.5 (0.7) 5.5 (0.6) 0.085
Fasting blood glucose (mg/dL) 100 (93–111) 100 (93–111) 100 (93–110) 0.678 94 (89–102) 94 (88–102) 95 (89–102) 0.013
Diabetes (%) 17.2 17.7 16.7 0.255 7.7 7.9 7.5 0.396
HDL-C (mg/dL) 56 (14) 56 (15) 56 (14) 0.159 64 (15) 64 (15) 64 (15) 0.051
LDL-C (mg/dL) 123 (32) 124 (33) 123 (32) 0.553 130 (32) 131 (33) 130 (31) 0.209
Triglycerides (mg/dL) 107 (76–152) 109 (78–157) 104 (74–148) <0.001 90 (66–126) 93 (67–128) 89 (65–124) <0.001
Dyslipidemia (%) 57.0 58.1 56.0 0.080 58.4 57.4 59.2 0.046
AST (U/L) 24 (20–29) 24 (20–30) 24 (20–29) <0.001 21 (18–25) 21 (18–26) 21 (18–25) 0.754
ALT (U/L) 22 (16–32) 23 (17–34) 22 (16–30) <0.001 17 (13–23) 17 (13–24) 16 (13–22) 0.001
γ-GT (U/L) 33 (22–56) 35 (24–59) 32 (21–53) <0.001 18 (14–27) 19 (14–29) 18 (13–26) <0.001
Abnormal liver function (%) 44.9 47.9 42.2 <0.001 18.8 20.6 17.2 <0.001
eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) 73.9 (13.4) 74.9 (13.2) 73.1 (13.5) <0.001 74.6 (12.7) 75.7 (13.2) 73.6 (12.3) <0.001
Abnormal renal function (%) 13.0 12.6 13.3 0.338 10.5 9.1 11.6 <0.001
Uric acid (mg/dL) 5.5 (1.0) 5.5 (1.0) 5.4 (1.0) 0.040 4.3 (0.9) 4.3 (0.9) 4.2 (0.9) 0.007

The values in the table indicate the average value (standard deviation) or the percentage. Fasting blood glucose, triglycerides, AST, ALT and γ-GT for which a normal distribution could not be confirmed are reported as the median (25–75% percentile). BMI: body mass index, HbA1c: hemoglobin A1c, HDL-C: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, LDL-C: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, AST: aspartate aminotransferase, ALT: alanine aminotransferase, γ-GT: γ-glutamyl transpeptidase, eGFR: estimated glomerular filtration rate.

Table 2. Lifestyle characteristics of the 18,140 participants stratified by sex and evacuation status.

Men Women
Total Evacuees Non-evacuees p Total Evacuees Non-evacuees p
Smoking status Never smoker 1,829 (26.6) 807 (25.3) 1,022 (27.7) <0.001 9,432 (88.0) 4,233 (85.4) 5,199 (90.2) <0.001
Quit smoking 3,176 (46.1) 1,441 (45.2) 1,735 (47.0) 638 (6.0) 341 (6.9) 297 (5.2)
Current smoker 1,879 (27.3) 942 (29.5) 937 (25.4) 750 (6.1) 385 (7.8) 365 (4.6)
Drinking status Never drinker 1,687 (24.4) 774 (24.1) 913 (24.6) 0.004 7,652 (70.3) 3,435 (68.3) 4,217 (72.0) <0.001
Quit drinking 316 (4.6) 152 (4.7) 164 (4.4) 113 (1.0) 59 (1.2) 54 (0.9)
<44 g/day 3,278 (47.3) 1,463 (45.6) 1,815 (48.9) 2,902 (26.7) 1,409 (28.0) 1,493 (25.5)
≥ 44 g/day 1,645 (23.8) 822 (25.6) 823 (22.2) 220 (2.0) 130 (2.6) 90 (1.5)
Sleep satisfaction Satisfied 2,368 (41.1) 890 (33.6) 1,478 (47.5) <0.001 2,475 (27.0) 870 (20.5) 1,605 (32.5) <0.001
Slightly dissatisfied 2,430 (42.2) 1,177 (44.4) 1,253 (40.3) 4,524 (49.3) 2,099 (49.6) 2,425 (49.1)
Very dissatisfied 766 (13.3) 449 (16.9) 317 (10.2) 1,673 (18.2) 947 (22.4) 726 (14.7)
Unable to sleep 198 (3.4) 135 (5.1) 63 (2.0) 508 (5.5) 320 (7.6) 188 (3.8)
Physical activity Every day 1,343 (19.6) 619 (19.5) 724 (19.7) 0.371 1,559 (14.2) 733 (14.4) 826 (14.1) 0.002
2–4 times a week 1,587 (23.2) 747 (23.6) 840 (22.9) 2,722 (24.8) 1,331 (26.2) 1,391 (23.7)
Once a week 1,040 (15.2) 457 (14.4) 583 (15.9) 1,667 (15.2) 719 (14.1) 948 (16.2)
None 2,868 (41.9) 1,345 (42.5) 1,523 (41.5) 5,011 (45.7) 2,307 (45.3) 2,704 (46.1)
Changes in work situation Yes 3,953 (58.4) 2,239 (71.5) 1,714 (47.2) <0.001 5,964 (57.1) 3,383 (70.0) 2,581 (45.9) <0.001
Unemployment experience Yes 1,407 (247) 996 (37.1) 411 (13.6) <0.001 2,680 (28.2) 1,871 (42.2) 809 (16.0) <0.001
Tsunami experience Yes 1,616 (23.2) 766 (23.7) 850 (22.8) 0.365 1,896 (17.0) 883 (17.1) 1,013 (16.9) 0.782
Nuclear accident experience Yes 3,924 (56.4) 2,073 (64.2) 1,851 (49.6) <0.001 5,942 (53.2) 3,085 (59.6) 2,857 (47.6) <0.001
Psychological distress K6 ≥ 13 717 (11.4) 445 (15.5) 272 (8.0) <0.001 1,755 (17.4) 982 (21.1) 773 (14.2) <0.001
PTSD PCL ≥ 44 1,169 (18.3) 666 (22.8) 503 (14.6) <0.001 2,536 (24.7) 1,370 (29.0) 1,166 (21.1) <0.001

The values in the table indicate the number (percentage). K6: Kessler 6-item scale, PTSD: Post-traumatic stress disorder, PCL: Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist.

Various lifestyle factors, such as cigarette smoking status, drinking status, physical activity, sleep satisfaction, changes in work situation, and unemployment experience were obtained from other questionnaires. Because this study was disaster-related, the subjects’ experiences of the tsunami and the nuclear accident were assessed as well. Psychological distress and PTSD were defined as corresponding to a K6 score ≥ 13 and PCL score ≥ 44, respectively.

The results of the Comprehensive Health Check for the target group that did not have hyperuricemia at baseline stratified by sex and the development of hyperuricemia during the follow-up period is shown in S1 Table. During a median follow-up of 4.3 years, 1,608 (23.1%) men and 1,388 (12.4%) women newly met the criteria for hyperuricemia. The prevalence of diabetes in the hyperuricemia group was significantly lower in men but higher in women as compared to that in the non-hyperuricemia group. The prevalence of obesity, hypertension, dyslipidemia, abnormal liver function, and abnormal renal function were higher in the hyperuricemia group than in the non-hyperuricemia group in both men and women. The results of the Mental Health and Lifestyle Survey at baseline stratified by sex and the development of hyperuricemia is shown in S2 Table. The percentage of participants who experienced evacuation after the earthquake was significantly higher in the hyperuricemia group than in the non-hyperuricemia group in both men and women. Smoking and drinking status differed significantly between the hyperuricemia and non-hyperuricemia groups in both men and women. The percentage of participants who experienced changes in work situation and unemployment experience were significantly higher in the hyperuricemia group than in the non-hyperuricemia group only in men.

The results of the association between the new-onset of hyperuricemia (> 7.0 mg/dL) and earthquake-related items and lifestyle diseases in men are shown in Table 3. Age, BMI, systolic blood pressure, fasting blood glucose, triglycerides, eGFR, smoking status, and drinking status had significant effects on the risk of new-onset of hyperuricemia after multivariable-adjustment (Model 1 and 2). Unemployment experience had a significant effect on the risk of new-onset hyperuricemia in univariate analysis, but not in multivariate models. Among men, the incidences of hyperuricemia were 52.2 and 63.4 per 1,000 person-years in non-evacuees and evacuees, respectively. Evacuation had a significant effect on the risk of the new-onset of hyperuricemia in univariate analysis (hazard ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 1.08–1.31, p = 0.001), but not in multivariate models (Model 1 and 2) in men.

Table 3. Cox regression analyses of the association between hyperuricemia (levels higher than 7 mg/dL) and earthquake-related items and lifestyle-related factors in 6,961 men.

Univariate analysis Model 1 Model 2
Reference HR (95% CI) p HR (95% CI) p HR (95% CI) p
Age (years), per 1 SD increase 0.99 (0.94–1.04) 0.756 0.92 (0.86–0.99) 0.029 0.91 (0.84–0.98) 0.011
Evacuation status Non-evacuee
Evacuee 1.19 (1.08–1.31) 0.001 1.11 (1.00–1.24) 0.051 1.11 (0.99–1.24) 0.065
BMI (kg/m2), per 1 SD increase 1.21 (1.16–1.27) <0.001 1.15 (1.09–1.22) <0.001 1.15 (1.09–1.22) <0.001
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg), per 1 SD increase 1.21 (1.15–1.27) <0.001 1.17 (1.11–1.24) <0.001 1.17 (1.11–1.24) <0.001
Fasting blood glucose (mg/dL), per 1 SD increase 0.97 (0.91–1.02) 0.208 0.93 (0.87–0.98) 0.012 0.93 (0.87–0.98) 0.012
HDL-C (mg/dL), per 1 SD decrease 1.11 (1.05–1.16) <0.001
LDL-C (mg/dL), per 1 SD increase 0.92 (0.87–0.96) <0.001
Triglycerides (mg/dL), per 1 SD increase 1.13 (1.10–1.17) <0.001 1.09 (1.05–1.13) <0.001 1.09 (1.05–1.13) <0.001
eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2), per 1 SD decrease 1.27 (1.20–1.34) <0.001 1.33 (1.26–1.42) <0.001 1.33 (1.26–1.42) <0.001
Smoking status Never smoker
Quit smoking 1.23 (1.09–1.39) 0.001 1.14 (1.00–1.30) 0.055 1.14 (0.99–1.30) 0.061
Current smoker 1.29 (1.12–1.48) <0.001 1.37 (1.18–1.59) <0.001 1.38 (1.18–1.60) <0.001
Drinking status Never drinker
Quit drinking 1.10 (0.84–1.44) 0.490 1.00 (0.74–1.34) 0.997 1.00 (0.75–1.35) 0.985
<44 g/day 1.24 (1.08–1.41) 0.002 1.28 (1.11–1.47) <0.001 1.28 (1.11–1.48) <0.001
≥ 44 g/day 1.72 (1.49–1.98) <0.001 1.73 (1.48–2.02) <0.001 1.74 (1.48–2.03) <0.001
Unemployment experience No
Yes 1.17 (1.04–1.32) 0.012 1.14 (1.00–1.30) 0.058 1.14 (0.99–1.30) 0.060
Sleep dissatisfaction Satisfied
Slightly dissatisfied / very dissatisfied / unable to sleep 0.99 (0.85–1.14) 0.839 0.95 (0.81–1.12) 0.534
Physical activity Every day
2–4 times a week / once a week / none 0.93 (0.84–1.03) 0.156 0.92 (0.82–1.03) 0.130
Tsunami experience No
Yes 0.99 (0.88–1.11) 0.846 0.96 (0.85–1.09) 0.561
Nuclear accident experience No
Yes 1.08 (0.98–1.19) 0.135 1.03 (0.93–1.16) 0.558
Psychological distress K6 < 13
K6 ≥ 13 1.06 (0.91–1.25) 0.446
PTSD PCL < 44
PCL ≥ 44 1.02 (0.89–1.16) 0.808 0.99 (0.85–1.15) 0.903

Model 1: adjusted for age, evacuation status, BMI, systolic blood pressure, fasting blood glucose, triglycerides, eGFR, smoking status, drinking status, and unemployment experience. Model 2: adjusted for Model 1 plus sleep dissatisfaction, physical activity, tsunami experience, nuclear accident experience, and post-traumatic stress disorder. HR: hazard ratio, CI: confidence interval, SD: standard deviation, BMI: body mass index, HDL-C: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, LDL-C: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, eGFR: estimated glomerular filtration rate, K6: Kessler 6-item scale, PTSD: Post-traumatic stress disorder, PCL: post-traumatic stress disorder checklist.

The results of the association between the new-onset of hyperuricemia (> 6.0 mg/dL) and earthquake-related items and lifestyle diseases in women are shown in Table 4. Evacuation, BMI, systolic blood pressure, triglycerides, eGFR, smoking status, and drinking status had significant effects on the risk of new-onset hyperuricemia after multivariate-adjustment in women (Model 1 and 2). Among women, the incidences of hyperuricemia were 24.6 and 31.2 per 1,000 person-years in non-evacuees and evacuees, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio of evacuation for the new-onset of hyperuricemia was 1.18 (95% confidence interval 1.05–1.32, p = 0.007, Model 2).

Table 4. Cox regression analyses of the association between hyperuricemia (levels higher than 6 mg/dL) and earthquake-related items and lifestyle-related factors in 11,179 women.

Univariate Model 1 Model 2
Reference HR (95% CI) p HR (95% CI) p HR (95% CI) p
Age (years), per 1 SD increase 1.19 (1.13–1.26) <0.001 0.96 (0.88–1.05) 0.356 0.97 (0.89–1.06) 0.553
Evacuation status Non-evacuee
Evacuee 1.22 (1.10–1.35) <0.001 1.20 (1.06–1.34) 0.003 1.18 (1.04–1.32) 0.007
BMI (kg/m2), per 1 SD increase 1.56 (1.49–1.63) <0.001 1.49 (1.42–1.58) <0.001 1.49 (1.41–1.58) <0.001
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg), per 1 SD increase 1.36 (1.30–1.43) <0.001 1.21 (1.14–1.28) <0.001 1.21 (1.14–1.28) <0.001
Fasting blood glucose (mg/dL), per 1 SD increase 1.15 (1.10–1.20) <0.001 1.02 (0.97–1.07) 0.479 1.02 (0.97–1.08) 0.414
HDL-C (mg/dL), per 1 SD decrease 1.32 (1.25–1.40) <0.001
LDL-C (mg/dL), per 1 SD increase 1.01 (0.96–1.07) 0.659
Triglycerides (mg/dL), per 1 SD increase 1.32 (1.27–1.36) <0.001 1.20 (1.15–1.26) <0.001 1.20 (1.15–1.26) <0.001
eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2), per 1 SD decrease 1.57 (1.48–1.66) <0.001 1.57 (1.47–1.67) <0.001 1.57 (1.47–1.67) <0.001
Smoking status Never smoker
Quit smoking 1.49 (1.22–1.82) <0.001 1.41 (1.14–1.75) 0.002 1.40 (1.13–1.74) 0.002
Current smoker 1.46 (1.19–1.79) <0.001 1.56 (1.23–1.97) <0.001 1.56 (1.23–1.97) <0.001
Drinking status Never drinker
Quit drinking 2.09 (1.42–3.09) <0.001 1.76 (1.17–2.64) 0.007 1.73 (1.15–2.61) 0.009
<44 g/day 1.25 (1.11–1.40) <0.001 1.39 (1.23–1.58) <0.001 1.39 (1.22–1.58) <0.001
≥ 44 g/day 2.67 (2.04–3.48) <0.001 2.88 (2.11–3.92) <0.001 2.88 (2.12–3.93) <0.001
Unemployment experience No
Yes 0.94 (0.82–1.07) 0.348 0.92 (0.79–1.06) 0.253 0.92 (0.79–1.06) 0.235
Sleep dissatisfaction Satisfied
Slightly dissatisfied / very dissatisfied / unable to sleep 1.10 (0.96–1.26) 0.115 1.10 (0.95–1.28) 0.208
Physical activity Every day
2–4 times a week / once a week / none 0.99 (0.89–1.11) 0.888 1.07 (0.95–1.21) 0.262
Tsunami experience No
Yes 0.87 (0.75–1.01) 0.060 0.87 (0.75–1.02) 0.092
Nuclear accident experience No
Yes 1.08 (0.97–1.20) 0.182 1.06 (0.94–1.19) 0.327
Psychological distress K6 < 13
K6 ≥ 13 1.09 (0.94–1.25) 0.256
PTSD PCL < 44
PCL ≥ 44 1.12 (0.99–1.00) 0.073 1.05 (0.92–1.21) 0.469

Model 1: adjusted for age, evacuation status, BMI, systolic blood pressure, fasting blood glucose, triglycerides, eGFR, smoking status, drinking status and unemployment experience. Model 2: adjusted for Model 1 plus sleep dissatisfaction, physical activity, tsunami experience, nuclear accident experience, and post-traumatic stress disorder. HR: hazard ratio, CI: confidence interval, SD: standard deviation, BMI: body mass index, HDL-C: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, LDL-C: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, eGFR: estimated glomerular filtration rate, K6: Kessler 6-item scale, PTSD: Post-traumatic stress disorder, PCL: post-traumatic stress disorder checklist.

We analyzed the hazard ratios of evacuation for hyperuricemia according to the baseline variates by sex in S3 and S4 Tables. In men, evacuation was shown to be a significant risk factor for the new-onset of hyperuricemia in drinkers (including those who quit, as well as current drinkers) and subjects on anti-hypertensive medication (S3 Table). In women, evacuation was shown to be a significant risk factor for the new-onset of hyperuricemia in subjects aged < 65 years, BMI < 25.0 kg/m2, never smokers, and those not on anti-hypertensive agents and with no diabetes or abnormal renal function (S4 Table).

Discussion

In this prospective longitudinal study, disaster evacuation was found to be one of the risk factors for new-onset hyperuricemia in women but not in men. This study is extremely valuable because there have been no previous longitudinal reports of the association between hyperuricemia and psychological and social influences, such as evacuation due to disasters.

We previously performed a cross-sectional study in which we reported the association between uric acid levels or hyperuricemia and psychological and social influences, such as evacuation due to disasters [21]. The previous study suggested that evacuation had significant positive associations with uric acid levels in both men and women. With hyperuricemia defined as uric acid levels > 7.0 mg/dL for men and > 6.0 mg/dL for women, significant associations were observed between evacuation and hyperuricemia in men, but not in women. The reason for the different results from the present study might be that the cross-sectional study did not have a time component. We believe that the present study, with the addition of a time component, was better able to test whether evacuation following a natural disaster is associated with new-onset hyperuricemia under conditions with a higher level of evidence. In addition, Hashimoto et al. reported that evacuation after the earthquake associated with higher incidence of hyperuricemia using a pilot longitudinal data (n = 4,789) of 2-year in the FHMS [29]. The present study concluded the independent association of disaster evacuation to the new-onset of hyperuricemia adjusting for physical and socio-psychological factors using long-term longitudinal data of 7-year in the full cohort of FHMS (n = 18,140).

One possible reason for evacuation leading to hyperuricemia is a change in diet. Evacuation has been previously reported to exacerbate obesity by exacerbating lifestyle habits [1620]. Since obesity is one of the risk factors for hyperuricemia [30], evacuation-associated obesity might led to the development of hyperuricemia. Furthermore, evacuees tended to consume more fructose-containing foods, such as juices [31]. A meta-analysis previously reported that high fructose intake is associated with hyperuricemia [32], and it remains possible that dietary changes with higher fructose intake following evacuation might be associated with the development of hyperuricemia, although it is quite unclear that this effect after the earthquake could also be obvious in the long term, as in the 7 year observation period in the present study. However, it is not conclusively known why disaster evacuation is one of the risk factors for new-onset hyperuricemia only in women and not in men. It is known that hyperinsulinemia causes increased uric acid reabsorption by urate transporter 1 (URAT1) and elevated serum uric acid levels. On the other hand, it has been reported that hyperglycemia and high urinary glucose levels decrease uric acid levels due to inhibition of uric acid reabsorption in the proximal tubules [33]. The impact and effect of evacuation on the development of hyperuricemia might, thus, vary depending on the presence or absence of diabetes at baseline. Prevalence rate of diabetes was higher in men than women (17.2% vs. 7.7%) at baseline in the present study. Therefore, the complication rate of diabetes and the frequency of diabetes development after the earthquake might be one of the reasons for the differences between men and women. Hence, the detailed mechanisms of hyperuricemia among evacuees after a natural disaster and the reasons for the sex-related difference need to be examined in the future.

There might be objections to the clinical implications of this study, because it uses a less stringent definition of hyperuricemia for women than for men. However, it has been suggested that uric acid levels are less likely to increase in women than in men. This difference is said to involve the promotion of uric acid excretion by estrogen [34], and the cutoff value of uric acid levels between men and women has been discussed in previous literature [2325]. One study reported that hyperuricemia is an independent risk factor for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in women but not in men, when hyperuricemia is defined as ≥ 7 and ≥ 6 mg/dL in men and women, respectively [35]. Therefore, we believe that it is also clinically appropriate that the definition of hyperuricemia differs between men and women in this study. However, differences in the risk factors for hyperuricemia between men and women need to be examined in greater detail in future.

The present study showed that evacuation after a natural disaster is independently associated with the development of new-onset hyperuricemia. It has been previously reported that evacuation after a natural disaster is an independent risk factor for metabolic syndrome, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease [1620, 36]. These are all risk factors for cardiovascular events and end-stage renal failure, and hence, are important issues that directly affect the health of disaster victims and should be observed for in the long term in victims of natural disasters requiring evacuation.

The strength of the present study was a large-scale observational study which showed significant association between evacuation experience after the earthquake and new-onset of hyperuricemia in the long-term of 7-year observation. This means that the impact of evacuation on hyperuricemia is not necessarily a temporary problem, but should be viewed as a longer-term and future health care issue. Also, interestingly, evacuation was shown to be a significant risk factor for the new-onset of hyperuricemia in women aged < 65 years, with BMI < 25.0 kg/m2, never smokers, those not on anti-hypertensive medication, and with no history of diabetes, or abnormal renal function (S4 Table). We believe that this information is important from a risk management perspective, since apparently healthy young women without lifestyle-related diseases might newly develop hyperuricemia as a result of evacuation. Our study suggests that after a natural disaster, it is very important to monitor the health status of the victims, including for the presence of hyperuricemia, and it is necessary to return their living environment to normal as soon as possible, and to improve their lifestyle, including diet, drinking, and exercise habits.

There are several limitations to the present study. First, the adjustment factors for hyperuricemia including lifestyle characteristics were only assessed and measured at baseline. We could not assess how these adjustment factors changed over the observation period in the present study, therefore, we only studied whether these factors at baseline affected the risk of developing hyperuricemia, although the changes in these factors might affect the results. Second, as the present study consisted of residents living near the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Fukushima prefecture who completed the Comprehensive Health Check of the FHMS, the residents who did not completed the Comprehensive Health Check were excluded from the analysis. Although the reasons why they did not complete the health check were unclear, the exclusion of them could be a selection bias and might affect the results of the present study. Third, the detailed mechanism by which disaster evacuation causes hyperuricemia remains unclear. Evacuation itself may not be the direct cause of hyperuricemia. Factors related to evacuation, such as severe disaster damage and changes in living environment and lifestyle may be associated with the increased risk of new onset of hyperuricemia, but lifestyle characteristics were measured only at baseline. Therefore, future research is still needed to investigate with longitudinal evaluation of clinical, biochemical, and lifestyle characteristics whether exacerbating lifestyle habits after a natural disaster are caused by changes in the living environment associated with relocation, by the stress associated with the disaster damage, or by the other factors, although exacerbating lifestyle habits such as changes in diet are thought to be one of the causes of hyperuricemia. Forth, data on the duration of evacuation were not available in the present study, although long-term evacuation could have significant effects on health damage of victims. Fifth, we did not assess medications (with or without treatment) for hyperuricemia. Pharmacotherapy can significantly reduce uric acid levels and thus have a significant impact on the results of the present study. We believe that the impact of drug therapy is not small, as there are several types and capacities of drugs that directly lower uric acid levels, as well as several drugs that indirectly lower uric acid levels. Finally, we did not assess diet. Previous reports suggest that uric acid levels are greatly influenced by dietary content [32].

In conclusion, several lifestyle- and disaster-related factors, particularly evacuation, were found to be risk factors associated with new-onset hyperuricemia after the Great East Japan Earthquake and the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident. We should consider the possibility that hyperuricemia might develop in response to natural disasters. Further studies are needed to determine whether careful health management for disaster victims or improvements in the living environment, such as the quality of food provided and sleep, in evacuation centers, reduce the risk of hyperuricemia and health damage such as disaster-related death in disaster victims.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Clinical and biochemical characteristics of the 18,140 participants stratified by sex and the development of hyperuricemia.

The values in the table indicate the average value (standard deviation) or the percentage. Fasting blood glucose, triglycerides, AST, ALT, and γ-GT are reported as the median (25–75% percentile). BMI: body mass index, HbA1c: hemoglobin A1c, HDL-C: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, LDL-C: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, AST: aspartate aminotransferase, ALT: alanine aminotransferase, γ-GT: γ-glutamyl transpeptidase, eGFR: estimated glomerular filtration rate.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Lifestyle characteristics of the 18,140 participants stratified by sex and the development of hyperuricemia.

The values in the table indicate the number (percentage). K6: Kessler 6-item scale, PTSD: Post-traumatic stress disorder, PCL: Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Hazard ratios of evacuation for the development of hyperuricemia (levels higher than 7 mg/dL) in 6,961 men, according to baseline variates.

Model 1: adjusted for age, BMI, systolic blood pressure, fasting blood glucose, triglycerides, eGFR, smoking status, drinking status, and unemployment experience. Model 2: adjusted for Model 1 plus sleep dissatisfaction, physical activity, tsunami experience, nuclear accident experience and, post-traumatic stress disorder. HR: hazard ratio, CI: confidence interval, BMI: body mass index.

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Hazard ratio of evacuation for the development of hyperuricemia (levels higher than 6 mg/dL) in 11,179 women, according to baseline variates.

Model 1: adjusted for age, BMI, systolic blood pressure, fasting blood glucose, triglycerides, eGFR, smoking status, drinking status, and unemployment experience. Model 2: adjusted for Model 1 plus sleep dissatisfaction, physical activity, tsunami experience, nuclear accident experience and, post-traumatic stress disorder. HR: hazard ratio, CI: confidence interval, BMI: body mass index.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank the expert committee members, advisors, and staff of the Fukushima Health Survey Group for conducting this survey and for their support. The findings and conclusions of this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not represent the official views of the Fukushima Prefectural Government.

Data Availability

Data underlying the findings in this study cannot be made publicly available due the nature of ethical approval for the study. Interested researchers may submit requests to the Fukushima Medical University’s Ethics Committee (Contact information: Email: rs@fmu.ac.jp) for access to confidential data.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the National Health Fund for Children and Adults Affected by the Nuclear Incident. No financial support has been received from any source other than this fund. There was no additional external funding received for this study. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Becker BF. Towards the physiological function of uric acid. Free Radic Biol Med. 1993;14(6):615–31. Epub 1993/06/01. doi: 10.1016/0891-5849(93)90143-i . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Cutler RG. Antioxidants and aging. Am J Clin Nutr. 1991;53(1 Suppl):373s-9s. Epub 1991/01/01. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/53.1.373S . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hsu CY, Iribarren C, McCulloch CE, Darbinian J, Go AS. Risk factors for end-stage renal disease: 25-year follow-up. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(4):342–50. Epub 2009/02/25. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2008.605 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2727643. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Zhao G, Huang L, Song M, Song Y. Baseline serum uric acid level as a predictor of cardiovascular disease related mortality and all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Atherosclerosis. 2013;231(1):61–8. Epub 2013/10/16. doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2013.08.023 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Niskanen LK, Laaksonen DE, Nyyssönen K, Alfthan G, Lakka HM, Lakka TA, et al. Uric acid level as a risk factor for cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in middle-aged men: a prospective cohort study. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(14):1546–51. Epub 2004/07/28. doi: 10.1001/archinte.164.14.1546 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kim SY, Guevara JP, Kim KM, Choi HK, Heitjan DF, Albert DA. Hyperuricemia and risk of stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;61(7):885–92. Epub 2009/07/01. doi: 10.1002/art.24612 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2714267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Li M, Hou W, Zhang X, Hu L, Tang Z. Hyperuricemia and risk of stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Atherosclerosis. 2014;232(2):265–70. Epub 2014/01/29. doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2013.11.051 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Tomita M, Mizuno S, Yamanaka H, Hosoda Y, Sakuma K, Matuoka Y, et al. Does hyperuricemia affect mortality? A prospective cohort study of Japanese male workers. J Epidemiol. 2000;10(6):403–9. Epub 2001/02/24. doi: 10.2188/jea.10.403 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Cannon PJ, Stason WB, Demartini FE, Sommers SC, Laragh JH. Hyperuricemia in primary and renal hypertension. N Engl J Med. 1966;275(9):457–64. Epub 1966/09/01. doi: 10.1056/NEJM196609012750902 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Yano K, Rhoads G, Kagan A. Epidemiology of serum uric acid among 8000 Japanese-American men in Hawaii. J Chronic Dis. 1977;30(3):171–84. Epub 1977/03/01. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(77)90083-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kono S, Shinchi K, Imanishi K, Honjo S, Todoroki I. Behavioural and biological correlates of serum uric acid: a study of self-defence officials in Japan. Int J Epidemiol. 1994;23(3):517–22. Epub 1994/06/01. doi: 10.1093/ije/23.3.517 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Schmidt MI, Watson RL, Duncan BB, Metcalf P, Brancati FL, Sharrett AR, et al. Clustering of dyslipidemia, hyperuricemia, diabetes, and hypertension and its association with fasting insulin and central and overall obesity in a general population. Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study Investigators. Metabolism. 1996;45(6):699–706. Epub 1996/06/01. doi: 10.1016/s0026-0495(96)90134-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Yasumura S, Hosoya M, Yamashita S, Kamiya K, Abe M, Akashi M, et al. Study protocol for the Fukushima Health Management Survey. J Epidemiol. 2012;22(5):375–83. Epub 2012/09/08. doi: 10.2188/jea.je20120105 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3798631. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Yabe H, Suzuki Y, Mashiko H, Nakayama Y, Hisata M, Niwa S, et al. Psychological distress after the Great East Japan Earthquake and Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident: results of a mental health and lifestyle survey through the Fukushima Health Management Survey in FY2011 and FY2012. Fukushima J Med Sci. 2014;60(1):57–67. Epub 2014/07/18. doi: 10.5387/fms.2014-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Suzuki Y, Yabe H, Horikoshi N, Yasumura S, Kawakami N, Ohtsuru A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of Japanese posttraumatic stress measures after a complex disaster: The Fukushima Health Management Survey. Asia Pac Psychiatry. 2017;9(1). Epub 2016/08/10. doi: 10.1111/appy.12248 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ohira T, Hosoya M, Yasumura S, Satoh H, Suzuki H, Sakai A, et al. Effect of Evacuation on Body Weight After the Great East Japan Earthquake. Am J Prev Med. 2016;50(5):553–60. Epub 2015/12/18. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.10.008 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Satoh H, Ohira T, Hosoya M, Sakai A, Watanabe T, Ohtsuru A, et al. Evacuation after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident Is a Cause of Diabetes: Results from the Fukushima Health Management Survey. J Diabetes Res. 2015;2015:627390. Epub 2015/06/25. doi: 10.1155/2015/627390 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4461763. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Satoh H, Ohira T, Nagai M, Hosoya M, Sakai A, Watanabe T, et al. Hypo-high-density Lipoprotein Cholesterolemia Caused by Evacuation after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident: Results from the Fukushima Health Management Survey. Intern Med. 2016;55(15):1967–76. Epub 2016/08/02. doi: 10.2169/internalmedicine.55.6030 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ohira T, Hosoya M, Yasumura S, Satoh H, Suzuki H, Sakai A, et al. Evacuation and Risk of Hypertension After the Great East Japan Earthquake: The Fukushima Health Management Survey. Hypertension. 2016;68(3):558–64. Epub 2016/08/03. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.116.07499 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hashimoto S, Nagai M, Fukuma S, Ohira T, Hosoya M, Yasumura S, et al. Influence of Post-disaster Evacuation on Incidence of Metabolic Syndrome. J Atheroscler Thromb. 2017;24(3):327–37. Epub 2016/09/16. doi: 10.5551/jat.35824 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5383548. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Honda K, Okazaki K, Tanaka K, Kazama JJ, Hashimoto S, Ohira T, et al. Evacuation after the Great East Japan Earthquake is an independent factor associated with hyperuricemia: The Fukushima Health Management Survey. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2021;31(4):1177–88. Epub 2021/02/08. doi: 10.1016/j.numecd.2020.12.016 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.International guidelines for ethical review of epidemiological studies. Law Med Health Care. 1991;19(3–4):247–58. Epub 1991/01/01. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Roubenoff R. Gout and hyperuricemia. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 1990;16(3):539–50. Epub 1990/08/01. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Nagahama K, Inoue T, Iseki K, Touma T, Kinjo K, Ohya Y, et al. Hyperuricemia as a predictor of hypertension in a screened cohort in Okinawa, Japan. Hypertens Res. 2004;27(11):835–41. Epub 2005/04/13. doi: 10.1291/hypres.27.835 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Maloberti A, Giannattasio C, Bombelli M, Desideri G, Cicero AFG, Muiesan ML, et al. Hyperuricemia and Risk of Cardiovascular Outcomes: The Experience of the URRAH (Uric Acid Right for Heart Health) Project. High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev. 2020;27(2):121–8. Epub 2020/03/12. doi: 10.1007/s40292-020-00368-z . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Furukawa TA, Kawakami N, Saitoh M, Ono Y, Nakane Y, Nakamura Y, et al. The performance of the Japanese version of the K6 and K10 in the World Mental Health Survey Japan. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2008;17(3):152–8. Epub 2008/09/04. doi: 10.1002/mpr.257 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6878390. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kessler RC, Barker PR, Colpe LJ, Epstein JF, Gfroerer JC, Hiripi E, et al. Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60(2):184–9. Epub 2003/02/13. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.60.2.184 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hou YL, Yang XL, Wang CX, Zhi LX, Yang MJ, You CG. Hypertriglyceridemia and hyperuricemia: a retrospective study of urban residents. Lipids Health Dis. 2019;18(1):81. Epub 2019/04/03. doi: 10.1186/s12944-019-1031-6 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6444567. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hashimoto S, Nagai M, Ohira T, Fukuma S, Hosoya M, Yasumura S, et al. Influence of post-disaster evacuation on incidence of hyperuricemia in residents of Fukushima Prefecture: the Fukushima Health Management Survey. Clin Exp Nephrol. 2020;24(11):1025–32. Epub 2020/07/28. doi: 10.1007/s10157-020-01924-6 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7524849. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Takahashi S, Yamamoto T, Tsutsumi Z, Moriwaki Y, Yamakita J, Higashino K. Close correlation between visceral fat accumulation and uric acid metabolism in healthy men. Metabolism. 1997;46(10):1162–5. Epub 1997/10/10. doi: 10.1016/s0026-0495(97)90210-9 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Zhang W, Ohira T, Abe M, Kamiya K, Yamashita S, Yasumura S, et al. Evacuation after the Great East Japan Earthquake was associated with poor dietary intake: The Fukushima Health Management Survey. J Epidemiol. 2017;27(1):14–23. Epub 2017/01/31. doi: 10.1016/j.je.2016.08.002 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5328735. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Li R, Yu K, Li C. Dietary factors and risk of gout and hyperuricemia: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2018;27(6):1344–56. Epub 2018/11/30. doi: 10.6133/apjcn.201811_27(6).0022 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Herman JB, Keynan A. Hyperglycemia and uric acid. Isr J Med Sci. 1969;5(5):1048–52. Epub 1969/09/01. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Antón FM, García Puig J, Ramos T, González P, Ordás J. Sex differences in uric acid metabolism in adults: evidence for a lack of influence of estradiol-17 beta (E2) on the renal handling of urate. Metabolism. 1986;35(4):343–8. Epub 1986/04/01. doi: 10.1016/0026-0495(86)90152-6 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Iseki K, Ikemiya Y, Inoue T, Iseki C, Kinjo K, Takishita S. Significance of hyperuricemia as a risk factor for developing ESRD in a screened cohort. Am J Kidney Dis. 2004;44(4):642–50. Epub 2004/09/24. doi: S0272638604009345 [pii]. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Hayashi Y, Nagai M, Ohira T, Satoh H, Sakai A, Ohtsuru A, et al. The impact of evacuation on the incidence of chronic kidney disease after the Great East Japan Earthquake: The Fukushima Health Management Survey. Clin Exp Nephrol. 2017;21(6):995–1002. Epub 2017/03/17. doi: 10.1007/s10157-017-1395-8 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5698380. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Mohammad Reza Mahmoodi

12 Jun 2023

PONE-D-23-01408Relationship between evacuation after the Great East Japan Earthquake and new-onset hyperuricemia: A 7-year prospective longitudinal study of the Fukushima Health Management SurveyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tanaka,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 27 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights in yellow changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

Additional Editor Comments:

According to my review of the manuscript, the following issues were considered. The authors/corresponding author should precisely respond to issues 1-4.

1. A discrepancy was found in the participants included in the two consort diagrams of published article and manuscript.

2. All the materials and methods sections (psychological distress definition, participants' classification score, demographic, clinical, and biochemical measurements) were the same, except for applying the Cox proportional hazards regression model that authors added to analyze data of their work.

3. The grant number of both studies is the same. However, there are many similarities between the two articles and the manuscript. Undoubtedly, it is part of a salami slicing in publication.

4. The authors did not mention anything about evacuees and non-evacuees in the published article despite describing its terms. However, they mentioned evacuation and non-evacuation in the published article; and evacuees and non-evacuees in the manuscript. 

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohammad Reza Mahmoodi, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE 

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: 

"This work was supported by the National Health Fund for Children and Adults Affected by the Nuclear Incident."

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. 

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"This work was supported by the National Health Fund for Children and Adults Affected by the Nuclear Incident."

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting paper and the content is very good but I suggest the paper can be improved in the following ways:

Abstract

-Please modify the headlines based on the format of the journal

-In the conclusion part, it is necessary to specify the researcher's proposal to improve the conditions and use of the beneficiaries.

Introduction

Please bring the following items

1- Definition of the research problem

2- The magnitude and importance of the study variable

3- Bringing the variable epidemiology information of the study at the world level and the place of study

4- Bringing theoretical knowledge about the importance of studying

5- Expressing the necessity of conducting the study

Finally, the practical purpose of the study should be stated

Methods

-please declare scoring of the used tool in this study.

- What steps have you taken in your study to ensure reliability of study tool in your study participants?

Discussion

In the discussion section, it is necessary to compare the main results of the study with the results of other studies in this field

What are the strengths and limitations of the study?

Conclusion

� What are your suggestion for future studies?

Best regard

Reviewer #2: 1- In the statistical analysis section and in line 216 the authors said they performed two separate Cox models for men and women. Please clarify why you use two separate models. Does the PH assumption not satisfy for sex variable? please perform a model with the sex variable included and report the PH assumption for the sex variable.

2- In line 227, please clarify the missing imputation method.

3- In page 11, why the authors report mean(SD) for some continuous variables and median(CI) for some other continuous variables? please use the same summary statistics for continuous variables.

4- In line 287, please replace the "multivariate" with "multivariable". Because a multivariate model is used when you have more than one response variable.

5- No clear explanations in line 287. Explain why the authors used two models ( model 1 and model 2 in table 3). please clarify in detail.

6- What does "Every time +1 SD" means in table 3? Is it the guideline of the journal? if not, please keep blank the reference level for continuous variables.

7- In discussion, the authors referred to their cross sectional study. Please clarify why there is a different in 33559 in this study and 33493 in cross sectional study?

8- Please add the consort diagram in this study like the cross-sectional study.

Reviewer #3: Thank you for offering the opportunity to review this paper. I find the paper well written. The most important strength of this manusdript is the complete explanation of the method. I only have some small minor comments.

Please find below the detailed list of my comments. Best regards

1-the caption of Table 2 needs to be improve because the items related to the disaster are not mentioned in the caption while they are in the table.

2-Although the sampling method is explained in detail, the name of the sampling method is not mentioned

3- Because the sampling method is not random, the results cannot be generalized and this is one of the limitations of the study

Reviewer #4: This is an interesting manuscript that has many strengths including some important findings. However, the manuscript could benefit from a revision that addresses several issues. First, more information is needed about exactly when (and how many times) assessments were done of the key variables in the study. The authors mention that baseline assessments were done in 2011 and that follow-up Comprehensive Health Check assessments were done in 2012-17. It appears, however, that all of the analyses use only the baseline data as predictors of developing new onset hyperuicemia and that there is no longitudinal analysis of how these other predictor variables may change over time. This should be clarified. Second, the key variable of evacuation as used in this study is technically accurate but somewhat misleading. It appears that evacuation was not voluntary but mandatory based on specific communities that had either experienced a great deal of damage due to the earthquake or tsunami or that were viewed as being at high risk of radiation exposure. In other words, evacuation not only means that you had to relocate but is also a proxy for where you lived before the disaster and how badly where you lived was affected by the disaster. Relocation can clearly affect important aspects of your lifestyle such as diet, physical activity, access to usual healthcare, etc., but if relocation is mandatory and prompted by a high level of disaster exposure, stress related to high levels of disaster exposure whether or not you had to evacuate also comes into play. This should be acknowledged. Third, there is no mention of the duration of the evacuation or inclusion of a measure of this in the analyses. In many natural disasters, evacuations are not permanent, and many individuals return to the disaster sites within days, weeks, or months. Trying to rebuild your property and life after a disaster is stressful whether you have returned to the site were not, but providing additional information about the length of the evacuation is important under either circumstance. Fourth, if the lifestyle characteristic measures listed in Table 2 (including past 30 day psychological distress and PTSD) were measured only at baseline, there would be no way to determine whether these variables changed over time or whether any such changes are related to changes in uric acid levels. This would be a substantial limitation that should be acknowledged. Fifth, it is unclear whether the key uric acid level measure in the study took into account individuals who were receiving medication to reduce high uric acid levels. Such medications typically reduce uric acid levels below the threshold for hyperuiecemia used in the study, so this is relevant information. Sixth, as reflected in Figure 1, there was substantial nonparticipation and attrition in the study, raising the possibility of bias in study findings. It would be useful if the authors could address this issue. Finally, the overall finding that individuals who were forced to be evacuated due to major disaster damage or threat of radiation exposure where they lived had higher risk of developing excessive uric acid levels is important. The difficulty is that evacuation per se is not likely to be the primary mechanism accounting for this change. Therefore, evacuation is a proxy for high disaster exposure, so the question remains how does such exposure relate to known biopsychosocial mechanisms that might account for increases in uric acid levels. The manuscript would benefit from a discussion that acknowledges more clearly that the study does not have the data to test some of the potential mechanisms, as I do not think that most of the predictor variables measured at baseline were measured longitudinally.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Oct 26;18(10):e0293459. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293459.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


12 Sep 2023

Thank you for your constructive and excellent criticism and suggestions. We hope that we have responded adequately.

The changes made to the revised manuscript are shown by yellow highlights.

Additional Editor Comments:

According to my review of the manuscript, the following issues were considered. The authors/corresponding author should precisely respond to issues 1-4.

1. A discrepancy was found in the participants included in the two consort diagrams of published article and manuscript. 

Respond: In our published cross-sectional study, the age of the subjects was extracted by age at the time of medical examination. In the present longitudinal study, the subjects were selected by age at the beginning of fiscal year (April 1, 2011). So, the number of subjects slightly differed because of the different extraction methods, although the target age groups were the same.

2. All the materials and methods sections (psychological distress definition, participants' classification score, demographic, clinical, and biochemical measurements) were the same, except for applying the Cox proportional hazards regression model that authors added to analyze data of their work.

3. The grant number of both studies is the same. However, there are many similarities between the two articles and the manuscript. Undoubtedly, it is part of a salami slicing in publication.

Respond (for 2 and 3): Thank you for your comments on this point. We have reported a study that revealed the relationship between evacuation after the earthquake and the prevalence of hyperuricemia (Honda K, et al. Evacuation after the Great East Japan Earthquake is an independent factor associated with hyperuricemia: The Fukushima Health Management Survey. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2021;31(4):1177-88.). As the editor pointed out, psychological distress definition, participants' classification score, demographic, clinical, and biochemical measurements in the method section were same as the present study, however, the published article only included a cross-sectional analysis using a baseline data, and revealed evacuation had significant and positive association with the prevalence of hyperuricemia. In the present prospective study, subject with hyperuricemia at baseline were excluded, and those who did not have hyperuricemia as of fiscal year 2011 were followed for long-term (7 years) to investigate whether evacuation related to increased risk for new-onset of hyperuricemia adjusting for physical and socio-psychological factors. The present study showed evacuation after a natural disaster was a significant risk factor for the new-onset of hyperuricemia in women independent from physical and socio-psychological factors. Therefore, the present study includes a novel finding different from our published article and the authors consider the present study well worth publishing in the journal.

4. The authors did not mention anything about evacuees and non-evacuees in the published article despite describing its terms. However, they mentioned evacuation and non-evacuation in the published article; and evacuees and non-evacuees in the manuscript.

Respond: As suggested by the editor, we revised related descriptions about the definitions of evacuation, evacuee, and non-evacuee in the methods section (line 212 to 219).

I hope that you will find all of the changes we made satisfactory. We would like to thank you for your suggestions that were of invaluable help in considerably improving the quality of the manuscript.

Thank you in advance for your attention.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Best regards

Kenichi Tanaka, MD, PhD

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Responds: We corrected the display in the manuscript in accordance with PLOS ONE's style requirements.

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

Respond: We revised the related descriptions in the method section (line 155 to 158).

3. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

"This work was supported by the National Health Fund for Children and Adults Affected by the Nuclear Incident."

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"This work was supported by the National Health Fund for Children and Adults Affected by the Nuclear Incident."

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.""

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Respond (for 3 and 4): We revised and added the related descriptions in the manuscript (line 491 to 496) and the cover letter. Revised descriptions were as below.

“Funding: This work was supported by the National Health Fund for Children and Adults Affected by the Nuclear Incident. No financial support has been received from any source other than this fund. There was no additional external funding received for this study. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Respond: We added the related descriptions in the cover letter. Added descriptions were as below.

“Data Availability Statement: Data underlying the findings in this study cannot be made publicly available due the nature of ethical approval for the study. Interested researchers may submit requests to the Fukushima Medical University’s Ethics Committee (Contact information: Email: rs@fmu.ac.jp) for access to confidential data.”

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

Reviewer #4: Yes

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Thank you for your constructive and excellent criticism and suggestions. We hope that we have responded adequately.

The changes made to the revised manuscript are shown by yellow highlights.

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting paper and the content is very good but I suggest the paper can be improved in the following ways:

Abstract

-Please modify the headlines based on the format of the journal

Respond: As suggested by the reviewer, we modified the headlines in the abstract section based on the format of the journal.

-In the conclusion part, it is necessary to specify the researcher's proposal to improve the conditions and use of the beneficiaries.

Respond: As suggested by the reviewer, we added related descriptions in discussion in the abstract section (line 83 to 84).

Introduction

Please bring the following items

1- Definition of the research problem

2- The magnitude and importance of the study variable

3- Bringing the variable epidemiology information of the study at the world level and the place of study

4- Bringing theoretical knowledge about the importance of studying

5- Expressing the necessity of conducting the study

Finally, the practical purpose of the study should be stated

Respond: As suggested by the reviewer, we revised and added the related descriptions in the introduction section (line 105 to 115).

Methods

-please declare scoring of the used tool in this study.

- What steps have you taken in your study to ensure reliability of study tool in your study participants?

Respond: Thank you for your comments in these points. In the Mental Health and Lifestyle Survey, the Japanese versions of the Kessler 6-item scale (K6) and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL) were used to assess the participants’ mental health. The K6 consists of six brief questions about depressive and anxiety symptoms during the past 30 days, with overall scores ranging from 0 to 24. We defined psychological distress as corresponding to a K6 score ≥ 13. The PCL is a tool used to evaluate symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) during the past 30 days. The PCL consists of 17 items, and the overall score ranges from 17 to 85. We classified participants as having probable PTSD if their overall PCL score was ≥ 44. Detailed information and their reliability were described in previous studies ([15] Suzuki Y, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of Japanese posttraumatic stress measures after a complex disaster: The Fukushima Health Management Survey. Asia Pac Psychiatry. 2017;9(1). [26] Furukawa TA, et al. The performance of the Japanese version of the K6 and K10 in the World Mental Health Survey Japan. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2008;17(3):152-8. [27] Kessler RC, et al. Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60(2):184-9.). Related and added descriptions were in the methods section (line 194 to 203).

Discussion

In the discussion section, it is necessary to compare the main results of the study with the results of other studies in this field

Respond: As suggested by the reviewer, we added related descriptions in the discussion section (line 354 to 359).

What are the strengths and limitations of the study?

Respond: As suggested by the reviewer and the other reviewers, we added and revised descriptions of limitations of the study (line 418 to 445). Also, the strengths of the study were described in line 403 to 417.

Conclusion

� What are your suggestion for future studies?

Respond: Thank you for your comments on these points. We consider that improvements in the living environment, such as the quality of food provided and sleep, in evacuation centers, reduce the risk of hyperuricemia and health damage such as disaster-related death in disaster victims. We added related descriptions in the discussion section (line 450 to 455).

Minor error was found in number of municipalities, so, we corrected its number from nine to thirteen (line 213).

I hope that you will find all of the changes we made satisfactory. We would like to thank you for your suggestions that were of invaluable help in considerably improving the quality of the manuscript.

Thank you in advance for your attention.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Best regards

Kenichi Tanaka, MD, PhD

Thank you for your constructive and excellent criticism and suggestions. We hope that we have responded adequately.

The changes made to the revised manuscript are shown by yellow highlights.

Reviewer #2: 1- In the statistical analysis section and in line 216 the authors said they performed two separate Cox models for men and women. Please clarify why you use two separate models. Does the PH assumption not satisfy for sex variable? please perform a model with the sex variable included and report the PH assumption for the sex variable.

Respond: As the cutoff values for hyperuricemia were different between men and women and the clinical impact of hyperuricemia might also be different, Cox proportional hazards regression model analyses with the onset of hyperuricemia as the dependent variable were performed separately for men and women. Indeed, a significant difference was observed in the effect on evacuation for the risk of hyperuricemia between men and women (interaction P<0.001). We added related descriptions in statistical analysis in the method section (line 225 to 228).

2- In line 227, please clarify the missing imputation method.

Respond: In the present study, the dependent variable excluded missing data, while the explanatory variables included missing data. Specifically, dummy variables were created for missing and non-missing values, with missing values set to "1" and non-missing values set to "0" and used in the multivariate analysis. We revised related descriptions in statistical analysis in the method section (line 239 to 242).

3- In page 11, why the authors report mean(SD) for some continuous variables and median(CI) for some other continuous variables? please use the same summary statistics for continuous variables.

Respond: Thank you for your comments on this point. In the present study, the means (SD) were used for continuous variables for which normal distributions were confirmed, and the medians (25-75%) were used for which normal distributions could not be confirmed. We revised related descriptions in Table 1.

4- In line 287, please replace the "multivariate" with "multivariable". Because a multivariate model is used when you have more than one response variable.

Respond: As suggested by the editor, we replaced the "multivariate" with "multivariable" (line 300).

5- No clear explanations in line 287. Explain why the authors used two models ( model 1 and model 2 in table 3). please clarify in detail.

Respond: We added and revised related description in statistical analysis in the method section (line 228 to 238). Related descriptions were as below.

“First, referring to previous cross-sectional studies [21], we adjusted for the independent variables of age, evacuation, BMI, systolic blood pressure, fasting blood glucose, triglycerides, eGFR, smoking status, drinking status, and unemployment in Model 1. Next, in order to consider physical and socio-psychological factors, in addition to Model 1, sleep dissatisfaction, physical activity, tsunami experience, nuclear accident experience, and PTSD were adjusted as independent variables for Model 2. Since HDL-C, LDL-C, and triglycerides statistically strongly correlate with each other, triglyceride level was adopted as representative of dyslipidemia, as in previous reports [28]. Since there was a strong correlation between K6 score and PCL score, PTSD (PCL score ≥ 44) was adopted as an independent factor in this study.”

6- What does "Every time +1 SD" means in table 3? Is it the guideline of the journal? if not, please keep blank the reference level for continuous variables.

Respond: Thank you for your comments on this point. "Every time +1 SD" means hazard ratio per 1 SD increase of these continuous variables. These displays may be little difficult to understand, so we revised them in Table 3 and 4. Also, hazard ratios of age were not analyzed as per 1 SD increase but as per 10 years increase. So, Cox regression analyses were re-analyzed with “age per 1 SD increase” and made minor revisions in data in Table 3 and 4.

7- In discussion, the authors referred to their cross sectional study. Please clarify why there is a different in 33559 in this study and 33493 in cross sectional study?

Respond: In our published cross-sectional study, the age of the subjects was extracted by age at the time of medical examination. In the present longitudinal study, the subjects were selected by age at the beginning of the fiscal year (April 1, 2011). So, the number of subjects slightly differed because of the different extraction methods, although the target age groups were the same.

8- Please add the consort diagram in this study like the cross-sectional study.

Respond: The consort diagram was displayed in figure 1. Please see figure 1.

Minor error was found in number of municipalities, so, we corrected its number from nine to thirteen (line 213).

I hope that you will find all of the changes we made satisfactory. We would like to thank you for your suggestions that were of invaluable help in considerably improving the quality of the manuscript.

Thank you in advance for your attention.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Best regards

Kenichi Tanaka, MD, PhD

Thank you for your constructive and excellent criticism and suggestions. We hope that we have responded adequately.

The changes made to the revised manuscript are shown by yellow highlights.

Reviewer #3: Thank you for offering the opportunity to review this paper. I find the paper well written. The most important strength of this manusdript is the complete explanation of the method. I only have some small minor comments.

Please find below the detailed list of my comments. Best regards

1-the caption of Table 2 needs to be improve because the items related to the disaster are not mentioned in the caption while they are in the table.

Respond: As suggested by the reviewer, we improved the caption of Table 2.

2-Although the sampling method is explained in detail, the name of the sampling method is not mentioned Respond: Thank you for your comments on this point. The present study was a cohort study included all residents between 40 and 74 years living in 13 communities near the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Fukushima prefecture who completed the Comprehensive Health Check of the FHMS in fiscal year 2011, so any sampling method was not used in the present study.

3- Because the sampling method is not random, the results cannot be generalized and this is one of the limitations of the study

Respond: As suggested by the reviewer, we added related descriptions as one of the study limitations (line 423 to 428). Added descriptions were as below.

“Second, as the present study consisted of residents living near the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Fukushima prefecture who completed the Comprehensive Health Check of the FHMS, the residents who did not completed the Comprehensive Health Check were excluded from the analysis. Although the reasons why they did not complete the health check were unclear, the exclusion of them could be a selection bias and might affect the results of the present study.”

Minor error was found in number of municipalities, so, we corrected its number from nine to thirteen (line 213).

I hope that you will find all of the changes we made satisfactory. We would like to thank you for your suggestions that were of invaluable help in considerably improving the quality of the manuscript.

Thank you in advance for your attention.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Best regards

Kenichi Tanaka, MD, PhD

Thank you for your constructive and excellent criticism and suggestions. We hope that we have responded adequately.

The changes made to the revised manuscript are shown by yellow highlights.

Reviewer #4: This is an interesting manuscript that has many strengths including some important findings. However, the manuscript could benefit from a revision that addresses several issues.

First, more information is needed about exactly when (and how many times) assessments were done of the key variables in the study. The authors mention that baseline assessments were done in 2011 and that follow-up Comprehensive Health Check assessments were done in 2012-17. It appears, however, that all of the analyses use only the baseline data as predictors of developing new onset hyperuicemia and that there is no longitudinal analysis of how these other predictor variables may change over time. This should be clarified.

Respond: Your comment on this point is extremely relevant. We could not assess longitudinal changes in baseline variables. So, we added and revised descriptions as a study limitation in the discussion section (line 418 to 423). Added descriptions were as below.

“First, the adjustment factors for hyperuricemia including lifestyle characteristics were only assessed and measured at baseline. We could not assess how these adjustment factors changed over the observation period in the present study, therefore, we only studied whether these factors at baseline affected the risk of developing hyperuricemia, although the changes in these factors might affect the results.”

Second, the key variable of evacuation as used in this study is technically accurate but somewhat misleading. It appears that evacuation was not voluntary but mandatory based on specific communities that had either experienced a great deal of damage due to the earthquake or tsunami or that were viewed as being at high risk of radiation exposure. In other words, evacuation not only means that you had to relocate but is also a proxy for where you lived before the disaster and how badly where you lived was affected by the disaster. Relocation can clearly affect important aspects of your lifestyle such as diet, physical activity, access to usual healthcare, etc., but if relocation is mandatory and prompted by a high level of disaster exposure, stress related to high levels of disaster exposure whether or not you had to evacuate also comes into play. This should be acknowledged.

Respond: Thank you for your comments on this point. We considered this point to be extremely important when taking measures after a natural disaster. So, we added related descriptions as a study limitation in the discussion section (line 428 to 439). Added descriptions were as below.

“Third, the detailed mechanism by which disaster evacuation causes hyperuricemia remains unclear. Evacuation itself may not be the direct cause of hyperuricemia. Factors related to evacuation, such as severe disaster damage and changes in living environment and lifestyle may be associated with the increased risk of new onset of hyperuricemia, but lifestyle characteristics were measured only at baseline. Therefore, future research is still needed to investigate with longitudinal evaluation of clinical, biochemical, and lifestyle characteristics whether exacerbating lifestyle habits after a natural disaster are caused by changes in the living environment associated with relocation, by the stress associated with the disaster damage, or by the other factors, although exacerbating lifestyle habits such as changes in diet are thought to be one of the causes of hyperuricemia.”

Third, there is no mention of the duration of the evacuation or inclusion of a measure of this in the analyses. In many natural disasters, evacuations are not permanent, and many individuals return to the disaster sites within days, weeks, or months. Trying to rebuild your property and life after a disaster is stressful whether you have returned to the site were not, but providing additional information about the length of the evacuation is important under either circumstance.

Respond: Thank you for your comments on this point. We added related descriptions as a study limitation in the discussion section (line 439 to 441). Added descriptions were as below.

“Forth, data on the duration of evacuation were not available in the present study, although long-term evacuation could have significant effects on health damage of victims.”

Fourth, if the lifestyle characteristic measures listed in Table 2 (including past 30 day psychological distress and PTSD) were measured only at baseline, there would be no way to determine whether these variables changed over time or whether any such changes are related to changes in uric acid levels. This would be a substantial limitation that should be acknowledged.

Respond: As the reviewer pointed out, we could not assess longitudinal changes in baseline variables. So, we added and revised descriptions as a study limitation in the discussion section (line 418 to 423). Added descriptions were as below.

“First, the adjustment factors for hyperuricemia including lifestyle characteristics were only assessed and measured at baseline. We could not assess how these adjustment factors changed over the observation period in the present study, therefore, we only studied whether these factors at baseline affected the risk of developing hyperuricemia, although the changes in these factors might affect the results.”

Fifth, it is unclear whether the key uric acid level measure in the study took into account individuals who were receiving medication to reduce high uric acid levels. Such medications typically reduce uric acid levels below the threshold for hyperuiecemia used in the study, so this is relevant information.

Respond: Your comment on this point is extremely relevant. We could not assess data on medications for hyperuricemia. So, we added and revised descriptions as a study limitation in the discussion section (line 441 to 445). Added descriptions were as below.

“Fifth, we did not assess medications (with or without treatment) for hyperuricemia. Pharmacotherapy can significantly reduce uric acid levels and thus have a significant impact on the results of the present study. We believe that the impact of drug therapy is not small, as there are several types and capacities of drugs that directly lower uric acid levels, as well as several drugs that indirectly lower uric acid levels.”

Sixth, as reflected in Figure 1, there was substantial nonparticipation and attrition in the study, raising the possibility of bias in study findings. It would be useful if the authors could address this issue.

Respond: As suggested by the reviewer, we added related descriptions as one of the study limitations (line 423 to 428). Added descriptions were as below.

“Second, as the present study consisted of residents living near the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Fukushima prefecture who completed the Comprehensive Health Check of the FHMS, the residents who did not completed the Comprehensive Health Check were excluded from the analysis. Although the reasons why they did not complete the health check were unclear, the exclusion of them could be a selection bias and might affect the results of the present study.”

Finally, the overall finding that individuals who were forced to be evacuated due to major disaster damage or threat of radiation exposure where they lived had higher risk of developing excessive uric acid levels is important. The difficulty is that evacuation per se is not likely to be the primary mechanism accounting for this change. Therefore, evacuation is a proxy for high disaster exposure, so the question remains how does such exposure relate to known biopsychosocial mechanisms that might account for increases in uric acid levels. The manuscript would benefit from a discussion that acknowledges more clearly that the study does not have the data to test some of the potential mechanisms, as I do not think that most of the predictor variables measured at baseline were measured longitudinally.

Respond: Thank you for your extremely valuable comments on this point. We added related descriptions as one of the study limitations (line 428 to 439). Added descriptions were as below. These descriptions were related to second comment by the reviewer.

“Third, the detailed mechanism by which disaster evacuation causes hyperuricemia remains unclear. Evacuation itself may not be the direct cause of hyperuricemia. Factors related to evacuation, such as severe disaster damage and changes in living environment and lifestyle may be associated with the increased risk of new onset of hyperuricemia, but lifestyle characteristics were measured only at baseline. Therefore, future research is still needed to investigate with longitudinal evaluation of clinical, biochemical, and lifestyle characteristics whether exacerbating lifestyle habits after a natural disaster are caused by changes in the living environment associated with relocation, by the stress associated with the disaster damage, or by the other factors, although exacerbating lifestyle habits such as changes in diet are thought to be one of the causes of hyperuricemia.”

Minor error was found in number of municipalities, so, we corrected its number from nine to thirteen (line 213).

I hope that you will find all of the changes we made satisfactory. We would like to thank you for your suggestions that were of invaluable help in considerably improving the quality of the manuscript.

Thank you in advance for your attention.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Best regards

Kenichi Tanaka, MD, PhD

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Mohammad Reza Mahmoodi

13 Oct 2023

Relationship between evacuation after the Great East Japan Earthquake and new-onset hyperuricemia: A 7-year prospective longitudinal study of the Fukushima Health Management Survey

PONE-D-23-01408R1

Dear Dr. Tanaka,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mohammad Reza Mahmoodi, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors

Many thanks for your contributions and response. all of my comments very good responded.

Best regards

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Mohammad Reza Mahmoodi

17 Oct 2023

PONE-D-23-01408R1

Relationship between evacuation after the Great East Japan Earthquake and new-onset hyperuricemia: A 7-year prospective longitudinal study of the Fukushima Health Management Survey

Dear Dr. Tanaka:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mohammad Reza Mahmoodi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Clinical and biochemical characteristics of the 18,140 participants stratified by sex and the development of hyperuricemia.

    The values in the table indicate the average value (standard deviation) or the percentage. Fasting blood glucose, triglycerides, AST, ALT, and γ-GT are reported as the median (25–75% percentile). BMI: body mass index, HbA1c: hemoglobin A1c, HDL-C: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, LDL-C: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, AST: aspartate aminotransferase, ALT: alanine aminotransferase, γ-GT: γ-glutamyl transpeptidase, eGFR: estimated glomerular filtration rate.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Lifestyle characteristics of the 18,140 participants stratified by sex and the development of hyperuricemia.

    The values in the table indicate the number (percentage). K6: Kessler 6-item scale, PTSD: Post-traumatic stress disorder, PCL: Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Hazard ratios of evacuation for the development of hyperuricemia (levels higher than 7 mg/dL) in 6,961 men, according to baseline variates.

    Model 1: adjusted for age, BMI, systolic blood pressure, fasting blood glucose, triglycerides, eGFR, smoking status, drinking status, and unemployment experience. Model 2: adjusted for Model 1 plus sleep dissatisfaction, physical activity, tsunami experience, nuclear accident experience and, post-traumatic stress disorder. HR: hazard ratio, CI: confidence interval, BMI: body mass index.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Table. Hazard ratio of evacuation for the development of hyperuricemia (levels higher than 6 mg/dL) in 11,179 women, according to baseline variates.

    Model 1: adjusted for age, BMI, systolic blood pressure, fasting blood glucose, triglycerides, eGFR, smoking status, drinking status, and unemployment experience. Model 2: adjusted for Model 1 plus sleep dissatisfaction, physical activity, tsunami experience, nuclear accident experience and, post-traumatic stress disorder. HR: hazard ratio, CI: confidence interval, BMI: body mass index.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data underlying the findings in this study cannot be made publicly available due the nature of ethical approval for the study. Interested researchers may submit requests to the Fukushima Medical University’s Ethics Committee (Contact information: Email: rs@fmu.ac.jp) for access to confidential data.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES