Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Aug 28.
Published in final edited form as: Clin Transplant. 2012 May-Jun;26(3):E307–E315. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0012.2012.01661.x

Table 3.

Association of diabetic status in ESRD patients with getting listed/transplanted in the entire study population and study groups by Cox model1

Outcome: listed/transplanted without being listed. Outcome: transplant for those who got listed.

Hazard ratio (95% CI) P Hazard ratio (95% CI) P
Diabetes in the entire study population 1.07(1.05–1.09) <0.001 1.01(0.99–1.03) 0.42
Diabetes by age group (yr)
 18–40 0.94(0.91–0.97) 0.003 1.18(1.13–1.24) <0.001
 41–65 0.96(0.94–0.97) <0.001 0.84(0.82–0.87) <0.001
 66–80 1.21(1.16–1.26) <0.001 0.98(0.92–1.04) 0.46
Diabetes in males 1.14(1.11–1.16) <0.001 1.07(1.04–1.10) <0.001
Diabetes in females 0.98(0.96–1.01) 0.13 0.93(0.89–0.96) <0.001
Diabetes in Whites 1.02(1.00–1.04) 0.02 0.97(0.94–1.00) 0.01
Diabetes in African Americans 1.14(1.10–1.17) <0.001 1.16(1.11–1.22) <0.001
Diabetes in Asians 1.02(0.95–1.09) 0.67 0.85(0.76–0.95) 0.003
Diabetes in Native Americans 1.07(0.92–1.25) 0.38 0.87(0.70–1.08) 0.20
Diabetes in Others 1.25(1.09–1.43) 0.001 1.21(0.99–1.49) 0.06
1

The results shown in the table were derived from 22 separate proportional hazard models, each of them adjusted for the following covariates: age at ESRD onset, race, sex, diabetic status, body mass index, comorbidity index, geographic location, duration of pre-ESRD nephrology care, eGFR, serum albumin, hemoglobin, and median income.