Table 2.
Comparison of adverse study outcomes between the study groups with adjustment for severity of baseline or previous MetS
| Model 1 (number of present MetS components adjusted)a | Model 2 (measured values of MetS criteria adjusted)b | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Albuminuria | Incidental CKD | Albuminuria | Incidental CKD | |||||
| Adjusted HR (95% CI) | P value | Adjusted HR (95% CI) | P value | Adjusted HR (95% CI) | P value | Adjusted HR (95% CI) | P value | |
| Intergroup analysis with adjustment of previous MetS severityc | ||||||||
| Recovery from MetS (ref. = MetS-chronic group) | 0.56 (0.54-0.58) | < 0.001 | 0.74 (0.72-0.77) | < 0.001 | 0.58 (0.56-0.60) | < 0.001 | 0.74 (0.72-0.76) | < 0.001 |
| Development of MetS (ref. = MetS-free group) | 1.58 (1.54-1.62) | < 0.001 | 1.27 (1.24-1.30) | < 0.001 | 1.54 (1.50-1.58) | < 0.001 | 1.26 (1.23-1.29) | < 0.001 |
| Intergroup analysis with adjustment of baseline MetS severityd | ||||||||
| Previous history of MetS (MetS-recovery, ref. = MetS-free) | 1.16 (1.13-1.20) | < 0.001 | 1.13 (1.10-1.17) | < 0.001 | 1.15 (1.11-1.18) | < 0.001 | 1.11 (1.08-1.15) | < 0.001 |
| Previously free from MetS (MetS-developed, ref. = MetS-chronic) | 0.73 (0.72-0.75) | < 0.001 | 0.84 (0.82-0.86) | < 0.001 | 0.77 (0.75-0.78) | < 0.001 | 0.84 (0.82-0.86) | < 0.001 |
CI, confidence interval; CKD, chronic kidney disease; HR, hazard ratio; MetS, metabolic syndrome.
The base multivariable model included the following variables at the inclusion date: age, sex, low income, Charlson comorbidity index scores, body mass index, and baseline laboratory parameters, including estimated glomerular filtration rate, aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase, hemoglobin, and the presence of dipstick albuminuria.
In addition to the variables, the number of present MetS components was adjusted in model 1. bThe model was same as the model 1 except that actual measured parameters of MetS criteria being included in the model instead the number of present components. cIn intergroup analysis 1, the previous MetS parameters were adjusted, as the study groups had same MetS presence/absence state in the previous period. dIn intergroup analysis 2, the baseline MetS parameters were adjusted, as the MetS presence/absence state was the same during the follow-up period.