Non-diabetic renal disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: a single centre study

Clinical predictors for nondiabetic kidney diseases in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a retrospective study from 2017 to 2021

BACKGROUND

Nondiabetic kidney disease (NDKD), which is prevalent among patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), is considerably different from diabetic kidney disease (DKD) in terms of the pathological features, treatment strategy and prognosis. Although renal biopsy is the current gold-standard diagnostic method, it cannot be routinely performed due to a range of risks. The aim of this study was to explore the predictors for differentiating NDKD from DKD to meet the urgent medical needs of patients who cannot afford kidney biopsy.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study conducted by reviewing the medical records of patients with type 2 DM who underwent percutaneous renal biopsy at the Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou Medical University between January 2017 and May 2021. The demographic data, clinical data, blood test results, and pathological examination results of the patients were obtained from their medical records. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to evaluate the predictive factors for NDKD.

RESULTS

A total of 244 patients were analyzed. The median age at biopsy was 55 (46, 62) years. Patients diagnosed with true DKD, those diagnosed with NDKD and those diagnosed with NDKD superimposed DKD represented 48.36% (118/244), 45.9% (112/244) and 5.74% (14/244), respectively, of the patient population. Immunoglobulin A nephropathy was the most common type of lesion in those with NDKD (59, 52.68%) and NDKD superimposed DKD (10, 71.43%). Independent predictive indicators for diagnosing NDKD included a DM duration of less than 5 years (odds ratio [OR] = 4.476; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.257-8.877; P < 0.001), an absence of diabetic retinopathy (OR = 4.174; 95% CI: 2.049-8.502; P < 0.001), a high RBC count (OR = 1.901; 95% CI: 1.251-2.889; P = 0.003), and a negative of urinary glucose excretion test result (OR = 2.985; 95% CI: 1.474-6.044; P = 0.002)..

CONCLUSIONS

A DM duration less than 5 years, an absence of retinopathy, a high RBC count and an absence of urinary glucose excretion were independent indicators for the diagnosis of NDKD, suggesting that patients with NDKD may require a different treatment regimen than those with DKD.

Diagnostic roles of urinary kidney microvesicles in diabetic nephropathy

Background

The pathology of diabetic nephropathy (DN) broadly involves the injury of glomeruli, tubulointerstitium and endothelium. Cells from these compartments can release increased numbers of microvesicles (MVs) into urine when stressed or damaged. Currently whether urinary MVs from these three parts can help diagnose DN and reflect pathological features remain unclear.

Methods

Forty-nine patients with histologically proven DN and 29 proteinuric controls with membranous nephropathy or minimal change disease were enrolled. Urinary podocyte, proximal tubular and endothelial cell-derived MVs were quantified by flow cytometry. Renal glomerular, tubulointerstitial and vascular lesions were semi-quantitatively scored and their relevance to urinary MVs were analyzed.

Results

DN patients had greater numbers of urinary MVs from podocytes, proximal tubular and endothelial cells compared with proteinuric controls. The combination of podocyte nephrin+ MVs and diabetic retinopathy optimally diagnose DN with 89.7% specificity and 88.9% sensitivity. Moreover, positive correlations were observed between urinary levels of proximal tubular MVs and the severity of tubular injury and between urinary levels of endothelial MVs and the degree of vascular injury. Using urinary proximal tubular MVs as the indicators for tubular injury, the differences between DN patients and proteinuric controls diminished after matching the degree of renal vascular injury or when proteinuria >8 g/24 h.

Conclusions

Urinary kidney-specific cell-derived MVs might serve as noninvasive biomarkers for the diagnosis of DN in diabetic proteinuric patients. Their elevated levels could reflect corresponding renal pathological lesions, helping physicians look into the heterogeneity of DN.

Insights into the Role of Renal Biopsy in Patients with T2DM: A Literature Review of Global Renal Biopsy Results

INTRODUCTION

Renal biopsy performed in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) for atypical or suspected diabetic kidney disease (DKD) reveals one of three possibilities: diabetic nephropathy (DN, pathological diagnosis of DKD), nondiabetic kidney disease (NDKD) and DN plus NDKD (mixed form). NDKD (including the mixed form) is increasingly being recognized worldwide. With the emerging concept of DKD and the complexity of routine application of renal biopsy, the identification of "clinical indicators" to differentiate DKD from NDKD has been an area of active research.

METHODS

The PubMed database was searched for relevant articles mainly according to the keyword search method. We reviewed prevalence of the three types of DKD and different pathological lesions of NDKD. We also reviewed the clinical indicators used to identify DKD and NDKD.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 40 studies (5304 data) worldwide between 1977 and 2019 that looked at global renal biopsy and pathological NDKD lesions. The overall prevalence rate of DN, NDKD and DN plus NDKD is reported to be 41.3, 40.6 and 18.1%, respectively. In Asia, Africa (specifically Morocco and Tunisia) and Europe, the most common isolated NDKD pathological type is membranous nephropathy, representing 24.1, 15.1 and 22.6% of cases, respectively. In contrast, focal segmental glomerulosclerosis is reported to be the primary pathological type in North America (specifically the USA) and Oceania (specifically New Zealand), representing 22% and 63.9% of cases, respectively. Tubulointerstitial disease accounts for a high rate in the mixed group (21.7%), with acute interstitial nephritis being the most prevalent (9.3%), followed by acute tubular necrosis (9.0%). Regarding clinical indicators to differentiate DKD from NDKD, a total of 14 indicators were identified included in 42 studies. Among these, the most commonly studied indicators included diabetic retinopathy, duration of diabetes, proteinuria and hematuria. Regrettably, indicators with high sensitivity and specificity have not yet been identified.

CONCLUSION

To date, renal biopsy is still the gold standard to diagnose diabetes complicated with renal disease, especially when T2DM patients present atypical DKD symptoms (e.g. absence of diabetic retinopathy, shorter duration of diabetes, microscopic hematuria, sub-nephrotic range proteinuria, lower glycated hemoglobin, lower fasting blood glucose). We conclude that renal biopsy as early as possible is of great significance to enable personalized treatment to T2DM patients.

Predictors and histopathological characteristics of non-diabetic renal disorders in diabetes: a look from the tubulointerstitial point of view

BACKGROUND

Prevalence and characteristics of non-diabetic renal diseases (NDRD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus is different between populations, and seems to be largely dependent on biopsy policies.

AIM

To investigate clinical clues for NDRD in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and to analyse renal prognosis of patients based on pathological diagnosis.

METHODS

We retrospectively searched medical records of 115 patients with type 2 diabetes who underwent a renal biopsy between 2004 and 2018. Patients were divided into three groups as diabetic nephropathy (DN), NDRD + DN or NDRD based on histopathological examination.

RESULTS

Thirty-six (31.3%) patients had DN, 33 (28.7%) had DN + NDRD and 46 (40%) had NDRD. The absence of diabetic retinopathy, recent onset of diabetes, abnormal disease chronology, and blood haemoglobin was associated with the presence of NDRD in univariate analysis. Abnormal disease chronology which was defined as the presence of acute proteinuria and/or acute kidney injury that are unexpected to be related to evolution of diabetic nepropathy (odds ratio 4.65, 95% confidence interval 1.44-15.00; P = 0.010) and absence of diabetic retinopathy (odds ratio 3.44, 95% confidence interval 1.32-8.98; P = 0.012) were independently associated with the presence of NDRD in multivariate analysis. Focal segmental glomerulosclerosis was the most frequent type of NDRD. Diseases that affect tubulointerstitial area were more prevalent in the DN + NDRD group compared to the NDRD group (P = 0.001). Renal survival, which was defined as evolution to end-stage renal disease, was 59.5 ± 14.4 months, 93.7 ± 11.7 months and 87.2 ± 2.6 months for DN, DN + NDRD and NDRD groups, respectively (P = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Renal biopsy is essential in certain clinical conditions as diagnosis of NDRD is vital for favourable renal survival. DN may facilitate superimposed tubular injury in the presence of toxic insults.

Timing of kidney biopsy in type 2 diabetic patients: a stepwise approach

BACKGROUND

Diabetic nephropathy (DN) is the most prevalent cause of renal disease in type 2 diabetic patients and is usually diagnosed clinically. A kidney biopsy is considered when non-diabetic renal disease (NDRD) is suspected, such as rapid progression in renal function impairment and severe proteinuria. Still, there is yet no consensus on the timing of kidney biopsy in type 2 diabetic patients. This study aims to identify markers that can help differentiate between DN and NDRD and guide the decision of kidney biopsy.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients with type 2 diabetes who received kidney biopsy from 2008 to 2017 at Taipei Veterans General Hospital. Ophthalmologist consultation and outpatient records, diagnosis of kidney biopsy, laboratory data, and clinical characteristics were collected.

RESULTS

This study enrolled 160 type 2 diabetic patients, among which 120 (75%) had isolated DN and 40 (25%) had NDRD ± DN (26 had isolated NDRD, and 14 had NDRD superimposed on DN). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, DM duration (odds ratio [OR]: 0.907; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.842-0.977; P = 0.01), diabetic retinopathy (OR: 0.196; 95% CI: 0.061-0.627; P = 0.006), and urinary RBC (OR: 1.068; 95% CI: 1.024-1.115; P = 0.002) were independent predictors of NDRD. In patients with diabetic retinopathy (n = 112, 70%), the presence of proliferative diabetic retinopathy, pan-retinal photocoagulation, and hematuria were factors predicting NDRD; and in patients without diabetic retinopathy (n = 48, 30%), short DM duration and hematuria were factors predicting NDRD.

CONCLUSIONS

Using diabetic retinopathy, DM duration, and hematuria, we developed a 3-step approach to stratify patients into three categories with the different likelihoods of having NDRD. Then different strategies could be taken accordingly. Our stepwise approach is easy to follow and may serve as an appropriate and useful tool to help clinicians in making decisions of kidney biopsy in type 2 DM patients presenting with kidney diseases.

Diagnostic Performance of Retinopathy in the Detection of Diabetic Nephropathy in Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 45 Studies

AIMS

To conduct an evidence-based evaluation of diabetic retinopathy (DR) for the diagnosis of diabetic nephropathy (DN) in type 2 diabetics with kidney disease.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to June 27, 2018, including the reference lists of identified primary studies. A study was included if it (1) used DR as a diagnostic test for DN; and (2) used histological evaluation of renal tissues as the reference standard.

RESULTS

The analysis included 45 studies (4,561 patients). A bivariate analysis yielded a sensitivity of 0.67 (95% CI 0.61-0.74) and a specificity of 0.78 (95% CI 0.73-0.82). The summary receiver operating characteristic curve analysis provided an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.79 (95% CI 0.76-0.83). In a setting of 41% prevalence of DN, the probability of DN would be 68% if the test of DR was positive, and the probability of DN would be 23% if it was negative. In addition, although the mean specificity of proliferative DR for the detection of DN was 0.99 (95% CI 0.45-1.00), the mean sensitivity was 0.34 (95% CI 0.24-0.44), and the AUC was 0.58 (95% CI 0.53-0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

DR is helpful in diagnosing DN in persons with type 2 diabetes and kidney disease, but the severity of DR may not parallel the presence of DN.

Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy of Retinopathy for the Detection of Diabetic Kidney Disease in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to explore whether diabetic retinopathy (DR) could distinguish diabetic kidney disease (DKD) from nondiabetic renal diseases (NDRDs) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and renal disease.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, MEDLINE and China National Knowledge Internet for articles that enrolled patients with DKD and NDRD. The results were summarized as sensitivity, specificity and the area under the curve of summary receiver operating characteristic curve with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 51 studies that included 4,990 participants were collected for evaluation. The overall pooled sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve with their 95% CIs were 0.67 (95% CI 0.61, 0.73), 0.77 (95% CI 0.72, 0.81) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.82), respectively. If the test for DR is negative, the probability of DKD would decrease to 10%, but if the test for DR is positive, the probability would increase only to 42%. In addition, although the mean specificity of proliferative DR for detection of DKD was 0.98 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.00), the mean sensitivity was 0.25 (95% CI 0.16, 0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

DR may lack adequate evidence either to verify DKD or to exclude NDRD, and the severity of DR may not parallel the presence of DKD.