scholarly journals Nonproteinuric Versus Proteinuric Phenotypes in Diabetic Kidney Disease: A Propensity Score–Matched Analysis of a Nationwide, Biopsy-Based Cohort Study

Diabetes Care ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (5) ◽  
pp. 891-902 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masayuki Yamanouchi ◽  
Kengo Furuichi ◽  
Junichi Hoshino ◽  
Tadashi Toyama ◽  
Akinori Hara ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 2028
Author(s):  
Hayato Tanabe ◽  
Haruka Saito ◽  
Noritaka Machii ◽  
Akihiro Kudo ◽  
Kenichi Tanaka ◽  
...  

The risk of developing diabetic kidney disease (DKD) in patients with undiagnosed diabetes mellitus (UD) has never been evaluated. We studied the burden of UD on the risk of developing DKD in the Japanese population in a single-center retrospective cohort study. The patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, but without DKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 or proteinuria), were recruited from January 2018 to January 2019; medical records were scrutinized retrospectively from January 2003 until May 2019. The individuals, with diabetes that could not be denied based on past and current records, comprised the undiagnosed diabetes (UD) group whereas those with confirmed diagnosis comprised the diagnosed diabetes (DD) group. The group differences were tested using a Kaplan–Meier curve and Cox proportional hazards model. Among the 408 participants, 164 (40.2%) and 244 (59.8%) comprised the DD and UD groups, respectively. The baseline parameters, including age, male gender, and BMI were comparable between the groups, but the plasma glucose, HbA1c levels, and diabetic retinopathy prevalence were higher in the UD group. The risk of developing DKD (log rank test, p < 0.001), an eGFR of < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (p = 0.001) and proteinuria (p = 0.007) were also higher in the UD group. The unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios for DKD were 1.760 ((95% CI: 1.323–2.341), p < 0.001) and 1.566 ((95% CI: 1.159–2.115), p = 0.003), respectively, for the UD group. In conclusion, this is the first report showing that UD is a strong risk factor for DKD. The notion that a longer duration of untreated diabetes mellitus is involved strongly in the risk of developing DKD warrants the need for the identification and monitoring of UD patients.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. e0174601 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yeh-Wen Chu ◽  
Hsuan-Ming Lin ◽  
Jhi-Joung Wang ◽  
Shih-Feng Weng ◽  
Chih-Ching Lin ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 204201881989111
Author(s):  
Yongzhang Qin ◽  
Shuang Zhang ◽  
Xiaofang Shen ◽  
Shunming Zhang ◽  
Jingyu Wang ◽  
...  

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of six urinary biomarkers for prediction of diabetic kidney disease (DKD). Methods: The cross-sectional study recruited 1053 hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), who were categorized into the diabetes mellitus (DM) with normoalbuminuria (NA) group ( n = 753) and DKD group ( n = 300) according to 24-h urinary albumin excretion rate (24-h UAE). Data on the levels of six studied urinary biomarkers [transferrin (TF), immunoglobulin G (IgG), retinol-binding protein (RBP), β-galactosidase (GAL), N-acetyl-beta-glucosaminidase (NAG), and β2-microglobulin (β2MG)] were obtained. The propensity score matching (PSM) method was applied to eliminate the influences of confounding variables. Results: Patients with DKD had higher levels of all six urinary biomarkers. All indicators demonstrated significantly increased risk of DKD, except for GAL and β2MG. Single RBP yielded the greatest area under the curve (AUC) value of 0.920 compared with the other five markers, followed by TF (0.867) and IgG (0.867). However, GAL, NAG, and β2MG were shown to have a weak prognostic ability. The diagnostic values of the different combinations were not superior to the single RBP. Conclusions: RBP, TF, and IgG could be used as reliable or good predictors of DKD. The combined use of these biomarkers did not improve DKD detection.


Diabetes Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. dc210529
Author(s):  
Samantha T. Harris ◽  
Elisabetta Patorno ◽  
Min Zhuo ◽  
Seoyoung C. Kim ◽  
Julie M. Paik

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document