4.5 Article

Markers of Glomerular and Tubular Damage in the Early Stage of Kidney Disease in Type 2 Diabetic Patients

期刊

MEDIATORS OF INFLAMMATION
卷 2018, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2018/7659243

关键词

-

资金

  1. Jagiellonian University Medical College [K/ZDS/006347]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diabetic kidney disease develops in half of genetically predisposed patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Early diagnosis of kidney damage and nephroprotective treatment are the ways of preventing the disease progression. Our aim was to evaluate selected laboratory markers of glomerular and tubular damage in T2DM patients with early stages of chronic kidney disease (G1/G2, A1/A2) for their associations with A2 albuminuria and early decline in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Among 80 T2DM patients with median eGFR of 92.4 ml/min/1.73 m(2) and median urinary albumin to creatinine ratio (uACR) of 4.69 mg/g, 19 had uACR > 30 mg/g (A2). Higher serum cystatin C, serum and urine neutrophil gelatinase associated lipocalin (NGAL), urine kidney injury molecule 1 (KIM-1), detectable urine transferrin and IgG, and lower serum uromodulin significantly predicted A2 albuminuria, urine KIM-1/creatinine ratio, and IgG being the best predictors. Albuminuria, urine NGAL/creatinine, and IgG correlated with diabetes duration. Albuminuria, urine NGAL, transferrin, IgG, and uromodulin correlated with diabetes control. In a subgroup of 29 patients, retrospective data were available on changes in eGFR and uACR over one year. Decline in eGFR was observed in 17 patients and increase in uACR in 10 patients. Serum and urine NGAL correlated with eGFR changes. Higher urine NGAL, KIM-1/creatinine ratio, and detectable IgG were significantly associated with the increase in uACR. Widely available markers, serum cystatin C, urine IgG, transferrin, and NGAL, may help in early assessment of kidney disease in T2DM patients; however, large prospective studies are needed to confirm the conclusion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据