4.7 Article

Nonalbuminuric renal insufficiency in type 2 diabetes

Journal

DIABETES CARE
Volume 27, Issue 1, Pages 195-200

Publisher

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.27.1.195

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE - To determine the prevalence and characteristics of patients with type 2 diabetes who have impaired renal function, defined as a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) <60 ml . min(-1) . 1.73 m(-2), and normoalbuminuria. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - A cross-sectional survey of 301 outpatients attending a single tertiary referral center using the plasma disappearance of isotopic Tc-99m-diethylene-triamine-penta-acetic acid to measure GFR and at least two measurements of urinary albumin excretion rate (AER) over 24 h to determine albuminuria. RESULTS - A total of 109 patients (36%) had a GFR <60 ml . min(-1) . 1.73 m(-2). The overall prevalence of normo-, micro-, and macroalburminuria was 43 of 109 (39%), 38 of 109 (35%), and 28 of 109 (26%), respectively. Compared with patients with macroalbuminuria, those with normoalbuminuria were more likely to be older and female. After excluding patients whose normoalburminuric status was possibly related to the initiation of a renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor before the start of the study, the prevalence of a GFR <60 ml . min(-1) . 1.73 m(-2) and normoalbuminuria was 23%. Temporal changes in GFR in a subset of 34 of 109 (32%) unselected patients with impaired renal function were available for comparison over a 3- to of - 10-year period. The rates of decline in GFR (ml - min(-1) . 1.73 - year(-1)) 4.6 +/- 1.0, -2.8 +/- 1.0, and -3.0 +/- 07 were not significantly different for normo- (n = 12), micro- (n 12), and macroalbuminuric (n = 10) patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS - These results suggest that patients with type 2 diabetes can commonly progress to a significant degree of renal impairment while remaining normoalbuminuric.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available