4.7 Article

Urinary Cystatin C and Tubular Proteinuria Predict Progression of Diabetic Nephropathy

Journal

DIABETES CARE
Volume 36, Issue 3, Pages 656-661

Publisher

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc12-0849

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Pusan National University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE-The aim of this study was to evaluate the association of urinary cystatin C, a tubular damage marker, with the progression of type 2 diabetic nephropathy. RESERCH DESIGN AND METHODS-The baseline values of serum and urinary cystatin C were measured as primary parameters and those of urinary nonalbumin protein (NAP) were measured as secondary parameters. In this prospective observational study, a total of 237 type 2 diabetic patients were followed up for 29 months (13-44 months). RESULTS-Both the urinary cystatin C-to-creatinine ratio (CCR) and NAP-to-creatinine ratio (NAPCR) were significantly different according to the degree of albuminuria. Both markers had strongly positive correlations at baseline. After adjusting for several clinical factors, both urinary CCR and NAPCR had significant associations with the decline of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (r = 0.160, P = 0.021; r = 0.412, P < 0.001, respectively). Urinary CCR had positive correlations with the decline of eGFR in the subpopulation of patients with eGFR >= 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2). In patients with eGFR >= 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and normoalbuminuria, only urinary NAPCR showed a significant association with the decline of eGFR; urinary CCR did not. In multivariate regression analysis, the number of patients who progressed to chronic kidney disease stage 3 or greater was higher in those in the upper tertiles of both the urinary levels of cystatin C and NAP than in those in the lower tertiles. CONCLUSIONS-The results of this study suggest that urinary cystatin C and NAP may be predictors of the progression of type 2 diabetic nephropathy. Diabetes Care 36:656-661, 2013

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