4.5 Article

Associations of urinary, glomerular, and tubular markers with the development of diabetic kidney disease in type 2 diabetes patients

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcla.22191

关键词

1-microglobulin; 2-microglobulin; albuminuria; diabetic kidney disease; glomerular filtrationrate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectivesTo evaluate the associations of urinary markers (eg albumin), glomerular (eg transferrin [TRF], immunoglobulin G [IgG]), and tubular (eg 1-microglobulin [1-MG], 2-microglobulin [2-MG]) markers with the development of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) in type 2 diabetes patients, as assessed by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and albuminuria. Material and methodsA total of 252 type 2 diabetes patients and 50 nondiabetic controls from Tianjin, China, were selected. Diabetic patients were divided into three groups according to eGFR levels, including groups A, B, and C with eGFR 90 (n=94), 60-89 (n=94), and 30-59 (n=64)mL/min/1.73m(2). Urine levels of glomerular and tubular markers were detected in first morning urine samples, and their associations with eGFR and albuminuria analyzed. ResultsUrinary levels of IgG, TRF, and 2-MG were significantly elevated in diabetic patients with normal eGFR compared with nondiabetic control subjects. Urinary levels of all markers increased per eGFR stratum. All kidney damage markers were significantly associated with eGFR in univariate analysis (standard between -0.35 and -0.28; all P<.001). After adjusting for known confounders, only the tubular markers 1-MG (standard =-0.25; P=.013) and 2-MG (standard =-0.18; P=.039) retained significant associations with eGFR. All kidney damage markers were significantly associated with albuminuria, independent of age, duration of diabetes, and eGFR (standard between 0.45 and 0.86; all P<.001). ConclusionOnly the tubular markers (1)-MG and (2)-MG were associated with eGFR independent of albuminuria, suggesting that they may play an important role in the development of DKD.

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