Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • Kidney Week Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • ASN Publications
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • ASN Publications
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • Kidney Week Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow CJASN on Twitter
  • CJASN RSS
  • Community Forum
Original ArticlesDiabetes and the Kidney
You have accessRestricted Access

Prognostic Value of Tubulointerstitial Lesions, Urinary N-Acetyl-β-d-Glucosaminidase, and Urinary β2-Microglobulin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Biopsy–Proven Diabetic Nephropathy

Koki Mise, Junichi Hoshino, Toshiharu Ueno, Ryo Hazue, Jumpei Hasegawa, Akinari Sekine, Keiichi Sumida, Rikako Hiramatsu, Eiko Hasegawa, Masayuki Yamanouchi, Noriko Hayami, Tatsuya Suwabe, Naoki Sawa, Takeshi Fujii, Shigeko Hara, Kenichi Ohashi, Kenmei Takaichi and Yoshifumi Ubara
CJASN April 2016, 11 (4) 593-601; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.04980515
Koki Mise
*Nephrology Center,
†Okinaka Memorial Institute for Medical Research, Toranomon Hospital, Tokyo, Japan;
‡Department of Nephrology, Rheumatology, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Junichi Hoshino
*Nephrology Center,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Toshiharu Ueno
*Nephrology Center,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ryo Hazue
*Nephrology Center,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jumpei Hasegawa
*Nephrology Center,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Akinari Sekine
*Nephrology Center,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Keiichi Sumida
*Nephrology Center,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rikako Hiramatsu
*Nephrology Center,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eiko Hasegawa
*Nephrology Center,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Masayuki Yamanouchi
*Nephrology Center,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Noriko Hayami
*Nephrology Center,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tatsuya Suwabe
*Nephrology Center,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Naoki Sawa
*Nephrology Center,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Takeshi Fujii
§Department of Pathology, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shigeko Hara
*Nephrology Center,
†Okinaka Memorial Institute for Medical Research, Toranomon Hospital, Tokyo, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kenichi Ohashi
§Department of Pathology, and
‖Department of Pathology, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kenmei Takaichi
*Nephrology Center,
†Okinaka Memorial Institute for Medical Research, Toranomon Hospital, Tokyo, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yoshifumi Ubara
*Nephrology Center,
†Okinaka Memorial Institute for Medical Research, Toranomon Hospital, Tokyo, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background and objectives Some biomarkers of renal tubular injury are reported to be useful for predicting renal prognosis in the early stage of diabetic nephropathy (DN). Our study compared predictions of the renal prognosis by such biomarkers and by histologic tubulointerstitial damage.

Design, setting, participants, & measurements Among 210 patients with type 2 diabetes and biopsy-proven DN managed from 1985 to 2011, 149 patients with urinary N-acetyl-β-d-glucosaminidase (NAG) and urinary β2-microglobulin (β2-MG) data at the time of renal biopsy were enrolled. The primary outcome was a decline in eGFR of ≥50% from baseline or commencement of dialysis for ESRD.

Results The median follow-up period was 2.3 years (interquartile range, 1.1–5.3), and the primary outcome was noted in 94 patients. Mean eGFR was 46.3±23.2 ml/min per 1.73 m2, and 132 patients (89%) had overt proteinuria at baseline. Cox proportional hazards analysis revealed that the association of urinary NAG and β2-MG with the outcome was attenuated after adjustment for known promoters of progression (+1 SD for log NAG: hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.84 to 1.55; +1 SD for log β2-MG: HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.62). In contrast, the interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (IFTA) score was still significantly correlated with the outcome after adjustment for the same covariates (+1 for IFTA score: HR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.56 to 3.43). Moreover, adding the IFTA score to a model containing known progression indicators improved prediction of the outcome (increase of concordance index by 0.02; 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.05; category–free net reclassification improvement by 0.54; 95% CI, 0.03 to 1.05; and relative integrated discrimination improvement by 0.07; 95% CI, −0.08 to 0.22).

Conclusions Adding urinary NAG and β2-MG excretion to known promoters of progression did not improve prognostication, whereas adding the IFTA score did. The IFTA score may be superior to these tubulointerstitial markers for predicting the renal prognosis in advanced DN.

  • diabetic nephropathy
  • renal pathology
  • renal prognosis
  • tubulointerstitial lesion
  • urinary biomarker
  • diabetes mellitus, type 2
  • disease progression
  • follow-up studies
  • humans
  • kidney failure, chronic

Introduction

Proteinuria and albuminuria are commonly regarded as sensitive biomarkers of the renal prognosis in patients with diabetic nephropathy (DN) (1,2). However, it has recently been pointed out that these markers have some drawbacks for predicting the renal outcome (3,4). With the aim of achieving more accurate prediction of the renal prognosis, other biomarkers have also been investigated, including markers of renal tubular injury and inflammation (3,5).

N-acetyl-β-d-glucosaminidase (NAG) is a lysosomal brush border enzyme that is localized in the microvilli of renal tubular epithelial cells. Because of its relatively high molecular mass (>130 kD), NAG is not filtered through the glomeruli, and it is only released into the urine after renal tubular injury (6,7). Urinary NAG excretion is also associated with inflammation, such as that related to NF-κB activation, which is important in the pathophysiology of DN (8). On the basis of these reports, urinary NAG may not just be a useful indicator of renal tubulointerstitial damage but also, may be a marker of neuropathy in patients with diabetes (4,9,10).

β2-Microbrobulin (β2-MG) is a low molecular mass protein (11.8 kD) that is produced by all cells expressing the MHC class 1 antigens (6). It is filtered by the glomeruli but then, almost completely reabsorbed and catabolized by the cells of the proximal tubules (11). Therefore, urinary β2-MG is a classic biomarker of renal tubulointerstitial injury along with urinary NAG.

We recently reported that the extent of interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (IFTA) was a significant predictor of the renal prognosis, even after adjustment for urinary protein excretion (UP) (12,13). There have also been some other recent reports that stressed the influence of IFTA on the renal prognosis (14,15). However, it is unclear how closely tubulointerstitial markers, including urinary NAG and β2-MG, actually reflect tubulointerstitial injury. Moreover, the diagnosis of DN was not confirmed by renal biopsy in previous studies of tubulointerstitial markers.

At our institution, a relatively large number of patients with diabetes have had DN confirmed by renal biopsy and have also been followed up for a long period (13). In most of them, urinary NAG and β2-MG were examined at the time of renal biopsy as markers of tubulointerstitial injury. Using our database, we performed this study to investigate the relationship of IFTA with urinary NAG and β2-MG, and we also compared these markers as predictors of the renal prognosis in patients with type 2 diabetes and biopsy-proven DN.

Materials and Methods

Study Design

Among 210 patients with type 2 diabetes who underwent renal biopsy at Toranomon Hospitals (Kanagawa, Japan and Tokyo, Japan) from March of 1985 to June of 2011 and were confirmed to have pure DN, which was defined as DN without other coexisting renal diseases (except nephrosclerosis) or kidney transplantation, 149 patients, in whom urinary NAG and β2-MG were examined at the time of renal biopsy and baseline eGFR was ≥10 ml/min per 1.73 m2, were eligible for enrollment in this study (Figure 1). DN was diagnosed by at least two renal pathologists and/or nephrologists, and the diagnosis was re-evaluated according to the classification of the Renal Pathology Society (RPS) (16). The protocol of this study was approved by the ethics committee of Toranomon Hospital in February of 2015, and procedures fully adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki. This study was registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network in February of 2015 (identification no. UMIN000016662).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Flowchart of study participants. β2-MG, β2-microglobulin; NAG, N-acetyl-β-d-glucosaminidase.

Laboratory Parameters and Definitions

Urinary NAG levels were determined by an enzymatic assay (Nittobo Medical, Fukushima, Japan), whereas urinary β2-MG levels were determined by latex–enhanced turbidimetric immunoassay (Denka Seiken, Tokyo, Japan). Urinary NAG excretion (units per gram creatinine) was measured in a 24-hour urine specimen at the time of renal biopsy in 137 patients (92%), and urinary β2-MG excretion (micrograms per gram creatinine) was measured in 140 patients (94%). Excretion of NAG and β2-MG was not examined using a 24-hour specimen in the remaining patients (9% and 6%, respectively), but their levels were measured in a spot urine samples (urinary NAG [units per gram creatinine] and urinary β2-MG [micrograms per gram creatinine]). GFR was estimated by using the Japanese coefficient–modified Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration Equation (17), whereas baseline UP was measured in a 24-hour urine specimen. In this study, the presences of normoalbuminuria, microalbuminuria, and macroalbuminuria were defined as urinary albumin excretion (UAE) <30 mg/g creatinine, UAE≥30 and <300 mg/g creatinine, and UAE>300 mg/g creatinine, respectively, in at least two of three consecutive urine specimens obtained immediately before and after renal biopsy (18), whereas overt proteinuria was defined as macroalbuminuria or UP>1 g/d. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) data are presented as National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program values according to the recommendations of the Japanese Diabetes Society and the Federation of Clinical Chemistry (19). As in our previous studies, the average annual values of clinical parameters, such as UP, systolic/diastolic BP, Hb, and HbA1c, were calculated (13,20). If data for any of these variables were unavailable during follow-up, the mean value of the observations before and after the missing value was calculated and used instead. We used UP (grams per gram creatinine) if UP (grams per day) was not available during follow-up. These laboratory data obtained during follow-up were only used to illustrate the clinical course and were not used for analyses. Treatment with an angiotensin–converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I) or angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker (ARB) during follow-up was defined as use for more than one half of the follow-up period.

End Point

The primary end point was defined as a decline of eGFR of ≥50% from baseline or commencement of dialysis because of ESRD. None of the patients received kidney transplantation during follow-up.

Renal Biopsy and Pathologic Classification

As described previously, the indications for renal biopsy were UP>0.5 g/d or atypical DN, such as nephritic syndrome with short duration of diabetes and renal involvement without diabetic retinopathy and/or with hematuria, and therefore, all biopsies were for clinical assessment and not for research (21). Tissue was obtained by needle biopsy, and the specimens were processed for light microscopy, immunofluorescence, and electron microscopy. Specimens for light microscopy were stained with hematoxylin and eosin, periodic acid–Schiff, Weigert elastica–van Gieson, Masson trichrome, or periodic acid methenamine silver stain according to routine methods. Classification of DN and determination of histologic scores (including exudative lesions) according to the criteria of the RPS and the criteria used in our previous study (13,16) were done by at least two renal pathologists and/or nephrologists who were unaware of the clinical status of each patient.

Statistical Analyses

Data were summarized as percentages or means±SDs as appropriate. Skewed variables (urinary NAG, urinary β2-MG, UP, triglycerides, and total cholesterol) underwent logarithmic transformation to improve normality before analysis. Categorical variables were analyzed with the chi-squared test, the Fisher exact test, and the two–group proportion test, whereas continuous variables were compared by using the paired t test, the Wilcoxon signed rank test, the Mann–Whitney U test, the Kruskal–Wallis H test, or ANOVA as appropriate. The distribution of each clinical and histopathologic parameter stratified by urinary NAG tertiles, β2-MG tertiles, and the IFTA score was compared using trend analysis. Correlations among urinary NAG, urinary β2-MG, and the IFTA score were evaluated by Spearman correlation analysis for the IFTA score and Pearson correlation analysis for the two urinary markers. Cumulative renal survival was estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method for each urinary NAG tertile, urinary β2-MG tertile, and IFTA score, and renal survival rates were compared among these stratified cohorts by using the log-rank test. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for the death–censored end point. In Cox model 1, HRs were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, diabetic retinopathy, and systolic BP at the time of renal biopsy. These covariates were selected as potential confounders on the basis of biologic plausibility and metabolic memory (22,23). In model 2, HRs were adjusted for all of the above covariates plus UP and eGFR at the time of renal biopsy. To examine the best fit of the biomarkers or IFTA score in each Cox regression analysis, fractional polynomial regression analysis was performed. In addition, to investigate the incremental predictive power of the interstitial markers, we compared Harrell concordance index (c index) between multivariate Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for the covariates in model 2 with or without the interstitial markers. Moreover, improvement in discriminating the risk of the outcome at median follow-up (2.3 years) was assessed by analysis of the category–free net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) as reported elsewhere (24–26). The median follow-up time was selected as the cutoff point for analysis, because it was previously used in a similar study (3). The 95% CIs for the differences in the c index, category-free NRI, and IDI were computed on the basis of 10,000 bootstrap samples. Two–tailed P values <0.05 were considered to indicate statistically significant differences. Analyses were performed with Stata SE software (version 14.0; StataCorp., College Station, TX).

Results

Of 210 patients screened, 149 met the selection criteria and were enrolled to investigate the usefulness of interstitial lesions (IFTA score), urinary NAG, and urinary β2-MG for predicting the renal prognosis (Figure 1). The median follow-up period was 2.3 years (interquartile range [IQR], 1.1–5.3 years). During follow-up, the primary outcome (decline of eGFR of ≥50% from baseline or initiation of dialysis because of ESRD) occurred in 94 patients, and seven patients died.

The characteristics of 149 patients are shown in Table 1. The age (mean±SD) at the time of renal biopsy was 58±13 years old, 79% of the patients were men, and 70% had diabetic retinopathy. Median baseline urinary NAG and β2-MG excretion were 12.6 U/g creatinine (IQR, 7.3–20.8) and 779 μg/g creatinine (IQR, 124–4001), respectively, whereas the mean baseline eGFR was 46.3±23.2 ml/min per 1.73 m2. Median UP was 2.4 g/d (IQR, 1.2–4.5), and 132 patients (89%) had overt proteinuria. Clinical and histopathologic parameters stratified according to urinary NAG tertiles, urinary β2-MG tertiles, and the IFTA score are shown in Supplemental Tables 1–3. Patients with higher IFTA scores and higher urinary marker concentrations were older; had diabetic retinopathy more frequently; had higher levels of systolic BP, serum creatinine, UP, and serum uric acid; and took more antihypertensive agents. Patients with higher IFTA scores and urinary marker concentrations also had lower creatinine clearances and eGFRs as well as lower serum albumin and Hb levels.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Baseline clinical parameters and histopathologic findings for all patients

Comparison of histopathologic findings among the urinary NAG and β2-MG tertiles revealed that patients with higher grades of pathologic findings and exudative lesions were in higher tertiles for urinary NAG and β2-MG, except that the arteriosclerosis score did not become higher across the β2-MG tertiles (Supplemental Tables 1 and 2).

Differences between major clinical parameters at baseline and during follow-up (or at final assessment) are displayed in Table 2. The mean systolic BP, diastolic BP, HbA1c, and Hb in all declined significantly during follow-up, whereas mean UP was significantly higher than at baseline. Rates of ACE-I and ARB use were significantly higher during follow-up compared with baseline. When the major parameters were stratified according to urinary NAG tertiles, β2-MG tertiles, and the IFTA score, there were significant differences of average annual UP, systolic BP, and Hb and the final use of erythropoietin-stimulating agents among each tertile and score, whereas there were no significant differences of ACE-I or ARB treatment during follow-up among these stratified cohorts (Supplemental Table 4).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Comparison of main clinical parameters between baseline and follow-up (or at final follow-up) in all patients

Relations among the log–converted baseline urinary NAG level (log NAG), the log–converted baseline urinary β2-MG level (log β2-MG), and the IFTA score are shown in Figure 2. There were significant positive correlations among all of these parameters (r=0.47; P<0.001 between log NAG and the IFTA score; r=0.58; P<0.001 between log β2-MG and the IFTA score; and r=0.57; P<0.001 between log NAG and log β2-MG).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Associations among urinary N-acetyl-β-d-glucosaminidase (NAG), urinary β2-microglobulin (β2-MG), and the interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (IFTA) score. (A) Association between urinary NAG and the IFTA score. (B) Association between urinary β2-MG and the IFTA score. (C) Association between urinary NAG and urinary β2-MG. The boxes show interquartile ranges, and the whiskers show 1st and 99th percentiles. Cr, creatinine.

Kaplan–Meier curves for renal survival stratified according to baseline urinary NAG tertiles, urinary β2-MG tertiles, and IFTA score are displayed in Figure 3. There were significant differences of renal survival among the NAG tertiles and β2-MG tertiles. Likewise, there were significant differences of renal survival among the IFTA scores.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Renal survival rate stratified by urinary N-acetyl-β-d-glucosaminidase (NAG), urinary β2-microglobulin (β2-MG), and the interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (IFTA) score. (A) Renal survival curves for urinary NAG tertiles. The estimated 5-year renal survival rate was 68% in NAG tertile 1, 31% in NAG tertile 2, and 12% in NAG tertile 3. (B) Renal survival curves for urinary β2-MG tertiles. The estimated 5-year renal survival rate was 68% in β2-MG tertile 1, 34% in β2-MG tertile 2, and 10% in β2-MG tertile 3. (C) Renal survival curves for IFTA scores. The estimated 5-year renal survival rate was 100% for patients with an IFTA score of zero, 70% for patients with an IFTA score of one, 24% for patients with an IFTA score of two, and 0% for patients with an IFTA score of three. There were significant differences of the renal survival rate between the different NAG tertiles, β2-MG tertiles, and IFTA scores. Outcome was ≥50% decline in eGFR or dialysis because of ESRD. The log-rank test was used for survival analysis. Cr, creatinine; IQR, interquartile range.

The adjusted HRs of urinary NAG, urinary β2-MG, and the IFTA score (as categorical and continuous variables) for the renal end point are shown in Table 3. Cox proportional hazards analysis revealed that urinary NAG and β2-MG were positively associated with the renal end point in both categorical and continuous analyses after adjustment for diabetic retinopathy and baseline systolic BP. However, the association of those urinary markers with the renal prognosis was considerably weaker after adjustment for baseline UP and eGFR. However, the IFTA score still showed a positive correlation with the renal prognosis, even after adjustment for baseline UP and eGFR. Compared with an IFTA score of one, the HRs for the outcomes of IFTA scores of zero, two, and three were 0.05 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.39), 1.59 (95% CI, 0.82 to 3.08), and 3.82 (95% CI, 1.74 to 8.39), respectively. A one–point higher IFTA score was also significantly associated with a higher risk of the renal end point (HR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.56 to 3.43). Fractional polynomial comparisons revealed that the best fit for the IFTA score was a trinomial equation, but there was no significant difference between linear and trinomial analysis of the IFTA score (P=0.18).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models incorporating urinary N-acetyl-β-d-glucosaminidase, urinary β2-microglobulin, and the interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy score

The difference of Harrell c index between Cox regression models with or without the IFTA score and the NRI and IDI values for predicting the primary outcome at median follow-up obtained by adding IFTA score are summarized in Table 4. Adding the IFTA score to the multivariate model as a categorical variable resulted in a significantly higher c index (increment of 0.02; 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.05). Similarly, adding the IFTA score to the models improved the risk classification and relative integrated discrimination of the outcome at median follow-up (category-free NRI: 0.54; 95% CI, 0.03 to 1.05 and relative IDI: 0.07; 95% CI, −0.08 to 0.22).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Difference of Harrell concordance index between Cox regression models with or without the interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy score and the category–free net reclassification improvement and integrated discrimination improvement for predicting the outcome at median follow-up obtained by adding the interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy score

When we performed the same analyses in patients with overt proteinuria (n=132) and patients with data on 24-hour urinary excretion of NAG and β2-MG (n=133) as sensitivity analyses, the results that we obtained were similar (data not shown).

Discussion

Recently, it has been suggested that tubulointerstitial lesions are more important for predicting the renal prognosis than other types of lesions, such as glomerular and vascular lesions, in not only patients with DN but also, those with other renal diseases (12,27,28). Therefore, more accurate biomarkers of tubulointerstitial injury and inflammation are needed. A study of the Joslin Diabetes Center showed that urinary NAG and kidney injury molecule 1 were markers of renal tubular injury that could predict regression of microalbuminuria in patients with type 1 diabetes (4). Regarding markers of inflammation, elevated serum levels of TNFα receptors 1 and 2 were reported to be closely related to an increased risk of ESRD in patients with type 2 diabetes (29,30). Another recent investigation performed in American Indians with type 2 diabetes and preserved kidney function showed that measuring the urinary levels of neutrophil gelatinase–associated lipocalin (NGAL) and liver fatty acid–binding protein (L-FABP), two markers of tubular injury, significantly improved prediction of the renal prognosis when combined with conventional prognostic indicators, such as albuminuria and GFR, although the actual size of the improvement was small (3). These investigations were related to important elements of the pathophysiology of DN, such as tubulointerstitial damage in the early stage and the role of inflammation mediated via the TNFα pathway (31–33).

In this study, urinary excretion of NAG and β2-MG was significantly correlated with the severity of tubulointerstitial injury, but there was a distinct difference of predictive power between these urinary markers and histologic detection of tubulointerstitial injury (IFTA score). This difference may be explained by the limited accuracy of urinary markers because of several potential influences on marker levels, such as metal irons, urine pH, and complications (6,34–36). Moreover, recent studies have shown that addition of these markers to known promoters of progression does not significantly improve prediction of the risk of ESRD in patients with relatively early DN (3,37), although both NAG and β2-MG are thought of as early markers of interstitial injury in DN (6). Almost 90% of our subjects had overt proteinuria and a reduced eGFR at baseline, and the influence of these interstitial markers on the primary end point was markedly reduced after adjustment for baseline UP and eGFR. Accordingly, urinary NAG and β2-MG might not be useful independent predictors of the renal prognosis in patients with advanced DN.

In one of the above–mentioned recent studies, urinary NGAL and L-FABP showed a stronger incremental predictive power for the renal prognosis than urinary NAG (3). Therefore, it may be worthwhile comparing these biomarkers with the IFTA score. However, Nielsen et al. (38) reported that urinary NGAL, L-FABP, and kidney injury molecule 1 were not associated with more rapid GFR decline after adjusting for known promoters of the progression of DN, including UAE, in patients with type 1 diabetes and overt nephropathy. Taken together with our results, it seems that the markers of tubular injury reported so far do not provide additional prognostic information beyond that obtained from known promoters of progression in patients with advanced DN. In contrast to the urinary markers of tubular injury, we found that the histologic severity of tubulointerstitial injury (IFTA score) could predict the renal prognosis independently of known indicators of progression, such as UP and eGFR. In addition, adding the IFTA score to the above-mentioned promoters of progression resulted in a significantly higher c index and also, led to higher NRI and IDI values for predicting the renal outcome, although the IDI was not statistically significant. We assessed interstitial injury according to the recent consensus classification of DN in this study, but it is possible that the predictive power of interstitial injury would have been even greater if it had been categorized in more detail. On the basis of these considerations, the IFTA score is considered to be useful for predicting the renal prognosis in patients with advanced DN. When we repeated the same analyses in 132 patients with overt proteinuria, the results were similar, and our conclusions were unchanged. These results suggest that we should pay more attention to pathologic findings on renal biopsy, such as tubulointerstitial injury, and that the IFTA score should be assessed by a renal pathologist, even when the diagnosis is typical DN.

This study had some limitations. First, it was a retrospective cohort study performed at a single center, and urinary NAG and β2-MG levels were not examined in all of the patients with biopsy-proven DN. Also, the indications for renal biopsy were insufficiently standardized, suggesting that there might have been selection bias. Therefore, it may be difficult to generalize our results to patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD, especially those with advanced CKD. However, our study was the first to directly compare urinary markers of tubular injury with the histologic severity of tubular injury as predictors of the renal prognosis. Second, information about 24-hour urinary NAG and β2-MG excretion was not available in some of our subjects, but we obtained similar results when we only analyzed the patients with 24-hour urinary excretion data. Third, the study was performed over a long period (>25 years), suggesting that changes of clinical management during long–term follow-up might have affected the renal prognosis. Unfortunately, treatment factors were not examined sufficiently during follow-up, and our analyses were not adequately adjusted for these factors. However, there were no significant differences of ACE-I or ARB use during follow-up among the urinary NAG tertiles, urinary β2-MG tertiles, and different IFTA scores. There were also no obvious major differences of glycemic control among the NAG or β2-MG tertiles and the different IFTA scores on the basis of comprehensive assessment of the mean HbA1c, mean Hb, and erythropoietin-stimulating agent use (Supplemental Table 4).

In conclusion, assessment of urinary NAG and β2-MG excretion did not add prognostic value to known indicators of renal progression in patients with type 2 diabetes and biopsy-proven DN, whereas the IFTA score improved prognostication. On the basis of this finding, the IFTA score may be more useful for predicting the renal prognosis than classic markers of tubulointerstitial damage, especially in patients with advanced DN. Accordingly, it seems to be important to perform correct evaluation of the IFTA score in patients with DN who undergo renal biopsy.

Disclosures

None.

Acknowledgments

We thank Drs. Shoji Kawatsu (The Institute for Adult Diseases, Asahi Life Foundation), Ayako Hakura, Masafumi Yokota, Yukio Maruyama, Tomio Onuma, and Ai Terai for providing data and treatment after renal biopsy. We also thank Drs. Akiko Endo, Satoshi Hamanoue, Masahiro Kawada, Aya Imafuku, Takashi Iijima, Koichi Kikuchi, Yuta Kogure, Junichi Inenaga, and Koji Takemura for their helpful comments and management of patients. We thank Prof. Shiro Hinotsu (Center for Innovative Clinical Medicine, Okayama University Hospital), Dr. Toshiharu Mitsuhashi (Center for Innovative Clinical Medicine, Okayama University Hospital), and Prof. Ayumi Shintani (Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine) for their helpful comments on statistical analyses.

This work was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Practical Research Project for Renal Disease, from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (grant no. 15ek0310003h0001), a grant from Okinaka Memorial Institute for Medical Research, and a grant from The Kidney Foundation, Japan (grant no. JKFB15-16).

Footnotes

  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.cjasn.org.

  • This article contains supplemental material online at http://cjasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.2215/CJN.04980515/-/DCSupplemental.

  • Received May 5, 2015.
  • Accepted December 16, 2015.
  • Copyright © 2016 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    1. Mogensen CE
    : Microalbuminuria as a predictor of clinical diabetic nephropathy. Kidney Int 31: 673–689, 1987pmid:3550239
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Atkins RC,
    2. Briganti EM,
    3. Lewis JB,
    4. Hunsicker LG,
    5. Braden G,
    6. Champion de Crespigny PJ,
    7. DeFerrari G,
    8. Drury P,
    9. Locatelli F,
    10. Wiegmann TB,
    11. Lewis EJ
    : Proteinuria reduction and progression to renal failure in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and overt nephropathy. Am J Kidney Dis 45: 281–287, 2005pmid:15685505
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Fufaa GD,
    2. Weil EJ,
    3. Nelson RG,
    4. Hanson RL,
    5. Bonventre JV,
    6. Sabbisetti V,
    7. Waikar SS,
    8. Mifflin TE,
    9. Zhang X,
    10. Xie D,
    11. Hsu CY,
    12. Feldman HI,
    13. Coresh J,
    14. Vasan RS,
    15. Kimmel PL,
    16. Liu KD,
    17. Chronic Kidney Disease Biomarkers Consortium Investigators
    : Association of urinary KIM-1, L-FABP, NAG and NGAL with incident end-stage renal disease and mortality in American Indians with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetologia 58: 188–198, 2015pmid:25316431
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Vaidya VS,
    2. Niewczas MA,
    3. Ficociello LH,
    4. Johnson AC,
    5. Collings FB,
    6. Warram JH,
    7. Krolewski AS,
    8. Bonventre JV
    : Regression of microalbuminuria in type 1 diabetes is associated with lower levels of urinary tubular injury biomarkers, kidney injury molecule-1, and N-acetyl-β-D-glucosaminidase. Kidney Int 79: 464–470, 2011pmid:20980978
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Fu WJ,
    2. Xiong SL,
    3. Fang YG,
    4. Wen S,
    5. Chen ML,
    6. Deng RT,
    7. Zheng L,
    8. Wang SB,
    9. Pen LF,
    10. Wang Q
    : Urinary tubular biomarkers in short-term type 2 diabetes mellitus patients: A cross-sectional study. Endocrine 41: 82–88, 2012pmid:21779943
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Moresco RN,
    2. Sangoi MB,
    3. De Carvalho JA,
    4. Tatsch E,
    5. Bochi GV
    : Diabetic nephropathy: Traditional to proteomic markers. Clin Chim Acta 421: 17–30, 2013pmid:23485645
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Liangos O,
    2. Perianayagam MC,
    3. Vaidya VS,
    4. Han WK,
    5. Wald R,
    6. Tighiouart H,
    7. MacKinnon RW,
    8. Li L,
    9. Balakrishnan VS,
    10. Pereira BJ,
    11. Bonventre JV,
    12. Jaber BL
    : Urinary N-acetyl-beta-(D)-glucosaminidase activity and kidney injury molecule-1 level are associated with adverse outcomes in acute renal failure. J Am Soc Nephrol 18: 904–912, 2007pmid:17267747
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Takao T,
    2. Horino T,
    3. Kagawa T,
    4. Matsumoto R,
    5. Shimamura Y,
    6. Ogata K,
    7. Inoue K,
    8. Taniguchi Y,
    9. Taguchi T,
    10. Morita T,
    11. Terada Y
    : Possible involvement of intracellular angiotensin II receptor in high-glucose-induced damage in renal proximal tubular cells. J Nephrol 24: 218–224, 2011pmid:20890878
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Kern EF,
    2. Erhard P,
    3. Sun W,
    4. Genuth S,
    5. Weiss MF
    : Early urinary markers of diabetic kidney disease: A nested case-control study from the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT). Am J Kidney Dis 55: 824–834, 2010pmid:20138413
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Kopf S,
    2. Oikonomou D,
    3. Zdunek D,
    4. von Eynatten M,
    5. Hess G,
    6. Nawroth PP,
    7. Bierhaus A,
    8. Humpert PM
    : Urinary n-acetyl-beta-d-glucosaminidase excretion: An indicator of neuropathy in type 2 diabetes. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 121: 601–606, 2013pmid:24057510
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Schardijn GH,
    2. Statius van Eps LW
    : Beta 2-microglobulin: Its significance in the evaluation of renal function. Kidney Int 32: 635–641, 1987pmid:3323598
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Mise K,
    2. Hoshino J,
    3. Ueno T,
    4. Hazue R,
    5. Sumida K,
    6. Hiramatsu R,
    7. Hasegawa E,
    8. Yamanouchi M,
    9. Hayami N,
    10. Suwabe T,
    11. Sawa N,
    12. Fujii T,
    13. Hara S,
    14. Ohashi K,
    15. Takaichi K,
    16. Ubara Y
    : Clinical and pathological predictors of estimated GFR decline in patients with type 2 diabetes and overt proteinuric diabetic nephropathy. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 31: 572–581, 2015pmid:25533683
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Mise K,
    2. Hoshino J,
    3. Ubara Y,
    4. Sumida K,
    5. Hiramatsu R,
    6. Hasegawa E,
    7. Yamanouchi M,
    8. Hayami N,
    9. Suwabe T,
    10. Sawa N,
    11. Fujii T,
    12. Ohashi K,
    13. Hara S,
    14. Takaichi K
    : Renal prognosis a long time after renal biopsy on patients with diabetic nephropathy. Nephrol Dial Transplant 29: 109–118, 2014pmid:24151019
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Shimizu M,
    2. Furuichi K,
    3. Toyama T,
    4. Kitajima S,
    5. Hara A,
    6. Kitagawa K,
    7. Iwata Y,
    8. Sakai N,
    9. Takamura T,
    10. Yoshimura M,
    11. Yokoyama H,
    12. Kaneko S,
    13. Wada T,
    14. Kanazawa Study Group for Renal Diseases and Hypertension
    : Long-term outcomes of Japanese type 2 diabetic patients with biopsy-proven diabetic nephropathy. Diabetes Care 36: 3655–3662, 2013pmid:24089538
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Okada T,
    2. Nagao T,
    3. Matsumoto H,
    4. Nagaoka Y,
    5. Wada T,
    6. Nakao T
    : Histological predictors for renal prognosis in diabetic nephropathy in diabetes mellitus type 2 patients with overt proteinuria. Nephrology (Carlton) 17: 68–75, 2012pmid:21933307
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Tervaert TW,
    2. Mooyaart AL,
    3. Amann K,
    4. Cohen AH,
    5. Cook HT,
    6. Drachenberg CB,
    7. Ferrario F,
    8. Fogo AB,
    9. Haas M,
    10. de Heer E,
    11. Joh K,
    12. Noël LH,
    13. Radhakrishnan J,
    14. Seshan SV,
    15. Bajema IM,
    16. Bruijn JA,
    17. Renal Pathology Society
    : Pathologic classification of diabetic nephropathy. J Am Soc Nephrol 21: 556–563, 2010pmid:20167701
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Horio M,
    2. Imai E,
    3. Yasuda Y,
    4. Watanabe T,
    5. Matsuo S
    : Modification of the CKD epidemiology collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation for Japanese: Accuracy and use for population estimates. Am J Kidney Dis 56: 32–38, 2010pmid:20416999
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. KDOQI
    : KDOQI Clinical Practice Guidelines and Clinical Practice Recommendations for Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease. Am J Kidney Dis 49[Suppl 2]: S12–S154, 2007pmid:17276798
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Kashiwagi A,
    2. Kasuga M,
    3. Araki E,
    4. Oka Y,
    5. Hanafusa T,
    6. Ito H,
    7. Tominaga M,
    8. Oikawa S,
    9. Noda M,
    10. Kawamura T,
    11. Kuwa K,
    12. Ueki K,
    13. Takei I,
    14. Umemoto M,
    15. Murakami M,
    16. Yamakado M,
    17. Yatomi Y,
    18. Ohashi H
    : International clinical harmonization of glycated hemoglobin in Japan: From Japan Diabetes Society to National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program values. Diabetol Int 3: 8–10, 2012
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. ↵
    1. Mise K,
    2. Hoshino J,
    3. Ueno T,
    4. Imafuku A,
    5. Kawada M,
    6. Sumida K,
    7. Hiramatsu R,
    8. Hasegawa E,
    9. Yamanouchi M,
    10. Hayami N,
    11. Suwabe T,
    12. Sawa N,
    13. Fujii T,
    14. Hara S,
    15. Ohashi K,
    16. Takaichi K,
    17. Ubara Y
    : Impact of tubulointerstitial lesions on anaemia in patients with biopsy-proven diabetic nephropathy. Diabet Med 32: 546–555, 2015pmid:25400024
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Mise K,
    2. Hoshino J,
    3. Ueno T,
    4. Sumida K,
    5. Hiramatsu R,
    6. Hasegawa E,
    7. Yamanouchi M,
    8. Hayami N,
    9. Suwabe T,
    10. Sawa N,
    11. Fujii T,
    12. Hara S,
    13. Ohashi K,
    14. Takaichi K,
    15. Ubara Y
    : Clinical implications of linear immunofluorescent staining for immunoglobulin G in patients with diabetic nephropathy. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 106: 522–530, 2014pmid:25458334
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Zhang L,
    2. Chen B,
    3. Tang L
    : Metabolic memory: Mechanisms and implications for diabetic retinopathy. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 96: 286–293, 2012pmid:22209677
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Zoungas S,
    2. Chalmers J,
    3. Neal B,
    4. Billot L,
    5. Li Q,
    6. Hirakawa Y,
    7. Arima H,
    8. Monaghan H,
    9. Joshi R,
    10. Colagiuri S,
    11. Cooper ME,
    12. Glasziou P,
    13. Grobbee D,
    14. Hamet P,
    15. Harrap S,
    16. Heller S,
    17. Lisheng L,
    18. Mancia G,
    19. Marre M,
    20. Matthews DR,
    21. Mogensen CE,
    22. Perkovic V,
    23. Poulter N,
    24. Rodgers A,
    25. Williams B,
    26. MacMahon S,
    27. Patel A,
    28. Woodward M,
    29. ADVANCE-ON Collaborative Group
    : Follow-up of blood-pressure lowering and glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 371: 1392–1406, 2014pmid:25234206
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    Pencina MJ, D'Agostino RB Sr., D'Agostino RB Jr., Vasan RS: Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: From area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med 27: 157–172, 2008
    1. Pencina MJ,
    2. D’Agostino RB Sr..,
    3. Steyerberg EW
    : Extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers. Stat Med 30: 11–21, 2011pmid:21204120
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Pencina MJ,
    2. D’Agostino RB,
    3. Pencina KM,
    4. Janssens AC,
    5. Greenland P
    : Interpreting incremental value of markers added to risk prediction models. Am J Epidemiol 176: 473–481, 2012pmid:22875755
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Alamartine E,
    2. Sauron C,
    3. Laurent B,
    4. Sury A,
    5. Seffert A,
    6. Mariat C
    : The use of the Oxford classification of IgA nephropathy to predict renal survival. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 6: 2384–2388, 2011pmid:21885791
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Hsieh C,
    2. Chang A,
    3. Brandt D,
    4. Guttikonda R,
    5. Utset TO,
    6. Clark MR
    : Predicting outcomes of lupus nephritis with tubulointerstitial inflammation and scarring. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 63: 865–874, 2011pmid:21309006
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Niewczas MA,
    2. Gohda T,
    3. Skupien J,
    4. Smiles AM,
    5. Walker WH,
    6. Rosetti F,
    7. Cullere X,
    8. Eckfeldt JH,
    9. Doria A,
    10. Mayadas TN,
    11. Warram JH,
    12. Krolewski AS
    : Circulating TNF receptors 1 and 2 predict ESRD in type 2 diabetes. J Am Soc Nephrol 23: 507–515, 2012pmid:22266663
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Pavkov ME,
    2. Nelson RG,
    3. Knowler WC,
    4. Cheng Y,
    5. Krolewski AS,
    6. Niewczas MA
    : Elevation of circulating TNF receptors 1 and 2 increases the risk of end-stage renal disease in American Indians with type 2 diabetes. Kidney Int 87: 812–819, 2015pmid:25272234
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Mauer SM,
    2. Steffes MW,
    3. Ellis EN,
    4. Sutherland DE,
    5. Brown DM,
    6. Goetz FC
    : Structural-functional relationships in diabetic nephropathy. J Clin Invest 74: 1143–1155, 1984pmid:6480821
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Hasegawa G,
    2. Nakano K,
    3. Sawada M,
    4. Uno K,
    5. Shibayama Y,
    6. Ienaga K,
    7. Kondo M
    : Possible role of tumor necrosis factor and interleukin-1 in the development of diabetic nephropathy. Kidney Int 40: 1007–1012, 1991pmid:1762301
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Guo G,
    2. Morrissey J,
    3. McCracken R,
    4. Tolley T,
    5. Klahr S
    : Role of TNFR1 and TNFR2 receptors in tubulointerstitial fibrosis of obstructive nephropathy. Am J Physiol 277: F766–F772, 1999pmid:10564241
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Bondiou MT,
    2. Bourbouze R,
    3. Bernard M,
    4. Percheron F,
    5. Perez-Gonzalez N,
    6. Cabezas JA
    : Inhibition of A and B N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosaminidase urinary isoenzymes by urea. Clin Chim Acta 149: 67–73, 1985pmid:4028434
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Wiley RA,
    2. Choo HY,
    3. Traiger GJ
    : The effect of nephrotoxic furans on urinary N-acetylglucosaminidase levels in mice. Toxicol Lett 14: 93–96, 1982pmid:7157422
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Astor BC,
    2. Shafi T,
    3. Hoogeveen RC,
    4. Matsushita K,
    5. Ballantyne CM,
    6. Inker LA,
    7. Coresh J
    : Novel markers of kidney function as predictors of ESRD, cardiovascular disease, and mortality in the general population. Am J Kidney Dis 59: 653–662, 2012pmid:22305758
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Foster MC,
    2. Inker LA,
    3. Hsu CY,
    4. Eckfeldt JH,
    5. Levey AS,
    6. Pavkov ME,
    7. Myers BD,
    8. Bennett PH,
    9. Kimmel PL,
    10. Vasan RS,
    11. Coresh J,
    12. Nelson RG,
    13. CKD Biomarkers Consortium
    : Filtration markers as predictors of ESRD and mortality in Southwestern American Indians with type 2 diabetes. Am J Kidney Dis 66: 75–83, 2015pmid:25773485
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Nielsen SE,
    2. Andersen S,
    3. Zdunek D,
    4. Hess G,
    5. Parving HH,
    6. Rossing P
    : Tubular markers do not predict the decline in glomerular filtration rate in type 1 diabetic patients with overt nephropathy. Kidney Int 79: 1113–1118, 2011pmid:21270761
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 11 (4)
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 11, Issue 4
April 07, 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article
Thank you for your help in sharing the high-quality science in CJASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Prognostic Value of Tubulointerstitial Lesions, Urinary N-Acetyl-β-d-Glucosaminidase, and Urinary β2-Microglobulin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Biopsy–Proven Diabetic Nephropathy
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Prognostic Value of Tubulointerstitial Lesions, Urinary N-Acetyl-β-d-Glucosaminidase, and Urinary β2-Microglobulin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Biopsy–Proven Diabetic Nephropathy
Koki Mise, Junichi Hoshino, Toshiharu Ueno, Ryo Hazue, Jumpei Hasegawa, Akinari Sekine, Keiichi Sumida, Rikako Hiramatsu, Eiko Hasegawa, Masayuki Yamanouchi, Noriko Hayami, Tatsuya Suwabe, Naoki Sawa, Takeshi Fujii, Shigeko Hara, Kenichi Ohashi, Kenmei Takaichi, Yoshifumi Ubara
CJASN Apr 2016, 11 (4) 593-601; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.04980515

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Prognostic Value of Tubulointerstitial Lesions, Urinary N-Acetyl-β-d-Glucosaminidase, and Urinary β2-Microglobulin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Biopsy–Proven Diabetic Nephropathy
Koki Mise, Junichi Hoshino, Toshiharu Ueno, Ryo Hazue, Jumpei Hasegawa, Akinari Sekine, Keiichi Sumida, Rikako Hiramatsu, Eiko Hasegawa, Masayuki Yamanouchi, Noriko Hayami, Tatsuya Suwabe, Naoki Sawa, Takeshi Fujii, Shigeko Hara, Kenichi Ohashi, Kenmei Takaichi, Yoshifumi Ubara
CJASN Apr 2016, 11 (4) 593-601; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.04980515
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosures
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

Original Articles

  • Association of Polypharmacy with Kidney Disease Progression in Adults with CKD
  • The Effect of Atrasentan on Kidney and Heart Failure Outcomes by Baseline Albuminuria and Kidney Function
  • Collectin11 and Complement Activation in IgA Nephropathy
Show more Original Articles

Diabetes and the Kidney

  • Moving from Evidence to Implementation of Breakthrough Therapies for Diabetic Kidney Disease
  • Fracture Risk of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors in Chronic Kidney Disease
  • SGLT2 Inhibition and Uric Acid Excretion in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Normal Kidney Function
Show more Diabetes and the Kidney

Cited By...

  • DEEP LEARNING TO PREDICT DEGREE OF INTERSTITIAL FIBROSIS AND TUBULAR ATROPHY FROM KIDNEY ULTRASOUND IMAGES - AN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE APPROACH
  • Methylation pattern of urinary DNA as a marker of kidney function decline in diabetes
  • Response to: 'Role of tubulointerstitial injury in ANCA-associated vasculitis is underestimated by Moiseev et al
  • Identification of Novel Urinary Biomarkers for Predicting Renal Prognosis in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes by Glycan Profiling in a Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study: U-CARE Study 1
  • Wnt9a Promotes Renal Fibrosis by Accelerating Cellular Senescence in Tubular Epithelial Cells
  • Urinary Fibrinogen as a Predictor of Progression of CKD
  • Biomarkers of tubulointerstitial damage and function in type 1 diabetes
  • Arteriolar Hyalinosis Predicts Increase in Albuminuria and GFR Decline in Normo- and Microalbuminuric Japanese Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Keywords

  • diabetic nephropathy
  • renal pathology
  • renal prognosis
  • tubulointerstitial lesion
  • urinary biomarker
  • Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2
  • disease progression
  • follow-up studies
  • humans
  • Kidney Failure, Chronic

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Trainee of the Year
  • Author Resources
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • CJASN
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About CJASN
  • CJASN Email Alerts
  • CJASN Key Impact Information
  • CJASN Podcasts
  • CJASN RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Password/Email Address Changes
  • Subscribe to ASN Journals
  • Wolters Kluwer Partnership

© 2022 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1555-9041 Online ISSN - 1555-905X

Powered by HighWire