A Long Story: from Suspicion to Identification of Non.-Diabetic Renal Diseases in Patients with Diabetic Mellitus

Gang Liu,Hai-Yan Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1797.2006.00710.x

2006-01-01

Nephrology

Abstract:The prevalence of diabetes mellitus is increasing worldwide. One of its complications, diabetic nephropathy, has been the leading cause of end-stage renal disease in developed countries and has been increasing fast in many developing countries. But this story is not simple, because it is not always diabetic nephropathy when renal disease occurs in a diabetic patient, of both type 1 and type 2. For several decades, many physicians and clinical researchers have made great effort in this field in order to get a better way to make correct diagnoses, since different renal diseases in diabetes have different therapy and prognosis. It was well accepted that renal biopsy should not be used as a routine diagnostic examination in all patients with type 2 diabetics and renal abnormalities. Patients with typical diabetic nephropathy could not benefit from renal biopsy in any stages, but might be on risk. Therefore, it has great significance to track clinical clues of a non-diabetic renal disease in type 2 diabetes and make a correct diagnosis by renal biopsy. Previous literatures had recommended, although controversially, that the major clinical clues suggesting non-diabetic renal disease included: (i) Onset of overt proteinuria less than 5 years from the onset of diabetes. But in type 2 diabetic patients, diabetic nephropathy might occur less than 5 years since the onset of diabetes, probably because of overlooking of the onset of diabetes, ageing kidney and superimposed hypertensive renal injuries. In our recent cross-sectional spot survey in urban citizens more than 40 years old in Beijing, the capital of China, the awareness rate of diabetic mellitus was only 71%. Therefore, although this clue is not a good criterion to exclude diabetic nephropathy, it can be used as an indication for renal biopsy in diabetes. (ii) The prominent dysmorphic haematuria or red blood cell (RBC) casts. (iii) The abrupt onset or rapid progression of renal disease (massive proteinuria or renal insufficiency). (iv) Normal blood pressure in patients with clinical manifestation similar to overt diabetic nephropathy. (v) Absence of diabetic retinopathy or neuropathy in patients with massive proteinuria or renal insufficiency. However, none of the above items could definitely indicate a non-diabetic renal disease in type 2 diabetes alone, but combination of them could increase its positive predictive value. The study by Soni et al. in this issue confirms two of them in a large cohort of Indian patients with type 2 diabetes: lesser duration of diabetes (5.37 ± 5.88 years of patients with isolated non-diabetic renal disease versus 8.53 ± 5.84 years of patients with diabetic nephropathy) and absence of retinopathy with massive proteinuria (76.7% of patients with isolated non-diabetic renal disease). This study provides more evidence to support the notion that lesser duration of diabetes and absence of retinopathy might be used as indications of renal biopsy, although it was controversial in previous reports. Based on our previous observation, which showed that some patients with non-diabetic nephrotic syndrome in type 2 diabetes could achieve complete remission by prednisone or combined cyclophosphomide therapy, it was strongly suggested that renal biopsy should be performed in patients with type 2 diabetes when any above clue occurred. Actually, the study by Soni et al. in the current issue reveals that 68 (42.5%) patients are with isolated non-diabetic renal diseases, 48 (30%) patients are with non-diabetic renal diseases superimposed by underlying diabetic nephropathy and only 44 (27.5%) patients are with isolated diabetic nephropathy, respectively. The high proportion of type 2 diabetic patients with non-diabetic renal disease might be heavily depended on indication of renal biopsy, but this needs further investigation. After the detection of clinical clues of non-diabetic renal diseases and hence renal biopsy, however, pathological identification of non-diabetic glomerular diseases in patients with type 2 diabetes sometimes might be very difficult. For example, when extensive foot process effacement occurs in a historically mild diabetic nephropathy, it will be difficult to differentiate superimposed minimal change disease from diabetic nephropathy alone. When membranous nephropathy occurs, we could not definitely exclude concurrent early diabetic nephropathy that only has mild thickness of glomerular basement membrane and mild accumulation of mesangial matrix. Furthermore, interstitial inflammatory cell infiltration is often prominent in advanced diabetic glomerulosclerosis, which is also hard to know whether it is secondary to diabetic nephropathy or superimposed with acute interstitial nephritis if there is no prominent eosinophil interstitial infiltration. In this study of Soni et al., there is also a high proportion of acute interstitial nephritis (33%) superimposed with diabetic nephropathy; it raises the same question without a definite answer, which needs further studies to elucidate it. Anyway, this interesting story still needs a long time to tell, and needs more applause from anyone who cares about it.