| Literature DB >> 29910771 |
Lauren Winter1,2, Lydia A Wong1, George Jerums1, Jas-Mine Seah1, Michele Clarke1, Sih Min Tan3, Melinda T Coughlan3, Richard J MacIsaac4,5, Elif I Ekinci1,2.
Abstract
Diabetic kidney disease is a common complication of type 1 and type 2 diabetes and is the primary cause of end-stage renal disease in developed countries. Early detection of diabetic kidney disease will facilitate early intervention aimed at reducing the rate of progression to end-stage renal disease. Diabetic kidney disease has been traditionally classified based on the presence of albuminuria. More recently estimated glomerular filtration rate has also been incorporated into the staging of diabetic kidney disease. While albuminuric diabetic kidney disease is well described, the phenotype of non-albuminuric diabetic kidney disease is now widely accepted. An association between markers of inflammation and diabetic kidney disease has previously been demonstrated. Effector molecules of the innate immune system including C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, and tumor necrosis factor-α are increased in patients with diabetic kidney disease. Furthermore, renal infiltration of neutrophils, macrophages, and lymphocytes are observed in renal biopsies of patients with diabetic kidney disease. Similarly high serum neutrophil and low serum lymphocyte counts have been shown to be associated with diabetic kidney disease. The neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio is considered a robust measure of systemic inflammation and is associated with the presence of inflammatory conditions including the metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance. Cross-sectional studies have demonstrated a link between high levels of the above inflammatory biomarkers and diabetic kidney disease. Further longitudinal studies will be required to determine if these readily available inflammatory biomarkers can accurately predict the presence and prognosis of diabetic kidney disease, above and beyond albuminuria, and estimated glomerular filtration rate.Entities:
Keywords: atherosclerosis; diabetic kidney disease; diabetic nephropathy; inflammation; lymphocytes; neutrophils; neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio
Year: 2018 PMID: 29910771 PMCID: PMC5992400 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2018.00225
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ISSN: 1664-2392 Impact factor: 5.555
Figure 1Overview of the immune system.
Cross-sectional studies of C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, and tumor necrosis factor-α in type 2 diabetes.
| Reference | Groups | Endpoint | Findings | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ford ( | Impaired fasting glucose ( | Odds ratio for elevated C-reactive protein | 0.99 (0.72–1.37) | Not given |
| Newly diagnosed diabetes ( | Odds ratio for elevated C-reactive protein | 1.84 (1.25–2.71) | Not given | |
| Previously diagnosed diabetes ( | Odds ratio for elevated C-reactive protein | 1.59 (1.25–2.01) | Not given | |
| Muller et al. ( | Impaired glucose tolerance ( | Median interleukin-6 | 1.8 vs 0.8 pg/ml | |
| Type 2 diabetes ( | Median interleukin-6 | 2.5 vs 0.8 pg/ml | ||
| Pitsavos et al. ( | Type 2 diabetes ( | Mean C-reactive protein | 3.08 ± 3.36 vs 1.96 ± 2.83 mg/l | |
| Type 2 diabetes ( | Mean interleukin-6 | 1.72 ± 0.47 vs 1.41 ± 0.52 pg/ml | ||
| Type 2 diabetes ( | Mean tumor necrosis factor-α | 9.50 ± 7.41 vs 5.95 ± 4.78 pg/ml | ||
.
Longitudinal studies of C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-α, fibrinogen, and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 in type 2 diabetes.
| Reference | Follow-up period (years) | Groups | Endpoint | Findings | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pradhan et al. ( | 4 | Type 2 diabetes ( | Baseline median interleukin-6 | 2.0 (1.43, 2.78) vs 1.38 (0.91, 2.05) pg/ml | |
| Type 2 diabetes ( | Baseline median C-reactive protein | 0.69 (0.42, 1.00) vs 0.26 (0.10, 0.61) mg/dl | |||
| Baseline interleukin-6 quartiles | Relative risk of type 2 diabetes for quartile 1, 2, 3, and 4 | 1.0, 2.5 (1.1, 5.6), 4.1 (2.0, 8.4), and 7.5 (3.7, 15.4) | |||
| Baseline C-reactive protein quartiles | Relative risk of type 2 diabetes for quartile 1, 2, 3, and 4 | 1.0, 2.2 (0.8, 6.0), 8.7 (3.6, 21.0), and 15.7 (6.5, 37.9) | |||
| Hu et al. ( | 10 | Type 2 diabetes ( | Baseline median C-reactive protein | 0.36 vs 0.16 mg/dl | |
| Type 2 diabetes ( | Baseline median interleukin-6 | 2.38 vs 1.84 pg/ml | |||
| Type 2 diabetes ( | Baseline median tumor necrosis factor-α receptor 2 | 2,646.5 vs 2,383.8 pg/ml | |||
| Baseline C-reactive protein quintiles | Odds ratio for type 2 diabetes: highest quintile vs lowest quintile | 4.36 (2.80–6.80) | |||
| Baseline interleukin-6 protein quintiles | Odds ratio for type 2 diabetes: highest quintile vs lowest quintile | 1.91 (1.27–2.86) | |||
| Baseline tumor necrosis factor-α receptor 2 protein quintiles | Odds ratio for type 2 diabetes: highest quintile vs lowest quintile | 1.64 (1.10–2.45) | |||
| Freeman et al. ( | 5 | Type 2 diabetes ( | Hazard ratio of baseline C-reactive protein to predict type 2 diabetes | 1.55 (1.32–1.82) | |
| Baseline C-reactive protein quintiles | Hazards ratio to predict type 2 diabetes: highest quintile vs lowest quintile | 6.13 (2.76–13.60) | |||
| Laaksonen et al. ( | 11 | Baseline C-reactive protein ≥ 3.0 mg/l ( | Odds ratio of developing type 2 diabetes | 4.11 (2.11–7.98) | |
| Morimoto et al. ( | 5 | Type 2 diabetes ( | Odds ratio of 2.9-fold increase in baseline C-reactive protein | 1.8 (1.03–1.34) | |
| Type 2 diabetes ( | Odds ratio of 2.9-fold increase in C-reactive protein from baseline | 1.21 (1.03–1.41) | |||
| Han et al. ( | 6 | Baseline C-reactive protein tertile (total | Relative risk of developing type 2 diabetes: highest tertile vs lowest tertile | 5.4 (2.2–13.4) | |
| Thorand et al. ( | 10.8 | Baseline C-reactive protein women type 2 diabetes ( | Hazard ratio to predict type 2 diabetes: highest tertile vs lowest tertile | 7.60 (4.43–13.04) | |
| Baseline C-reactive protein men type 2 diabetes ( | Hazard ratio to predict type 2 diabetes: highest tertile vs lowest tertile | 1.84 (1.27–2.67) | |||
| Nakanishi et al. ( | 6.54 | Baseline C-reactive protein women type 2 diabetes ( | Hazard ratio to predict type 2 diabetes: highest tertile vs lowest tertile | 3.11 (1.25–7.75) | |
| Baseline C-reactive protein men type 2 diabetes ( | Hazard ratio to predict type 2 diabetes: highest tertile vs lowest tertile | 2.84 (1.09–7.39) | |||
| Barzilay et al. ( | 3–4 | Type 2 diabetes ( | Baseline median C-reactive protein | 2.94 (1.44, 7.0) vs 1.62 (0.81, 2.81) mg/l | |
| Baseline C-reactive protein ( | Odds ratio of type 2 diabetes: 75th percentile vs 25th percentile | 2.03 (1.44–2/86) | not given | ||
| Festa et al. ( | 5.2 | Type 2 diabetes ( | Baseline mean C-reactive protein | 2.40 (1.29, 5.87) vs 1.67 (0.75, 3.41) mg/l | |
| Type 2 diabetes ( | Baseline mean fibrinogen | 287.8 ± 58.8 vs 275.1 ± 56 mg/dl | |||
| Type 2 diabetes ( | Baseline mean plasma plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 | 24 (15, 37.5) vs 16 (9, 27) ng/ml | |||
| Baseline C-reactive protein quartiles | Incidence of type 2 diabetes in each quartile 1, 2, 3, 4 after follow-up | 6.9, 12.1, 16.2, and 19.9% | |||
| Baseline plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 quartiles | Incidence of type 2 diabetes in each quartile 1, 2, 3, 4 after follow-up | 6.6, 10.4, 15.6, and 23.1% | |||
| Spranger et al. ( | 2.3 | Type 2 diabetes ( | Baseline mean C-reactive protein | 4.14 ± 5.1 vs 2.45 ± 4.38 μg/ml | |
| Type 2 diabetes ( | Baseline mean interleukin-6 | 2.45 ± 1.80 vs 1.67 ± 1.59 pg/ml | |||
| Type 2 diabetes ( | Baseline mean tumor necrosis factor-α | 2.04 ± 1.51 vs 1.79 ± 1.28 pg/ml | |||
| Baseline interleukin-6 | Odds ratio of type 2 diabetes: highest quartile vs lowest quartile | 2.57 (1.24–5.47) | not given | ||
| Doi et al. ( | 9 | Baseline C-reactive protein men ( | Odds ratio of type 2 diabetes: highest tertile vs lowest tertile | 2.63 (1.23–5.65) | |
| Baseline C-reactive protein women ( | Odds ratio of type 2 diabetes: highest tertile vs lowest tertile | 2.25 (1.01–5.01) | |||
| Dehghan et al. ( | 9.8 | Baseline C-reactive protein ( | Hazard ratio to predict type 2 diabetes for second, third, and fourth quartile compared with first | 1.88 (1.42–2.48), 2.16 (1.64–2.84), and 2.83 (2.16–3.70) | |
| Lee et al. ( | 3.7 | Baseline C-reactive protein ( | Odds ratio of type 2 diabetes: highest tertile vs lowest tertile | 1.49 (1.03–2.15) | |
.
.
.
Cross-sectional studies of the white cell count in type 2 diabetes.
| Reference | Groups | Endpoint | Findings | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ohshita et al. ( | Impaired glucose tolerance ( | Mean white cell count | 6,530 vs 6,210/mm3 | |
| Chung et al. ( | Normoalbuminuria ( | Mean white cell count | 6,572 ± 1,647 vs 6,984 ± 1,662 vs 7,440 ± 1,769 × 109/l | |
| Normoalbuminuria ( | Mean neutrophil count | 3,730 ± 1,283 vs 4,101 ± 1,432 vs 4,742 ± 1,590 × 109/l | ||
| Normoalbuminuria ( | Mean lymphocyte count | 2,222 ± 736 vs 2,206 ± 701 vs 1,937 ± 769 × 109/l | ||
| Normoalbuminuria ( | Mean monocyte count | 440 ± 158 vs 482 ± 173 vs 553 ± 237 × 109/l | ||
| Cavalot et al. ( | Microalbuminuria ( | Mean white cell count | 7,539 ± 1,882 vs 6,882 ± 1,713 μ/l | |
| Macroalbuminuria ( | Mean white cell count | 7,574 ± 1,981 vs 6,882 ± 1,713 μ/l | ||
.
Longitudinal studies of the white cell count in type 2 diabetes.
| Reference | Follow-up period (years) | Groups | Endpoint | Findings | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schmidt et al. ( | 7 | Baseline white cell count ( | Odds ratio highest quartile vs lowest quartile | 1.9 (1.6–2.3) | Not given |
| Baseline neutrophil count ( | Odds ratio highest quartile vs lowest quartile | 1.8 (1.5–2.3) | Not given | ||
| Baseline lymphocyte count ( | Odds ratio highest quartile vs lowest quartile | 1.3 (1.1–1.7) | Not given | ||
| Ford ( | 20 | Baseline leukocyte count ≥ 9 × 109/l vs <5.7 × 109/l women (4,520) | Hazard ratio | 1.68 (1.21–2.34) | |
| Vozarova et al. ( | 5.5 | Baseline white cell count ( | Relative hazard of 90th percentile vs 10th percentiles | 2.7 (1.3–5.4) | |
.
Figure 2Inflammatory components of the innate immune system and diabetic kidney disease in type 2 diabetes.
Figure 3Inflammatory components of the innate immune system and diabetic kidney disease in type 1 diabetes.
Figure 4Changes to leukocytes in diabetic kidney disease.
Figure 5Elevated neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio and various disease states.
Figure 6Increased neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio and complications in diabetes mellitus.
Figure 7Increased neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio and diabetic kidney disease.