| Literature DB >> 33171707 |
Georgia V Kapoula1,2, Panagiota I Kontou2,3, Pantelis G Bagos2.
Abstract
There is a lack of prediction markers for early diabetic nephropathy (DN) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the performance of two promising biomarkers, urinary kidney injury molecule 1 (uKIM-1) and Chitinase-3-like protein 1 (YKL-40) in the diagnosis of early diabetic nephropathy in type 2 diabetic patients. A comprehensive search was performed on PubMed by two reviewers until May 2020. For each study, a 2 × 2 contingency table was formulated. Sensitivity, specificity, and other estimates of accuracy were calculated using the bivariate random effects model. The hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve hsROC) was used to pool data and evaluate the area under curve (AUC). The sources of heterogeneity were explored by sensitivity analysis. Publication bias was assessed using Deek's test. The meta-analysis enrolled 14 studies involving 598 healthy individuals, 765 T2DM patients with normoalbuminuria, 549 T2DM patients with microalbuminuria, and 551 T2DM patients with macroalbuminuria, in total for both biomarkers. The AUC of uKIM-1 and YKL-40 for T2DM patients with normoalbuminuria, was 0.85 (95%CI; 0.82-0.88) and 0.91 (95%CI; 0.88-0.93), respectively. The results of this meta-analysis suggest that both uKIM-1 and YKL-40 can be considered as valuable biomarkers for the early detection of DN in T2DM patients with the latter showing slightly better performance than the former.Entities:
Keywords: chitinase-3-like protein 1 (YKL-40); diabetic nephropathy; kidney injury molecule 1 (KIM-1); meta-analysis
Year: 2020 PMID: 33171707 PMCID: PMC7695026 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics10110909
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Figure 1The PRISMA flow diagram for the included studies.
Detailed characteristics of the included studies in the meta-analysis, concerning the uKIM-1 biomarker for controls and T2DM patients with normoalbuminuria.
| First Author’ s Name, Year (Reference) | Country | Sample Size (n) | Sex (%Male) | Age | Definition of Albuminuria for T2DM Patients | Method of uKIM-1 Measurement | Variables Provided | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Controls | Patients | Controls | Patients | Controls | Patients | |||||
| Kim SS, 2012 [ | Republic of Korea | 25 | 58 | 56.0 | 39.6 | 50.9 | 57 | Normoalbuminuria: uACR < 30 mg/g | ELISA | Median + IQR |
| El-Attar HA, 2017 [ | Egypt | 20 | 20 | 45.1 | 50.0 | 39.5 | 39.5 | Normoalbuminuria | ELISA | Median+ min, max |
| Fu Wen-jin, 2012 [ | China | 28 | 61 | 46.4 | - | 48.3 | - | Normoalbuminuria | ELISA | Median + IQR |
| El-Ashmawy NE., 2015 [ | Egypt | 20 | 30 | 50.0 | 33.3 | 51.6 | 60.2 | Normoalbuminuria | ELISA | Mean + SD |
| Ali SI., 2017 [ | Egypt | 19 | 24 | 42.8 | - | 45.0 | - | Normoalbuminuria | ELISA | Mean + SD |
| Kin Tekce B, 2014 [ | Turkey | 34 | 39 | 47.0 | 46.1 | 59 | 62 | Normoalbuminuria | ELISA | Mean + SD |
| Aslan O, 2014 [ | Turkey | 20 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 48.4 | 52.1 | Normoalbuminuria | ELISA | Mean + SD |
| Gao P, 2018 [ | USA | 30 | 30 | 50.0 | 53.3 | 48.1 | 50.1 | Normoalbuminuria | ELISA | Median + IQR |
Detailed characteristics of the included studies in the meta-analysis, concerning the YKL-40 biomarker for controls and T2DM patients with normoalbuminuria.
| First Author’ s Name, Year (Reference) | Country | Sample Size (n) | Sex (%Male) | Age | Definition of Albuminuria for T2DM Patients | YKL-40 | Method of uKIM-1 Measurement | Variables Provided | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Controls | Patients | Controls | Patients | Controls | Patients | ||||||
| Umapathy D, 2018 [ | India | 83 | 81 | 52.6 | 60.5 | 54.1 | 54.1 | Normoalbuminuria: uACR < 30 mg/g | Plasma | Immunoassay | Median + range |
| El-Menshawy N, 2011 [ | Egypt | 35 | 39 | 54.3 | 48.7 | 49.3 | 52.5 | Normoalbuminuria | Serum | EIA | Mean + SD |
| Rondbjerg AK, 2011 [ | Denmark | 20 | 49 | 60.4 | 44.8 | 57.1 | 61.3 | Normoalbuminuria | Serum | ELISA | Median + IQR |
| Zurawska-Plaksej E, 2014 [ | Poland | 32 | 29 | 37.5 | 37.9 | 61.0 | 62.9 | Normoalbuminuria | Plasma | ELISA | Mean + SD |
| Han JY, 2015 [ | China | 210 | 260 | 48.4 | 50.7 | 53.4 | 52.8 | Normoalbuminuria | Serum | ELISA | Median + IQR |
| Lee JH, 2012 [ | South Korea | 22 | 25 | 59.1 | 44 | 52.4 | 55.6 | Normoalbuminuria | Plasma | ELISA | Median + IQR |
Contingency table for uKIM-1 and YKL-40 inT2DM patients along with paired sensitivity and specificity of individual studies for the diagnosis of early DN in each study included in the meta-analysis.
| Study | True Positive | False Negative | True Negative | False Positive | Sensitivity (95%CI) | Specificity (95%CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| uKIM-1: control vs. normoalbuminuric T2DM patients | ||||||
| Kim SS, 2012 | 7 | 51 | 22 | 3 | 0.12 (0.05–0.23) | 0.88 (0.69–0.97) |
| El-Attar HA, 2017 | 10 | 10 | 14 | 6 | 0.50 (0.27–0.73) | 0.70 (0.46–0.88) |
| Fu Wen-jin, 2012 | 38 | 23 | 18 | 10 | 0.62 (0.49–0.74) | 0.64 (0.44–0.81) |
| El-Ashmawy NE., 2015 | 30 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 1.00 (0.88–1.00) | 1.00 (0.83–1.00) |
| Ali SI., 2017 | 22 | 2 | 16 | 3 | 0.92 (0.73–0.99) | 0.84 (0.60–0.97) |
| Kin Tekce B, 2014 | 33 | 6 | 32 | 2 | 0.85 (0.69–0.94) | 0.94 (0.88–0.99) |
| Aslan O, 2014 | 7 | 13 | 16 | 4 | 0.35 (0.15–0.59) | 0.80 (0.56–0.94) |
| Gao P, 2018 | 13 | 17 | 18 | 12 | 0.43 (0.25–0.63) | 0.60 (0.41–0.77) |
| YKL-40: control vs. normoalbuminuric T2DM patients | ||||||
| Umapathy D, 2018 | 72 | 9 | 70 | 13 | 0.89 (0.80–0.95) | 0.84 (0.75–0.91) |
| El-Menshawy N, 2011 | 36 | 3 | 32 | 3 | 0.92 (0.79–0.98) | 0.91 (0.77–0.98) |
| Rondbjerg AK, 2011 | 35 | 14 | 14 | 6 | 0.71 (0.57–0.83) | 0.70 (0.46–0.88) |
| Zurawska-Plaksej E, 2014 | 12 | 17 | 22 | 10 | 0.41 (0.24–0.61) | 0.69 (0.77–0.98) |
| Han JY, 2015 | 251 | 9 | 204 | 6 | 0.97 (0.94–0.98) | 0.97 (0.94–0.99) |
| Lee JH, 2012 | 18 | 7 | 16 | 6 | 0.72 (0.51–0.88) | 0.73 (0.50–0.89) |
Pooled diagnostic and prognostic accuracy of uKIM-1 and YKL-40 for the diagnosis of early DN in T2DM patients. Results of sensitivity analysis, p value of publication bias, and I2 for heterogeneity are also given.
| No of Studies | Sensitivity (95% CI) | I2(%) | Specificity (95%CI) | I2 (%) | PLR (95%CI) | NLR (95% CI) | DOR (95% CI) | AUC (95%CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| uKIM-1: controls vs. T2DM patients with normoalbuminuria | |||||||||
| 9 | 0.68 (0.35–0.89) | 94.1 | 0.83 (0.69–0.92) | 83.0 | 4.1 (1.5–11.0) | 0.38 (0.14–1.06) | 11 (2, 75) | 0.85 (0.82–0.88) | 0.74 |
| YKL-40: controls vs. T2DM patients with normoalbuminuria | |||||||||
| 6 | 0.83 (0.65–0.93) | 94.0 | 0.85 (0.72–0.93) | 87.0 | 5.5 (2.4–12.8) | 0.20 (0.08–0.55) | 28 (5, 156) | 0.91 (0.88–0.93) | 0.01 |
| YKL-40: controls vs. T2DM patients with normoalbuminuria-Sensitivity analysis | |||||||||
| 5 | 0.85 (0.64–0.95) | 94.8 | 0.87 (0.73–0.94) | 88.1 | 6.5 (2.5–16.5) | 0.18 (0.06–0.52) | 37 (5, 269) | 0.92 (0.90–0.94) | 0.05 |
Abbreviations: PLR: positive likelihood ratio, NLR: negative likelihood ratio, DOR: diagnostic odds ratio, AUC: area under the curve.
Figure 2(A) The hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic curve curve of uKIM-1to discriminate controls (healthy individuals) from normoalbuminuric T2DM patients. The straight line represents the hSROC curve; the circle represents each of the analyzed studies; the diamond shape represents the point estimate to which overall sensitivity and specificity correspond. (B) Forest plot for sensitivity and specificity.
Figure 3(A) The hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic curve of YKL-40 to discriminate controls (healthy individuals) from normoalbuminuric T2DM patients. The straight line represents the hSROC curve; the circle represents each of the analyzed studies; the diamond shape represents the point estimate to which overall sensitivity and specificity correspond. (B) Forest plot for sensitivity and specificity.