The utility of renal biopsy in patients with diabetes is highly debated. Diabetics with rapidly worsening renal disease are often 'clinically' labelled as having diabetic nephropathy (DN), whereas, in many cases, they are rather developing a non-diabetic renal disease (NDRD) or mixed forms (DN + NDRD). Methods. We performed a systematic search for studies on patients with diabetes with data on the frequency of DN, NDRD and mixed forms, and assessed the positive predictive values (PPVs) and odds ratios (ORs) for such diagnoses by meta-analysing single-study prevalence. Possible factors explaining heterogeneity among the different diagnoses were explored by meta-regression. Results. In the 48 included studies (n = 4876), the prevalence of DN, NDRD and mixed forms ranged from 6.5 to 94%, 3 to 82.9% and 4 to 45.5% of the overall diagnoses, respectively. IgA nephropathy was the most common NDRD (3-59%). PPVs for DN, NDRD and mixed forms were 50.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 44.7-55.2], 36.9% (95% CI: 32.3-41.8) and 19.7% (95% CI: 16.3-23.6), respectively. The PPV when combining NDRD and mixed forms was 49.2% (95% CI: 43.8-54.5). Meta-regression identified systolic pressure, HbA1c, diabetes duration and retinopathy as factors explaining heterogeneity for NDRD, creatinine and glomerular filtration rate for mixed forms and only serum creatinine for DN. ORs of DN versus NDRD and mixed forms were 1.71 (95% CI: 1.54-1.91) and 4.1 (95% CI: 3.43-4.80), respectively. Conclusions. NDRD are highly prevalent in patients with diabetes. Clinical judgment alone can lead to wrong diagnoses and delay the establishment of adequate therapies. Risk stratification according to individual factors is needed for selecting patients who might benefit from biopsy.

Renal biopsy in patients with diabetes: a pooled meta-analysis of 48 studies

FIORENTINO, MARCO;GESUALDO, Loreto
2017-01-01

Abstract

The utility of renal biopsy in patients with diabetes is highly debated. Diabetics with rapidly worsening renal disease are often 'clinically' labelled as having diabetic nephropathy (DN), whereas, in many cases, they are rather developing a non-diabetic renal disease (NDRD) or mixed forms (DN + NDRD). Methods. We performed a systematic search for studies on patients with diabetes with data on the frequency of DN, NDRD and mixed forms, and assessed the positive predictive values (PPVs) and odds ratios (ORs) for such diagnoses by meta-analysing single-study prevalence. Possible factors explaining heterogeneity among the different diagnoses were explored by meta-regression. Results. In the 48 included studies (n = 4876), the prevalence of DN, NDRD and mixed forms ranged from 6.5 to 94%, 3 to 82.9% and 4 to 45.5% of the overall diagnoses, respectively. IgA nephropathy was the most common NDRD (3-59%). PPVs for DN, NDRD and mixed forms were 50.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 44.7-55.2], 36.9% (95% CI: 32.3-41.8) and 19.7% (95% CI: 16.3-23.6), respectively. The PPV when combining NDRD and mixed forms was 49.2% (95% CI: 43.8-54.5). Meta-regression identified systolic pressure, HbA1c, diabetes duration and retinopathy as factors explaining heterogeneity for NDRD, creatinine and glomerular filtration rate for mixed forms and only serum creatinine for DN. ORs of DN versus NDRD and mixed forms were 1.71 (95% CI: 1.54-1.91) and 4.1 (95% CI: 3.43-4.80), respectively. Conclusions. NDRD are highly prevalent in patients with diabetes. Clinical judgment alone can lead to wrong diagnoses and delay the establishment of adequate therapies. Risk stratification according to individual factors is needed for selecting patients who might benefit from biopsy.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
2016_fiorentino_NDT.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Documento in Post-print
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 2.21 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2.21 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11586/163320
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 37
  • Scopus 128
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 112
social impact