Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 4305

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2024 | Month : November | Volume : 18 | Issue : 11 | Page : OC11 - OC15 Full Version

Predictive Ability of Interstitial Fibrosis and Tubular Atrophy Scoring in Determining the Severity of Diabetic Kidney Disease: A Cross-sectional Study


Published: November 1, 2024 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2024/74216.20277
Shamantha Gopichand, Sunil Rajanna, Tirthankar Mukherjee, Rakshith Somanahalli Chikkanna, Nalini Modepalli

1. Assistant Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, BGS Global Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India. 2. Professor, Department of Nephrology, Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India. 3. Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India. 4. Assistant Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.5. Professor, Department of Pathology, Rajarajeshwari Institute of Medical Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.

Correspondence Address :
Rakshith Somanahalli Chikkanna,
#412, Belli Kirana, 43rd Cross 1st Main Road, Jayanagar 8th Block, Behind Apollo Tyres, Bengaluru-560070, Karnataka, India.
E-mail: drrakshithsc@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Diabetic Kidney Disease (DKD) is a major complication of Diabetes Mellitus (DM). Renal biopsy is the gold standard for the diagnosis and management of many renal diseases. Renal Interstitial Fibrosis and Tubular Atrophy (IFTA), as well as the number of obsolescent glomeruli, are prognostic factors associated with Diabetic Nephropathy (DN).

Aim: To describe the renal biopsy profile of patients with DM presenting with renal disease and to determine the significance of IFTA scoring and the number of obsolescent glomeruli in predicting DKD and its severity.

Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted over a period of three years, from 2019 to 2022, involving a total of 189 patients selected through purposive sampling. Patients with DM who presented with renal disease and required renal biopsy to confirm the diagnosis were admitted to the Department of General Medicine and Nephrology at Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital and Research Centre, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India. The biopsy reports were obtained and analysed. Data were analysed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0 and results were expressed using descriptive and inferential statistics. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: The mean age of the participants was 53.02±11.00 years, with an age range from 21 to 81 years. Among the subjects, 78.3% were males and 21.7 were females. Based on the renal biopsy findings, DN was the most common condition, found in 127 subjects (67.6%). Nearly 50.0% of those with DN had Class IV chronic DN, followed by Class III (42.5%). Chronic interstitial nephritis was the most common Non Diabetic Kidney Disease (NDKD), accounting for 24.6% of cases. IFTA scoring was significantly associated with DKD and there was a significant positive correlation between the severity of IFTA scores and the number of obsolescent glomeruli with the class of DKD. A unit rise in the IFTA score and the number of obsolescent glomeruli increased the risk of having severe DKD (Class III and Class IV) by 4.32 times and 1.24 times, respectively, compared to those with less severe forms (Class I and II) (p<0.05).

Conclusion: The IFTA scoring and the number of obsolescent glomeruli were found to be significant independent predictors of the severity of DKD.

Keywords

Diabetic glomerulosclerosis, Intracapillary glomerulosclerosis, Kimmelstiel-Wilson disease, Nephropathy, Nodular glomerulosclerosis

Diabetes mellitus is one of the fastest-growing health challenges of the 21st century. The International Diabetes Federation has estimated that around 537 million people were living with diabetes in 2021, with an expected increase to 783 million by the year 2045 (1). Diabetic Nephropathy (DN) has been identified as one of the most significant long-term complications of diabetes, leading to End-stage Renal Disease (ESRD) worldwide (2). More than 40% of people with diabetes are estimated to develop Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD), including those who may progress to ESRD, requiring renal replacement therapies in the form of either dialysis or transplantation (3).

Patients with diabetes and CKD have an increased risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and kidney failure. The natural course of DKD progression includes glomerular hyperfiltration, followed by progressive albuminuria, declining Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR) and ultimately ESRD. Findings of glomerular hypertrophy, glomerulosclerosis and tubulointerstitial inflammation and fibrosis are associated with the metabolic changes in diabetes. The risk of onset and progression of DKD persists despite current diabetes therapies. Therefore, there is an urgent need to improve health outcomes for patients with DKD. To achieve this, it is crucial to identify the disease at an early stage and develop therapeutic agents targeting kidney-specific disease mechanisms, such as glomerular hyperfiltration, inflammation and fibrosis (4).

The clinical factors influencing the prediction of the progression of CKD to ESRD in DN include the duration of diabetes, blood pressure, estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR), proteinuria and glycated haemoglobin a1c level (5). However, DN affects all structural components of the kidney and manifests with diverse pathological findings. Therefore, recognising such lesions and their morphological characteristics via renal biopsy may help in preventing, slowing down, or even reversing the processes of DN (6).

In diabetic patients, the results of renal biopsy can be classified into DN, Non Diabetic Renal Disease (NDRD), or DN with NDRD (mixed forms). Renal biopsy in DN, especially in patients undergoing new treatments, may play a role in assessing renal protection or regression of diabetic histological lesions. Additionally, it has been observed that early diagnosis and subsequent treatment of NDRD in diabetic patients have led to better prognosis (7).

To aid DN patients, it is important to identify prognostic factors. The Renal Pathological Society has indicated that Glomerular Basement Membrane (GBM) thickening, mesangial expansion, nodular sclerosis and advanced diabetic glomerulosclerosis are key features. A score is calculated based on tubulointerstitial and vascular lesions, which include IFTA, Arteriolar Hyalinosis (AH), inflammatory interstitial infiltrates, the presence of large vessels and arteriosclerosis (8). Furthermore, renal IFTA is one of the primary endpoints of kidney injury and its accurate quantification in biopsy samples aids in establishing the diagnosis and assessing the severity of the disease (9). The severity of IFTA has been noted to be associated with renal events and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes and biopsy-proven DN (10). Additionally, obsolescent glomerulosclerosis is recognised as another prognostic factor in DN, as highlighted in previous literature (11).

Data on renal biopsy, particularly in the current study setting, is very limited. The present study contributes to the existing literature by addressing the gap regarding the magnitude of these findings and by providing data on pathological markers such as IFTA and obsolescent glomerulosclerosis (5),(12). Therefore, the present study was conducted to describe the renal biopsy profiles among the subjects and to determine the significance of the number of obsolescent glomeruli and IFTA scoring in predicting DKD and its severity.

Material and Methods

The present study was a cross-sectional study conducted over a period of three years at an urban tertiary care hospital in the Department of General Medicine and Nephrology at Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital and Research Centre, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India, from 2019 to 2022, involving a total of 189 patients selected through purposive sampling. Ethical clearance was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee (KIMS/IEC/A150/M/2024).

Inclusion and Exclusion criteria: The study included patients with diabetes mellitus who presented with renal disease and required a renal biopsy to confirm the diagnosis. These patients were admitted to the study Institute. Patients who were unwilling to participate in the study were excluded.

Sample size calculation: Considering 34.4% prevalence of CKD stage 3 among type 2 diabetic patients in India (13) and an additional 7% for inadequate sampling, the sample size of 189 was estimated with 5% alpha error, 7% absolute precision by applying the formula n= zα/2 2 pq/l2 where n- sample size, p-prevalence of DKD, q=1-p, l-precision (or margin of error), zα/2- 1.96 for alpha 0.05.

Study Procedure

After obtaining written informed consent from all the study participants, details regarding the socio-demographic data and clinical history were collected using a semi-structured questionnaire by interview technique. Clinical examination included vitals, general physical examination and systemic examination were done.

A renal biopsy was performed under real-time ultrasonography guidance by nephrologists. The indications for the renal biopsy included proteinuria of more than 0.5 g/day or atypical DN, such as renal involvement without diabetic retinopathy and/or the presence of urinary Red Blood Cells (RBCs). Renal tissue was obtained through needle biopsy and specimens were processed for light microscopy, immunofluorescence and Electron Microscopy (EM). A biopsy core was labelled as an adequate sample if it contained five glomeruli for glomerular lesions and ten glomeruli in cases of tubulointerstitial disease. Biopsy samples with an inadequate number of glomeruli for either light microscopy or immunofluorescence studies were excluded from the analysis. Transplant kidney biopsies were also excluded from the study. The biopsy report was obtained and analysed for the profile (14). The severity of lesions was graded into four classes and IFTA scores were noted, along with the number of glomeruli and obsolescent glomeruli (15).

Operational Definition

Classes of Diabetic Nephropathy (DN): Based on the glomerular involvement, the severity of lesions is graded into four classes. Class 12I is characterised by normal optical microscopy and basal glomerular thickening observed in EM. Class II is characterised by mesangial expansion and is subdivided into Class IIa and Class IIb according to the severity of this lesion. Class III is characterised by the presence of at least one nodular lesion (Kimmelstiel-Wilson lesion), provided that no more than 50% of the glomeruli are sclerosed. Class IV, or advanced diabetic glomerulosclerosis, designates biopsies with more than 50% glomerulosclerosis when this lesion can be attributed to DN, specifically the presence of Class II or III lesions, or a long history of diabetes along with diabetic retinopathy (6).

Pure Non Diabetic Kidney Disease (NDKD): This was defined by the presence of predominant vasculopathy, interstitial fibrosis, tubular atrophy and/or specific glomerular changes in the absence of classical changes associated with DKD (12).

Interstitial Fibrosis and Tubular Atrophy (IFTATA) scores: These scores are evaluated using a semi-quantitative scale of 0-3+, reflecting the percentage of the total involved area of interstitium and tubules as follows: 0 for absence of interstitial fibrosis, 1 for <25%, 2 for 25%-50% and 3 for >50% (15).

Obsolescent glomerulosclerosis is characterised by ischaemic obsolescent glomerulosclerosis, which presents as a retracted glomerular tuft surrounded by a hypocellular homogeneous collagen matrix beginning at the vascular pole adjacent to the glomerular stalk (11).

The terms DN, DKD, NDRD and NDKD are used interchangeably in the current study.

Statistical Analysis

The data were entered into Microsoft Excel and analysed using SPSS version 20.0. Categorical data were presented as proportions, while continuous data were expressed as mean±SD or median with range, depending on whether the data followed a parametric or non parametric distribution. Categorical variables were analysed using the Chi-square test and continuous non parametric variables were compared between groups using the Mann-Whitney U test. The strength of association was expressed using odds ratios, calculated through bivariate logistic regression. The correlation between ordinal data, specifically severity of DKD, IFTA scores and the number of obsolescent glomeruli was analysed using Spearman’s correlation coefficient. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 189 study subjects were included in the analysis. The majority, 114 (60.3%), were aged between 41 to 60 years, with a mean age of 53.02±11.00 years, ranging from 21 to 81 years. Among the participants, 148 (78.3%) were males. Based on the renal biopsy findings, DN was the most common diagnosis, found in 127 (67.6%) subjects, while the remaining 61 (32.4%) had NDKD (Table/Fig 1).

Among those with DN, 63 (49.6%) had Class IV chronic DN, followed by Class III in 54 (42.5%) cases, Class IIb in 6 (4.7%), Class IIa in 2 (1.6%) and Class I in 2 (1.6%) (Table/Fig 2).

Of those with NDKD, chronic interstitial nephritis was the most common diagnosis, found in 15 (24.6%) subjects, followed by acute tubular injury and membranous glomerulonephritis, each present in 7 (11.5%) subjects. Chronic glomerulosclerosis and focal segmental glomerulosclerosis were found in 6 (9.8%) subjects each (Table/Fig 3).

The proportion of subjects with DKD increased with rising IFTA scores, from 11 (20.4%) to 51 (91.1%). However, the proportions of individuals with IFTA scores of 2 and 3 remained nearly equal. Notably, IFTA scoring was significantly associated with DKD compared to NDKD (p<0.005) (Table/Fig 4).

The median number of obsolescent glomeruli (6 vs 2) and IFTA scores (2 vs 0) were significantly higher in chronic DN compared to NDKD (p<0.001). However, the number of glomeruli did not differ significantly between the two groups (p=0.38) (Table/Fig 5).

There was a significant correlation between the severity of DKD and IFTA scores, indicating that IFTA scores significantly increase with the severity of DKD (r=0.7; p<0.001), where the r value indicates a high positive correlation (Table/Fig 6). Similarly, significant positive correlations were established between the number of obsolescent glomeruli and the severity of DKD (r=0.7; p<0.05) (Table/Fig 7).

Among the DN patients, the median IFTA scores and the median number of obsolescent glomeruli in those with severe DKD (Class III and Class IV) were 2 and 7, respectively, while in those with Class I and II, they were 1 and 1.5, respectively. These differences were statistically significant (p=0.003). The odds ratio of 4.32 suggests that for each unit increase in the IFTA score, there was a 4.32-fold higher risk of having severe DKD (Class III and Class IV) compared to those with less severe forms (Class I and II). Similarly, a unit increase in the number of obsolescent glomeruli increased the risk of having severe DKD (Class III and Class IV) by 1.24 times compared to those with less severe forms (Class I and II), respectively (p=0.003) (Table/Fig 8).

Discussion

In the current study, nearly two-thirds of diabetics had DN and most of the subjects with DN had Class IV and Class III chronic DN. The number of obsolescent glomeruli and IFTA scores were found to be independent predictors of the severity of DN.

India is one of the three countries with the highest burden of CKD due to DM (16). Although renal involvement in diabetes is primarily due to DN, a considerable proportion of patients undergoing kidney biopsy have been noted to exhibit NDKD, which can present alone or superimposed on DKD (4),(17),(18). Given the high burden of diabetes in India, both DKD and NDKD are expected to be prevalent (12). There are significant therapeutic and prognostic implications in diagnosing NDKD in diabetic patients (17).

Previously conducted research has reported severe glomerular injury, an increased degree of interstitial inflammation, severe IFTA and a higher occurrence of arterial hypertension and arteriosclerosis, all of which are associated with renal endpoints indicating renal damage (19),(20). The critical role of these factors in the progression of DN has also been established in other studies (20). Similarly, the occurrence of IFTA has also been noted in NDKD (12). Obsolescent glomeruli appeared to be significantly associated with end-stage renal disease in patients with type 2 diabetes but did not retain its significance after adjusting for confounders (11).

In addition to this background, data on renal biopsy findings and the pathological features that have prognostic utility in DN are limited (5),(12). Hence, this study was conducted to assess the histopathological features of patients who underwent renal biopsy (18) and to determine the association of IFTA scores with DKD and its severity.

Tong X et al., reported the prevalence rate of DN in different studies ranging from 8.2% to 62.7%, with an average of 41.3%. Similarly, DN was the most common diagnosis found in 67.6% of the study participants (21). Prakash J et al., reported the mean age of study subjects to be around 52 years, with the majority being male. In their study, isolated DN was found in 52% of cases and DN with superimposed NDKD was present in 20%. The present study found a mean age of around 53 years, with the majority being male and 67.6% of participants had DN (22).

Sahay M et al., noted that the most common histological class was Class IV, observed in 43.02% of cases, followed by Class III DN in 27.90% of cases. Class IIa and Class IIb were each found in 12.79% of cases, while Class I DN was present in 3.48% of cases (23). Zajjari Y et al., found Class III to be the most common histological class among DN cases, accounting for 42.3% (24). However, the present study findings were consistent with those of Sahay M et al., showing that nearly 50.0% had Class IV chronic DN, followed by Class III (42.5%), Class IIb (4.7%), Class IIa (1.6%) and Class I (1.6%) (23). The current findings slightly differed from those of Zajjari Y et al., as the severity of DN manifestations depends on the chronicity of diabetes and glycemic control (24),(25).

Tolani P et al., found NDKD in 48.15% of cases, with IgA nephropathy being the most common, followed by membranous glomerulopathy, focal segmental glomerulosclerosis and other conditions such as tubulointerstitial diseases and crescentic glomerulonephritis (14). In contrast, this study observed NDKD in 32.4% of cases, with chronic interstitial nephritis being the most prevalent, followed by acute tubular injury, membranous glomerulonephritis, chronic glomerulosclerosis, focal segmental glomerulosclerosis and IgA nephropathy. Acute interstitial nephritis and other diseases such as minimal change disease, acute tubular interstitial nephritis, membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis, cast nephropathy, pyelonephritis, acute on chronic interstitial nephritis, hypertensive nephrosclerosis, chronic glomerulonephritis, mesangial proliferative glomerulonephritis and C3 glomerulonephritis accounted for less than 5% of cases. The differences in the types of NDKD may be attributed to varying study settings and the duration of diabetes (14).

Zajjari Y et al., did not show any significant difference in the number of glomeruli across different classes of DN, with means of 14 and 15, indicating optimal quality of the biopsy samples (24). As explained above, a study by Zhao L et al., found that obsolescent glomeruli were significantly associated with end-stage renal disease in patients with type 2 diabetes; however, this significance did not hold after adjusting for confounders (11). These findings align with the current study, although the loss of significance and the observed differences may be attributed to variations in the study settings. Zhao L et al., also reported a 1.24 times higher risk of having Class III and IV DN compared to those with Class I and II DN.

As IFTA scores increased, the proportion of subjects with DKD rose until IFTA score 2, after which the proportion remained relatively stable, with a slight decrease noted at IFTA score 3. The scores were significantly associated with DKD and IFTA scores (2 vs. 0) were significantly higher in chronic DN compared to NDKD in this study. A significant positive correlation between IFTA scores and the grade of DN was also observed in the current study, consistent with findings from other studies conducted by Kim T et al., Shimizu M et al., and Zajjari Y et al., which demonstrated associations and positive correlations with CKD stage, as well as higher mean values in Class IV DN (8),(10),(24). Additionally, this study highlighted the increased risk of higher severity with rising IFTA scores, showing a 4.32 times higher risk of having severe DKD (Class III and Class IV) compared to those with less severe forms (Class I and II).

Limitation(s)

The study was limited to a single setting and purposive sampling was used due to logistical constraints and the nature of the investigation.

Conclusion

The data indicate that DN contributed to nearly two-thirds of the individuals with diabetes, while one-third had NDKD. More than 90% of those with DN had Class IV and Class III chronic DN. Among those with NDKD, nearly 50% exhibited pathological findings of chronic interstitial nephritis, acute tubular injury and membranous glomerulonephritis. Additionally, more than 30% of individuals with NDKD presented with chronic glomerulosclerosis, focal segmental glomerulosclerosis, IgA nephropathy and acute interstitial nephritis. The number of obsolescent glomeruli and IFTA scores showed a significant association with DN. These factors were also found to be independent predictors of the severity of DN, indirectly indicating their prognostic significance in this condition. Conducting similar studies in different settings or using a case-control study design, while adjusting for confounders such as the duration of diabetes and other associated co-morbidities, might help to generalise the findings of the current study.

References

1.
International Diabetes Federation. IDF Diabetes Atlas-Diabetes around the world in 2021 [Internet]. 10th edn. Brussels, Belgium: International Diabetes Federation; 2021. Available from: https://www.diabetesatlas.org.
2.
Ritz E, Zeng XX, Rychlík I. Clinical manifestation and natural history of diabetic nephropathy. Contrib Nephrol. 2011;170:19 27. [crossref][PubMed]
3.
American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes--2014. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(Suppl 1):S14-80. [crossref][PubMed]
4.
Alicic RZ, Rooney MT, Tuttle KR. Diabetic kidney disease: Challenges, progress, and possibilities. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017;12(12):2032-45. [crossref][PubMed]
5.
Stefan G, Stancu S, Zugravu A, Petre N, Mandache E, Mircescu G. Histologic predictors of renal outcome in diabetic nephropathy: Beyond renal pathology society classification. Medicine. 2019;98(27):e16333. [crossref][PubMed]
6.
Qi C, Mao X, Zhang Z, Wu H. Classification and differential diagnosis of diabetic nephropathy. Journal of Diabetes Research. 2017;2017:8637138. [crossref][PubMed]
7.
Bermejo S, Pascual J, Soler MJ. The current role of renal biopsy in diabetic patients. Minerva Medica. 2017;109(2):116-25. [crossref][PubMed]
8.
Kim T, Kwak Y, Lee JY, Shin H, Kim JS, Yang JW, et al. Pathological validation of the Japanese Renal Pathology Society classification and challenges in predicting renal prognosis in patients with diabetic nephropathy. Kidney Res Clin Pract. 2022 Sep;41(5):545-555. [crossref][PubMed]
9.
Edelstein CL, editor. Biomarkers of kidney disease. Academic press; 2016 Nov 8.
10.
Shimizu M, Furuichi K, Kitajima S, Toyama T, Oshima M, Ogura H, et al. Impact of the relationship between hemoglobin levels and renal interstitial fibrosis on long-term outcomes in type 2 diabetes with biopsy-proven diabetic nephropathy. BMC nephrology. 2021;22:1-2. [crossref]
11.
Zhao L, Liu F, Li L, Zhang J, Wang T, Zhang R, et al. Solidified glomerulosclerosis, identified using single glomerular proteomics, predicts end-stage renal disease in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes. Scientific Reports. 2021;11(1):1-4. [crossref][PubMed]
12.
Prasad N, Veeranki V, Bhadauria D, Kushwaha R, Meyyappan J, Kaul A, et al. Non-Diabetic Kidney Disease in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A changing spectrum with therapeutic ascendancy. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023;12(4):1705. [crossref][PubMed]
13.
Hussain S, Habib A, Najmi AK. Limited knowledge of chronic kidney disease among type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in India. Int J Environ Res Publ Health. 2019;16(8):1443. [crossref][PubMed]
14.
Tolani P, Pasari AS, Bhawane A, Balwani MR. Renal biopsy profile of diabetic patients: A single-center study. Journal of The Nephrology Society. 2022;1(1):30-32. [crossref]
15.
Espinel E, Agraz I, Ibernon M, Ramos N, Fort J, Serón D. Renal biopsy in type 2 diabetic patients. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2015;4(5):998-1009. [crossref][PubMed]
16.
Deng Y, Li N, Wu Y, Wang M, Yang S, Zheng Y, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of diabetes-related chronic kidney disease from 1990 to 2019. Frontiers in Endocrinology. 2021;12:672350. [crossref][PubMed]
17.
John EE, Roy S, Eapen JJ, Alam R, Varughese S. When to suspect non-diabetic kidney disease in a diabetic patient? Cureus. 2022;14(8):e28091. [crossref]
18.
Erdogmus S, Kiremitci S, Celebi ZK, Akturk S, Duman N, Ates K, et al. Non-diabetic kidney disease in type 2 diabetic patients: Prevalence, clinical predictors and outcomes. Kidney and Blood Pressure Research. 2018;42(5):886-93. [crossref][PubMed]
19.
Zhu X, Xiong X, Yuan S, Xiao L, Fu X, Yang Y, et al. Validation of the interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy on the new pathological classification in patients with diabetic nephropathy: A single-center study in China. Journal of Diabetes and its Complications. 2016;30(3):537-41. [crossref][PubMed]
20.
Zhou T, Wang Y, Shen L, Li X, Jiao Q, Li Z, et al. Clinical and histological predictors of renal survival in patients with biopsy-proven diabetic nephropathy. Kidney Diseases. 2022;8(1):93-102. [crossref][PubMed]
21.
Tong X, Yu Q, Ankawi G, Pang B, Yang B, Yang H. Insights into the role of renal biopsy in patients with T2DM: A literature review of global renal biopsy results. Diabetes Therapy. 2020;11:1983-99. [crossref][PubMed]
22.
Prakash J, Patel PS, Iqbal M, Sharma SS, Singh S, Agrawal NK, et al. Histological spectrum of clinical kidney disease in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with special reference to non-albuminuric diabetic nephropathy: A kidney biopsy-based study. J Assoc Physicians India 2022;70(8):37-40. [crossref][PubMed]
23.
Sahay M, Mahankali RK, Ismal K, Vali PS, Sahay RK, Swarnalata G. Renal histology in diabetic nephropathy: A novel perspective. Indian J Nephrol 2014;24(4):226. [crossref][PubMed]
24.
Zajjari Y, Aatif T, Hassani K, Benbria S, El Kabbaj D. Renal histology in diabetic patients. Saudi J Med Med Sci. 2019;7(1):22. [crossref][PubMed]
25.
Samsu N. Diabetic nephropathy: Challenges in pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment. BioMed Research International. 2021;2021:1497449.[crossref][PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2024/74216.20277

Date of Submission: Jul 15, 2024
Date of Peer Review: Aug 05, 2024
Date of Acceptance: Sep 21, 2024
Date of Publishing: Nov 01, 2024

Author declaration:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Jul 16, 2024
• Manual Googling: Aug 03, 2024
• iThenticate Software: Sep 20, 2024 (17%)

Etymology: Author Origin

Emendations: 6

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com