Clinical and Experimental Nephrology

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 571–583 | Cite as

Progressive renal decline as the major feature of diabetic nephropathy in type 1 diabetes

  • Andrzej S. Krolewski
  • Tomohito Gohda
  • Monika A. Niewczas
Review Article


Despite almost universal implementation of renoprotective therapies over the past 25 years, the risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) is not decreasing, and ESRD remains the major cause of excess morbidity and premature mortality [1]. Such a state of affairs prompts a call to action. In this review we re-evaluated the proteinuria-centric model of diabetic nephropathy and showed its deficiencies. On the basis of extensive studies that we have been conducting on the patients attending the Joslin Clinic, we propose that progressive renal decline, not abnormalities in urinary albumin excretion, should be considered as the major feature of disease processes leading to ESRD in T1D. The etiology of diabetic nephropathy should be reconsidered in light of our new findings so our perspective can be broadened regarding new therapeutic targets available for interrupting the progressive renal decline in T1D. Reduction in the loss of glomerular filtration rate, not reduction of albumin excretion rate, should become the measure for evaluating the effectiveness of new therapeutic interventions. We need new accurate methods for early diagnosis of patients at risk of progressive renal decline or, better still, for detecting in advance which patients will have rapid, moderate or minimal rate of progression to ESRD.


Type 1 diabetes Kidney complications Proteinuria Progressive renal decline 

Since there is no animal model that mimics progressive diabetic nephropathy in humans, there is a great need to understand the etiology of this devastating complication through clinical, epidemiological and genetic studies.

Prof. Hirofumi Makino introducing Dr. Krolewski as the speaker at the 2013 JSN meeting.

Proteinuria-centric model of diabetic nephropathy

As long ago as 1836, Bright [2] postulated that proteinuria could reflect a serious renal disease specific to diabetes. Almost 100 years later Kimmelstiel and Wilson observed nodular glomerular intercapillary lesions in autopsy reports of long-standing patients with diabetes and heavy proteinuria which they considered to be morphological lesions specific to diabetic nephropathy [3]. In the 1970s radioimmunoassay techniques were developed that permitted the quantitative measurement of the minutely elevated urinary albumin levels that distinguished microalbuminuria (MA) (typically albumin excretion rate [AER] between 30 and 299 μg/min), from the elevations of albumin detectable by urinary dipstick method that define proteinuria (typically AER ≥300 μg/min) [4]. During the 1980s longitudinal studies were conducted in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) which used the new method of measuring urinary albumin. These studies found a 60–85 % risk of progression of MA to proteinuria/impaired renal function within 6–14 years of follow-up [5, 6, 7]. These findings together with the previous observations provided a foundation for the so-called proteinuria-centric model of the natural history of diabetic nephropathy.

This model developed in 1990s postulated that in diabetes an increase in urinary AER that reflects glomerular abnormalities precedes the development of impaired renal function and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). In this model, the onset of MA can be considered a manifestation of an initiating disease process that leads to proteinuria, and the latter is followed by glomerular filtration rate (GFR) loss that eventually results in ESRD [8]. The sequential occurrence of the above stages has been referred to as progressive diabetic nephropathy.

Shortcomings of the proteinuria model

Clinical and epidemiological studies conducted during the past decade have shown that the development of elevated urinary excretion of albumin leading to proteinuria and GFR loss or renal decline are two separable manifestations of diabetic nephropathy, rather than two successive stages of one disease process. Abnormal urinary albumin excretion waxes and wanes (progresses and regresses), and renal decline is usually progressive and leads to ESRD. While the two manifestations can progress in parallel, changes in one are not well-correlated with changes in the other. As a result, some patients have abnormal urinary albumin excretion that progresses, regresses or simply persists, even though their renal function remains stable. On the other hand, renal decline is initiated in patients with normoalbuminuria (NA) or MA and it is progressive (we refer to it as progressive renal decline) regardless of the variation in urinary albumin excretion. Following is a summary of the above studies.

Frequent remission of microalbuminuria to normoalbuminuria

Reviewing and analyzing studies on the natural history of MA, Caramori et al. [9] noticed a frequent remission of MA to NA. However, it remained uncertain whether such remissions occurred simply because of short-term changes in urinary albumin excretion or it was a biological process which takes several or more years [9, 10]. We investigated this issue in the First Joslin Study of the Natural History of Microalbuminuria. In that study, 386 patients with persistent MA were observed for the occurrence of remission to NA during a 6-year follow-up [11]. Analysis of the trends in urinary AER revealed that values of albumin excretion during repeated measurements were not random—rather, a clear pattern of remission over several years was observed. This remission was independent from treatment with angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. Our findings proved that remission of MA was a real biological phenomenon and not a consequence of short-term random changes in urinary albumin excretion. In the first Joslin study, the 6-year cumulative incidence of remission to NA was remarkably high (cumulative incidence 59 %; 95 CI 54–64 %) [11]. In a large proportion of patients this remission to NA persisted for ≥4 years [11].

The subsequently published results of the EURODIAB Prospective Complications Study confirmed the frequency of MA remission that was observed in the first Joslin study [12]. Of 352 subjects who had MA in a single baseline measurement, >50 % were found to have NA on two measurements taken at termination of a mean follow-up of 7 years. Recently published results obtained from the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) study showed almost identical results as the findings obtained in the first Joslin study [13]. The summary of the results obtained in the above studies is shown in Table 1.
Table 1

Frequency of microalbuminuria remission and progression in three recent observational studies

Study and reference

Number of patients with microalbuminuria

Mean follow-up

Cumulative incidence of remission to normoalbuminuria

Cumulative incidence of progression to proteinuria

First Joslin Study (2003) [11]


6 years

59 % (54–64)

27 % (22–32)a

EURODIAB (2005) [12]


7 years

51 %

14 %a

DCCT/EDIC (2011) [13]


13 years

40 % (36–48)b

28 % (23–33)b

Numbers in brackets represent the 95 % confidence intervals

a12-year cumulative incidence (unpublished data)

b10-year cumulative incidence

Infrequent progression of microalbuminuria to proteinuria

Further support for the concept that MA is a functional abnormality, rather than a critical step in the disease process leading to ESRD is its infrequent progression to proteinuria. Rather than being in the range of 60–85 % as originally reported [5, 6, 7], studies published in the 1990s showed 10-year cumulative risks of progression to proteinuria in the range of 25–30 % [9, 14, 15]. In the first Joslin study the cumulative risk of progression from MA to proteinuria during 6 and 12 years of follow-up was 15 and 27 %, respectively (see Table 1) [12, 16].

Multiple clinical trials demonstrated the effectiveness of ACE inhibitors both in reducing urinary albumin excretion and in delaying the progression of MA to overt proteinuria [17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22]. However, those effects were small and not all studies showed them [23]. The question arises whether the introduction of the renoprotective drugs during the 1990s into the care of patients with diabetes might have changed the natural history of MA and could account for the strikingly different results obtained in the three landmark studies from the 1980s which included a total of 30 patients [5, 6, 7] and the more contemporary studies that comprised over a thousand MA patients [11, 12, 13]. Interestingly, in the first Joslin study only a limited number of patients with MA were treated with ACE inhibitors and the effect of these drugs had minimal or no impact on frequency of remission of MA to NA or its progression to proteinuria [11, 16].

Progressive renal decline in patients with normo- and microalbuminuria

Over the past 20 years several studies showed un-coupling of the development of MA/proteinuria and the occurrence of progressive renal decline [24, 25, 26]. Recently, we examined this issue in great detail in the Second Joslin Study of the Natural History of Microalbuminuria [27]. Two cohorts of T1D patients were included—286 patients with NA and 248 with MA. All patients were enrolled between 2003 and 2006, had normal renal function at baseline [estimated serum creatinine + cystatin C-based GFR (eGFRcr-cys) >60 ml/min/1.73 m2] and were followed for 4–10 years. Characteristics of the study groups are summarized in Table 2. At baseline, the MA group had higher HbA1c, higher blood pressure, and was more frequently treated with renoprotective drugs that the NA group. While the distribution of AER in the NA group was uniform across the normal range (<30 μg/min), the majority of the distribution in the MA group was in the low abnormal range (25th, 50th and 75th percentiles were 44, 65, and 116 μg/min, respectively).
Table 2

Characteristics of the study groups included in the Second Joslin Study of the Natural History of Microalbuminuria in T1D (data adapted from Ref. [27])



N = 286


N = 248

Baseline characteristics


43 %

62 %

 Duration of diabetes mellitus (years)

20 (14, 29)

24 (15, 30)

 Age (years)

41 (30, 48)

42 (34, 49)

 HbA1c in %

8.0 (7.4, 8.8)

8.3 (7.5, 9.3)

 Systolic blood pressure

118 (110, 127)

122 (114, 130)

 ACE and ARBs Rx

33 %

74 %

 AER (μg/min)

16 (12, 22)

65 (44, 116)

Baseline serum markers

 Uric acid (mg/dL)

4.2 (3.7, 5.0)

4.9 (4.2, 5.9)

 TNFR-1 (pg/mL)

1300 (1094, 1516)

1536 (1291, 1870)

 TNFR-2 (pg/mL)

2073 (1717, 2525)

2374 (1997, 2988)

Baseline renal function

 Serum cystatin C (mg/L)

0.65 (0.58, 0.72)

0.66 (0.60, 0.78)

 Serum creatinine (mg/dL)

0.76 (0.65, 0.86)

0.79 (0.69, 0.90)

 eGFRcr-cys (ml/min/1.73 m2)

113 (102, 123)

112 (96, 122)

Follow-up results

 Duration of follow-up (years)

8.0 (6.0, 8.7)

7.9 (5.5, 9.2)

 No. of serum samples

5 (4, 7)

7 (5, 9)

 eGFRcr-cys loss (%/year)

−1.5 (−2.4, −0.8)

−2.2 (−4.1, −1.2)

Renal decline (eGFRcr-cys loss ≥3.3 %/year)

10 % (28 decliners)

35 % (86 decliners)

8-year cumulative risk of CKD ≥3

6 %

22 %

Data are percents or medians (25th, 75th percentiles)

During a follow-up of 4–10 years, serial measurements of serum creatinine and cystatin C were performed and used to derive trajectories of eGFRcr-cys over time. The annual rate of eGFRcr-cys change was used to classify patients to those with stable renal function (non-decliners) and to those with progressive renal decline (decliners). Progressive renal decline, defined as continuous rate of eGFRcr-cys loss ≥3.3 % per year, was present in 10 % of the NA group and 35 % in the MA group. Figure 1 illustrates the trajectories of eGFRcr-cys in 28 patients with progressive renal decline who at baseline had NA and normal renal function. Two features deserve emphasis. First, the majority of trajectories of eGFRcr-cys loss over time were approximately linear. Two deviated visibly by accelerating the rate of decline (trajectories in red). One of these patients has already reached ESRD and the other soon will. Second, the slopes of eGFRcr-cys loss varied tremendously, ranging from a loss of 3.3–21 % per year. The fastest decliners, including the two already mentioned, will reach ESRD within 5–15 years, while the slowest might take 25–30 years. During follow-up half of these decliners developed MA and three progressed to proteinuria. Patients with NA and with eGFRcr-cys loss <3.3 %/year were considered as non-decliners (n = 258) and they are not shown.
Fig. 1

eGFRcr-cys trajectories in T1D patients with normoalbuminuria and progressive renal decline (eGFRcr-cys loss ≥3.3 %/year) during 4–10 years of follow-up. The trajectories are plotted in patients with baseline eGFRcr-cys ≥105 ml/min/1.73 m2 in a, and in patients with baseline eGFRcr-cys <105 ml/min/1.73 m2 in b. Lines in red indicate presence of macroalbuminuria. E end-stage renal disease (figure adapted from Ref. [27])

eGFRcr-cys trajectories in 86 decliners in the MA group in the second Joslin study (Table 2) are not presented. However, the features of these trajectories were similar to that of decliners with NA, i.e., the majority of trajectories were linear and varied with regard to rate of eGFRcr-cys loss. Instead we showed trajectories of renal function changes in a group of 79 patients with normal renal function who developed new MA in the early 1990s and subsequently were followed for 10 years during the first Joslin study [28]. Renal function variation over time in these patients was determined by serial measurements of serum cystatin C. The trajectories of estimated cystatin C-based GRF (eGFRcys) are shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2

Trajectories of renal function changes in patients with T1D and new-onset microalbuminuria who were followed for 12 years. MA onset 2 year interval during which multiple determinations of ACR became elevated; E date when ESRD was diagnosed; eGFRcys glomerular filtration rate estimated from serial measurements of serum cystatin C. At the end of follow-up, numbers of patients with various categories of AER are reported: NA normoalbuminuria, MA microalbuminuria, Prot proteinuria. a Patients with early progressive renal decline (decliners). eGFRcys slopes in these patients were −3.3 % min/year or faster. b Patients with stable renal function (non-decliners). eGFRcys slopes of these patients were slower than 3.3 % min/year. Figure adapted from Ref. [28] and supplemented with unpublished data about patients who developed ESRD

In this study, 24 (30 %) patients developed progressive renal decline (defined as eGFRcys loss ≥3.3 % per year). Their trajectories are shown in Fig. 2a [28]. Renal decline was present at the time or soon after development of MA and the significant rate of eGFRcys loss continued to be constant during the subsequent follow-up. Similar to decliners with NA (Fig. 1), the decline within individuals in this group of decliners was linear and could be well represented by a simple regression slope. Furthermore, the rates of eGFR loss per year varied widely among individuals. Within 10 years of follow-up, almost half (10 patients) reached CKD stage ≥3 and in 5 patients the eGFRcys decline was so rapid that they progressed to ESRD. The rest of the decliners will most likely reach CKD stage 3 during the next 10 years of follow-up, assuming their trajectories of eGFR decline remain linear. For comparison, Fig. 2b shows eGFRcys trajectories in non-decliners. Most of the trajectories were linear and horizontal. A few patients had variation in eGFRcys over time but renal function at the end of follow-up was the same as at baseline.

It is interesting that the distribution of AER abnormalities during the 2-year interval when new-onset MA occurred was not different among patients who subsequently had renal decline and those in whom renal function remained stable [28]. During follow-up, one can see un-coupling of changes in AER and changes in eGFRcys. Only half of the decliners developed proteinuria. In contrast, among non-decliners half had either persistent MA or progressed to proteinuria.

Progressive renal decline in patients with proteinuria

Recently we examined the trajectories of renal function changes over time in patients included in the Joslin cohort of patients with T1D and proteinuria [29]. We used serial measurements of serum creatinine to calculate estimated serum creatinine-based GFR (eGFRcr). In this cohort, 240 patients entered the study with normal eGFRcr (>60 ml/min/1.73 m2) and were followed for 5–18 years. Using previously developed statistical criteria, the trajectories were classified as linear in 70 % of patients, ‘mildly non-linear’ in 17 %, and ‘strongly non-linear’ in only 13 %. In the last two categories, there was an equal proportion of those who had accelerated and de-accelerated trajectories of eGFRcr loss. The examples of linear eGFRcr trajectories are shown in Fig. 3; the rates of eGFRcr loss for three patient examples ranged from very rapid (−52.5 ml/min/1.73 m2/year, panel a) to moderate (−7.5 ml/min/1.73 m2/year, panel b), and to minimal (−0.9 ml/min/1.73 m2/year, panel c). These trajectories are similar to the eGFRcr-cys, or eGFRcys trajectories shown in Figs. 1 and 2.
Fig. 3

Examples of trajectories of changes in renal function in patients with T1D and proteinuria. For the patient in a, eGFRcr loss was 52.5 ml/min/1.73 m2/year and renal function progressed from normal to ESRD within 2 years. For the patient in b, eGFRcr loss was 7.5 ml/min/1.73 m2/year and renal function progressed from normal to ESRD within 18 years. For the patient in c, eGFRcr loss was 0.9 ml/min/1.73 m2/year, and renal function is estimated to remain stable over the next 30 years. Examples were selected from a large cohort of patients with proteinuria who entered observation with normal renal function and were followed for 5–18 years (adapted from Ref. [29])

To gain an appreciation of the distribution of the overall rate of annual eGFR loss in the whole group of 240 patients, we extracted the linear component of each trajectory as a simple slope. Figure 4 shows distribution of such slopes. A few individuals had a positive slope, i.e., improved in renal function at the end of follow-up (n = 25), but the majority had negative slopes, i.e., declining renal function. The median (25th, 75th percentiles) was −2.9 (−7.1, −1.27) ml/min/1.73 m2/year. Reflecting the long tail of negative values, the 5th percentile was −16.8 and the minimum −70.5 ml/min/1.73 m2/year. Assuming that the slopes would not change in the future, one may expect that half of the patients are not at risk of ESRD during their lifetime. In the other half, patients are at risk of developing ESRD but time to onset would vary between <2 years to >25 years.
Fig. 4

Distribution of slopes of eGFRcr changes in 240 subjects with proteinuria who entered the study with normal renal function and were followed for 5–18 years. The three patients in the interval <−32 had slopes −52.5, −56.4 and −70.5 ml/min/1.73 m2/year. Adapted from Ref. [29]

Progressive renal decline as the major feature of diabetic nephropathy

The data presented in Figs. 1, 2 and 3 unequivocally demonstrated that progressive renal decline is the primary manifestation of diabetic nephropathy and best represents the disease process underlying the development of ESRD in T1D. These observations do not support the proteinuria-centric model of diabetic nephropathy in which renal decline is a late consequence of proteinuria [8].

These apparent discrepancies prompted us to propose a new model of diabetic nephropathy in T1D, which is outlined in Fig. 5. Progressive renal decline is represented as a one-directional process superimposed upon the natural course of abnormal urinary albumin excretion. The latter, as discussed earlier, can regress, stay the same or progress. On the other hand, renal decline, once initiated seems to progress relentlessly to ESRD albeit at a variable rate. Overall, patients with NA, MA and proteinuria have approximately 10, 25 and 50 % progressive renal decline, respectively. It needs to be noted that decliners with NA are at increased risk of MA; therefore, a study group ascertained for MA by definition will be always enriched for decliners. Similarly decliners with MA have a high rate of progression to proteinuria; therefore, a study group ascertained for proteinuria will be enriched a great deal for decliners. Overall, in T1D, the lifetime risk of ESRD, the end of progressive renal decline that starts in patients with NA (see Fig. 1), is estimated to be 10–15 %. However, cases occur over a long duration of T1D (15−40th year of diabetes) [30].
Fig. 5

New model of diabetic nephropathy in T1D. Urinary albumin excretion increases in progressively smaller subsets and also regresses, while progressive renal decline develops early in a subset of normoalbuminurics, microalbuminurics and proteinurics and almost always progresses to ESRD. Percentages in italics indicate the proportion of patients with progressive renal decline in the subgroups of normoalbuminurics, microalbuminurics and proteinurics accordingly (adapted from Ref. [53])

Mechanisms of progressive renal decline

Presently, the putative mechanisms underlying progressive renal decline in T1D are not known. To advance our understanding of these mechanisms and taking into account the salient features of progressive renal decline, several questions must be answered. First, we need to know in which kidney compartment/tissue/cells the disease process that underlies progressive renal decline seen in patients with NA or MA (see Figs. 1, 2a) is initiated. Theoretically, this process may take place in glomerula, tubules, interstitium, or in vasculature. Second, the nature of the putative mechanisms that are responsible for the progressive GFR loss is unclear. It is possible that early GFR loss (in the range of normal renal function) is due to some (yet unknown) functional changes and the late GFR loss (CKD stage 3–5) is due to morphological lesions in some putative kidney compartments/tissues/cells. However, the rates of GFR loss during the early and late phases of progressive renal decline are similar. This suggests that the mechanisms may also be similar. Third, since trajectories of GFR loss over time seems to be linear (stable) within individuals but variable among individuals, one may postulate a role of genetic factors as determinants of progressive renal decline [29]. A search for these factors may unravel pathways involved in the etiology of progressive renal decline.

Lack of an animal model that would mimic progressive renal decline in human diabetes and the lack of kidney biopsy specimens leave us with clinical and epidemiological studies to investigate the above questions. Identifying systemic risk factors, genetic markers or biomarkers specifically associated with risk of progressive renal decline should help us understand the mechanisms of progressive renal decline in T1D.

Systemic factors and serum markers and progressive renal decline

We have been searching for the determinants of progressive renal decline in patients with NA and MA who were enrolled into the second Joslin study [27]. The baseline clinical characteristics and concentrations of serum markers in the study groups are presented in Table 2. Figure 6 shows plots of the risk of renal decline according to these characteristics.
Fig. 6

Risk of progressive renal decline according to categories of baseline clinical characteristics (a) and serum markers (b) and according to study groups. Data from the Second Joslin Study of the Natural History of Microalbuminuria in T1D. Figure reprinted from Ref. [27]. aCut-off points for circulating TNFR1 for 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles were 1,173, 1,394, and 1,685 pg/ml, respectively. bCut-off points for circulating TNFR2 for 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles were 1,810, 2,186, and 2,690 pg/ml, respectively

The risk of renal decline according to quartiles of baseline AER (top graph in panel a) was flat (around 10 %) across quartiles in the NA group. In MA, the risk of renal decline was significantly higher than in NA and increased from 23 % in the lowest quartile to 55 % in the highest. For HbA1c, the increase risk was moderate in the NA group but strong in the MA group (panel a). The risk of decline increased with age in both groups (panel a) and increased similarly with duration of T1D because of its co-linearity with age (data not shown). Risk of decline also increased with systolic blood pressure in both groups (panel a) and increased as the number of prescribed reno-protecting treatments increased (panel b).

Plots of the risk of renal decline according to three serum markers are shown in panel b. In both study groups, elevated serum uric acid increased the risk of renal decline, and the effect of increasing serum tumor necrosis factor receptor 1 (TNFR1) or TNFR2 was even more striking. The effects of both TNFRs were very similar and the information in them redundant. The independent effects of all of these variables on risk of renal decline were confirmed in multiple logistic analyses. We did not find any association between risk of progressive renal decline in either study group and baseline serum levels of other markers such as TNFα (free), interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, interferon inducible protein-10 (IP-10), monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 (MCP-1), vascular cell adhesion molecule (VCAM), intercellular adhesion molecule (ICAM), Fas and FasL [27].

Recognizing that multiple clinical factors and serum markers contribute in a similar way to renal decline in NA and MA strengthens the hypothesis that progressive renal decline is the primary clinical abnormality of diabetic nephropathy. Although the exact mechanisms through which these factors contribute to early progressive renal decline are not clear at present, we discussed some mechanisms with regard to the three serum markers.

Elevated serum uric acid has pro-inflammatory properties and may act as either a pro-oxidant or anti-oxidant molecule depending on the circumstances [31]. In vivo, rats rendered hyperuricemic by means of a uricase inhibitor develop an afferent arteriolopathy that decreases luminal diameter and produces renal ischemia, leading to glomerulosclerosis and tubulointerstitial fibrosis [32]. Similar histological changes occur in humans with gouty nephropathy [33]. Lowering serum uric acid concentration with allopurinol attenuates these histological and functional changes, although this effect may be due in part to reduced oxidative stress resulting from xanthine oxidase inhibition [31]. It is intriguing to postulate that lowering serum uric acid in patients at risk of renal decline may be an effective intervention to reduce risk of renal decline in T1D [34]. Preparations for such a clinical trial are underway [35].

Our previous studies described the strong effect of serum concentrations of TNFR1 or TNFR2 on the risk of advanced stages of renal decline such as CKD stage 3 or ESRD [36, 37]. The recent study in NA and MA extends demonstration of their effects to the onset of the process of renal decline itself [27]. We do not know how elevated concentrations of TNFRs may initiate renal decline and lead to renal failure. However, we excluded some hypotheses. For example we showed that serum TNFα is not involved directly or indirectly, through regulation of serum TNFRs, in the development of renal decline. Furthermore, we showed that serum concentration of several chemokines and circulating adhesion molecules (IL-8, IP-10, MCP-1, VCAM, ICAM as potential downstream effectors of TNFRs) were not associated with renal decline either [27]. An intriguing finding of the present study is the negative interaction between serum uric acid and TNFR1 on the risk of renal decline in both NA and MA, meaning that the risk of renal decline for patients with elevated serum uric acid and serum TNFR1 is less than the sum of the individual risks associated with the two predictors. This suggests that the predisposing effects of serum uric acid and TNFR1 converge on some common pathway that cannot be further activated by one factor if it has already been turned on by the other. The nature of this putative pathway is unknown at this time.

Urinary markers of inflammation and progressive renal decline

Although glomerulopathy has been assumed to be the major contributor to the pathogenesis of diabetic nephropathy [8, 38], a growing body of evidence suggests that tubulointerstitial injury mediated through an inflammatory process may also contribute to the development of diabetic nephropathy and particularly to progressive renal decline [39]. In 1991, Bohle et al. [40] were the first to draw attention to the presence of tubulointerstitial injury in the human diabetic kidney and its strong association with renal failure. Based on a large collection of renal biopsies from humans with diabetic nephropathy, they demonstrated the presence of infiltrates of monocytes, macrophages and T cells in the interstitium similar to those seen in chronic glomerulonephritides. Several subsequent kidney biopsy studies showed cross-sectional associations between severity of diabetic nephropathy measured as GFR and the presence of specific inflammatory markers [41, 42, 43, 44].

To follow these findings Wolkow et al. [45] investigated the role of chemokinases in urine in the development of early progressive renal decline in patients with T1D and new-onset MA who were followed for 8–12 years during the first Joslin study. Trajectories of eGFRcys in these patients are presented in Fig. 2. We assayed 23 cytokines/chemokines in urine specimens but only five of them (IL-6, IL-8, MCP-1, IP-10 and macrophage inflammatory protein-1 delta [MIP-1δ]) were detected in the majority of patients with diabetes. These markers were then measured in urine specimens obtained 2–4 years after onset of MA in the two study groups presented in Fig. 2. There were 28 patients with new-onset MA who had progressive renal decline (Fig. 2a) during follow-up and 43 patients with onset of MA who had stable renal function during follow-up (Fig. 2b). As a reference group we used 74 patients with NA and stable renal function during 8–12 years follow-up. The results of the study are presented in Table 3. Urinary concentrations of all five inflammatory markers were significantly higher in decliners than in the other groups. It is important to note that results in the non-decliners are identical despite one group having MA and the other remaining with NA. A multiplicity of elevations in decliners best characterized the association. In multivariate analysis elevation of two or more cytokines/chemokines in urine specimens was strongly associated with future risk of early progressive renal decline (OR 5.4; 95 % CI 1.9, 15.6). In contrast, concentration of C-reactive protein, IL-8 and MIP-1δ in serum did not differ between decliners and non-decliners.
Table 3

Urinary concentrations of chemokines and cytokines according to study groups (from First Joslin Study of the Natural History of Microalbuminuria, see Fig. 2) (table adapted from Ref. [45])




p valuea

Renal function

Reference group

N = 74


N = 43


N = 28

Concentrations adjusted for urinary creatinine in pg/mg creatinine


0.9 (0.3, 2.0)

1.1 (0.4, 1.8)

1.6 (0.6, 15)



1.0 (0.3, 4.9)

0.8 (0.1, 3.9)

15 (3.1, 79)



5.1 (3.1, 60)

5.3 (2.6, 66)

49 (6.9, 228)



49 (25, 90)

59 (32, 89)

95 (55, 198)



50 (16, 97)

48 (10, 91)

80 (48, 155)


Data are median (25th, 75th percentile)

aKruskal–Wallis test of the null hypothesis that all three groups are from the same distribution

In conclusion, urinary concentrations of inflammatory markers IL-6, IL-8, MCP-1, IP-10 and MIP-1δ are elevated in patients with MA who are at risk of progressive renal decline. Our results are consistent with previous work in experimental models and observational studies in humans that implicated inflammation in the development and progression of renal injury in diabetes [46, 47, 48]. However, we refined the characterization of its role in humans with T1D by demonstrating that elevated levels of markers of low level inflammation in urine are not associated with MA per se but are specific for early progressive renal decline [45].

None of the covariates available in this study such as age, duration of diabetes, glycemic control, urinary albumin excretion, and treatment with ACE inhibitors accounted for the associations. Therefore, the nature of the factors determining the elevated concentrations of urinary pro-inflammatory chemokines and cytokine in T1D remains unknown.

An explanation for the findings reported by Wolkow et al. [45] is that kidney cells, primarily tubular, are the source of the elevated urinary concentrations of these markers. Although, the nature of the stimulus to synthesize these chemokines in tubular cells is unknown, it might originate from the glomerular filtrate. We hypothesize that impairment of the glomerular filtration barrier (evidenced by the presence of MA) permits injurious serum proteins or growth factors to leak into the urinary space. These putative factors, which we refer to as toxic urinary proteins (txUPs), may stimulate proximal tubular cells to secrete chemokines/cytokines and other stress proteins indicating tubular damage that leads to tubular atrophy, interstitial fibrosis and early GFR loss. Recently it was demonstrated in animal studies that tubular damage initiates a disease process that leads to inflammation, loss of blood vessels, interstitial fibrosis and glomerulosclerosis [49].

Toxic urinary proteins and renal decline

Recently Wanic et al. [50] tested the above hypothesis. Archived baseline urine specimens from patients described in Fig. 2 were used. Urine specimens from five decliners (Fig. 2a) and five non-decliners (Fig. 2b) were pooled and used in in vitro experiments. Human proximal tubular cells (HK-2 cells) were grown in serum-free medium enriched with pooled urines from decliners or non-decliners. Genome-wide expression profiles were determined in extracted mRNA from the two sets of HK-2 cells. We found that pooled urine from decliners induced differential expression of 312 genes. There were 119 up-regulated genes. Their biological processes were enriched for defense response, responses to other organisms, regulation of cellular processes, or response to stress or stimulus, and programmed cell death. There were 195 down-regulated genes. They were disproportionately represented in biological processes for regulation of metabolic processes, nucleic acid metabolic processes, cellular response to stress and macromolecule biosynthesis.

The set of up-regulated genes in HK-2 cells reported by Wanic et al. overlapped significantly with sets of over-expressed genes in tubular and interstitial compartments of kidney biopsies from patients with advanced diabetic nephropathy [50, 51] (see Fig. 7). The overlap shown by the area in yellow, included genes encoding chemokines and cytokines (including those reported by Wolkow et al.). Overlap of down-regulated genes was no more than expected by chance. In conclusion, molecular and biological processes in tubules and interstitium seen in advanced diabetic nephropathy can be induced in vitro by exposure to urine from patients with MA who subsequently developed progressive renal decline, presumably due to putative txUPs which filtered into the urinary space. The nature of these putative txUPs is unknown at present.
Fig. 7

Overlap of the up-regulates genes in HK-2 cells in response to urine from decliners and the corresponding sets of genes in tubular and interstitial compartments of kidney biopsies obtained from patients with advanced diabetic nephropathy (p-value <10−9 for overlap with data of Woroniecka et al. [51] and <10−4 for overlap with data of Schmid et al. [43]). Figure adapted from Ref. [50]

Progressive renal decline: how to diagnose it?

An important message conveyed by Fig. 5 is that the majority of patients with NA and a large proportion of those with MA and proteinuria will never develop ESRD. They have elevated risk of death unrelated to ESRD, but its excess risk is only one-tenth of the excess risk of death seen among those who develop ESRD [1]. On the other hand, among those with renal decline the rate of GFR loss varies widely (Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4). Therefore, physicians face not only the challenge of distinguishing patients who will remain with stable renal function for their lifetime from patients who will have progressive renal decline, but also the challenge within the latter group of identifying rapid, moderate and slow decliners and estimating the time to onset of ESRD (examples in Fig. 3a, b).

Several legacy markers are used to diagnose diabetic nephropathy in T1D, including measurements of levels of hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c, exposure), concentration of urinary albumin excretion (supposedly early disease process) and concentration of serum creatinine (late disease process). The last two markers used cross-sectionally (during one patient visit) indicate presence/absence or extent of diabetic nephropathy. When these markers are used in prospective epidemiological studies, they quantify risk of progression to ESRD or risk of deaths. However, as discussed earlier their utility to predict these outcomes in individual patients is limited. They have some sensitivity to diagnose patients at risk but they are hopelessly unspecific to predict future renal decline and progression to ESRD. The usage of legacy markers will continue until new, more specific markers are discovered and introduced to the clinical practice.

During the last several years, intensive research has been underway to find new markers to more reliably diagnose patients at risk of renal decline and progression to ESRD. Serum concentration of cystatin C emerged as a candidate diagnostic marker that might be a more accurate indicator of impaired renal function than serum creatinine. Only recently we have shown that one determination of serum cystatin C in patients with diabetes and proteinuria provides better risk stratification of subsequent ESRD than determination of serum creatinine obtained at the same time [52].

Just recently, we showed that serum concentrations of TNFR 1 or TNFR2 are good predictors of future development of CKD stage ≥3 in T1D patients [36]. We reported similar findings regarding the relationship between circulating TNFRs and risk of ESRD during 12 years of follow-up in patients with T2D [37].

Progressive renal decline and considerations for therapeutic trials

New effective therapies are desperately needed to reduce the risk of ESRD in T1D as discussed in the recent issue of Seminars in Nephrology [53]. In designing therapies for T1D it is important to put aside the previous proteinuria-centric model of diabetic nephropathy and fully appreciate the features of progressive renal decline. We discuss several implications of this switch below.

First, the wide variation in rates of renal decline (between −50 and −5 ml/min/1.73 m2/year) illustrated in Fig. 4 may be determined by multiple mechanisms, which may be identified with the help of modern genetics, proteomics, and metabolomics platforms. Prediction of the rate of progression will not only help in stratification of patients according to risk of ESRD but will also direct development/selection of specific therapies to prevent or delay the onset of ESRD. Such personalized approaches are being developed in other fields [54, 55, 56].

Second, patients with the fastest renal decline (example in Fig. 3a), referred to as rapid progressors, may be suitable for more aggressive therapies that have received little consideration so far. The ability to recognize their imminent risk of ESRD and high post-ESRD mortality could justify taking strong measures such as pancreas transplant [57], pre-emptive kidney transplant [58], cellular therapies [59] or aggressive new pharmacological therapies. The latter approach has been practiced in cancer therapies.

Third, the effectiveness of new therapies against progressive renal decline cannot be evaluated in clinical trials that use changes in urinary albumin excretion as an outcome. A more reliable outcome measure is a change in the rate of renal decline or postponement of the time to events such as CKD stage 3, doubling of serum creatinine or ESRD. The efficiency of a study design based on either of the latter outcomes is significantly reduced (and cost significantly increased) by including patients who are non-decliners or have a slow rate of renal decline. Recruitment of non-decliners or slow decliners like the patients in Fig. 3c would be counterproductive despite their having proteinuria, hypertension or impaired renal function. This shows the importance of having markers/algorithms to determine, on the basis of one or few baseline measurements, which patients are decliners (rapid, moderate, or slow) and which are non-decliners. At this time, measurements of circulating levels of TNFR1 or TNFR2 seem to be the best markers to achieve such a goal [36, 37]. However, to increase the accuracy of prediction, baseline TNFR1 or TNFR2 needs to be combined with baseline levels of AER and eGFR.



This study was supported by the following grants: NIH grants DK-41526 and DK676381 and JDRF grants 1-2008-1018 and 17-2013-8 to A.S. Krolewski; and Diabetes Research Center—Joslin, Pilot and Feasibility Grant, P30DK036836 to M.A. Niewczas.

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exists.


  1. 1.
    Rosolowsky ET, Skupien J, Smiles AM, Niewczas MA, Roshan B, Stanton R, Eckfeldt JH, Warram JH, Krolewski AS. Risk of ESRD in type 1 diabetes remains high in spite of renoprotection. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011;22(3):545–53.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bright R. Cases and observations illustrative of renal disease accompanied with the secretion of albuminous urine. Guy Hosp Rep. 1836;1:338–400.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kimmelstiel P, Wilson C. Intercapillary lesions in the glomeruli of the kidney. Am J Pathol. 1936;12:83–96.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Miles DW, Mogensen CE, Gundersen HJG. Radioimmunoassay for urinary albumin using a single antibody. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 1970;26:5–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Parving HH, Oxenbøll B, Svendsen PA, Christiansen JS, Andersen AR. Early detection of patients at risk of developing diabetic nephropathy. A longitudinal study of urinary albumin excretion. Acta Endocrinol (Copenh). 1982;100(4):550–5.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Viberti GC, Jarrett RJ, Keen H. Microalbuminuria as prediction of nephropathy in diabetics. Lancet. 1982;2(8298):611.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mogensen CE, Christensen CK. Predicting diabetic nephropathy in insulin-dependent patients. N Engl J Med. 1984;311(2):89–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parving HH, Mauer M, Ritz E. Diabetic nephropathy. In: Brenner BM, editor. The kidney. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2004. p. 1777–818.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Caramori ML, Fioretto P, Mauer M. The need for early predictors of diabetic nephropathy risk: is albumin excretion rate sufficient? Diabetes. 2000;49:1399–408.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tabaei BP, Al-Kassab AS, Ilag LL, Zawacki CM, Herman WH. Does microalbuminuria predict diabetic nephropathy? Diabetes Care. 2001;24(9):1560–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Perkins BA, Ficociello LH, Silva KH, Finkelstein DM, Warram JH, Krolewski AS. Regression of microalbuminuria in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(23):2285–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Giorgino F, Laviola L, Cavallo Perin P, Solnica B, Fuller J, Chaturvedi N. Factors associated with progression to macroalbuminuria in microalbuminuric Type 1 diabetic patients: the EURODIAB Prospective Complications Study. Diabetologia. 2004;47(6):1020–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Boer IH, Rue TC, Cleary PA, Lachin JM, Molitch ME, Steffes MW, Sun W, Zinman B, Brunzell JD, DCCT/EDIC Research Group. Long-term renal outcomes of patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and microalbuminuria: an analysis of the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications cohort. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(5):412–20.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Forsblom CM, Groop PH, Ekstrand A, Groop LC. Predictive value of microalbuminuria in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes of long duration. BMJ. 1992;305(6861):1051–3.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rudberg S, Persson B, Dahlquist G. Increased glomerular filtration rate as a predictor of diabetic nephropathy—an 8-year prospective study. Kidney Int. 1992;41(4):822–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ficociello L, Perkins BA, Silva KH, Finkelstein DM, Ignatowska-Switalska H, Gaciong Z, Cupples LA, Aschengrau A, Warram JH, Krolewski AS. Progression from microalbuminuria to proteinuria in individuals with type 1 diabetes treated with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;2(3):461–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mathiesen ER, Hommel E, Giese J, Parving HH. Efficacy of captopril in postponing nephropathy in normotensive insulin dependent diabetic patients with microalbuminuria. BMJ. 1991;303(6794):81–7.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Viberti G, Mogensen CE, Groop LC, Pauls JF. Effect of captopril on progression to clinical proteinuria in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and microalbuminuria. European Microalbuminuria Captopril Study Group. JAMA. 1994;271(4):275–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Laffel LM, McGill JB, Gans DJ. The beneficial effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition with captopril on diabetic nephropathy in normotensive IDDM patients with microalbuminuria. North American Microalbuminuria Study Group. Am J Med. 1995;99(5):497–504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Randomised placebo-controlled trial of lisinopril in normotensive patients with insulin-dependent diabetes and normoalbuminuria or microalbuminuria. The EUCLID Study Group. Lancet. 1997; 349(9068):1787–92.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    O’Hare P, Bilbous R, Mitchell T, O’ Callaghan CJ, Viberti GC, Ace-Inhibitor Trial to Lower Albuminuria in Normotensive Insulin-Dependent Subjects Study Group. Low-dose ramipril reduces microalbuminuria in type 1 diabetic patients without hypertension: results of a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2000;23(12):1823–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Crepaldi G, Carta Q, Deferrari G, Mangili R, Navalesi R, Santeusanio F, Spalluto A, Vanasia A, Villa GM, Nosadini R. Effects of lisinopril and nifedipine on the progression to overt albuminuria in IDDM patients with incipient nephropathy and normal blood pressure. The Italian Microalbuminuria Study Group in IDDM. Diabetes Care. 1998;21(1):104–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bojestig M, Karlberg BE, Lindström T, Nystrom FH. Reduction of ACE activity is insufficient to decrease microalbuminuria in normotensive patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2001;24(5):919–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tsalamandris C, Allen TJ, Gilbert RE, Sinha A, Panagiotopoulos S, Cooper MF, Jerums G. Progressive decline in renal function in diabetic patients with and without albuminuria. Diabetes. 1994;43:649–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Retnakaran R, Cull CA, Thorne KI, Adler AI, Holman RR, UKPDS Study Group. Risk factors for renal dysfunction in type 2 diabetes. U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study 74. Diabetes. 2006;55:1832–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Perkins BA, Ficociello LH, Roshan B, Warram JH, Krolewski AS. In patients with Type 1 diabetes and new onset micro-albuminuria the development of advanced chronic kidney disease may not require progression to proteinuria. Kidney Int. 2010;77:57–64.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Krolewski AS, Niewczas MA, Skupien J, Gohda T, Smiles A, Eckfeldt JH, Doria A, Warram JH. Early progressive renal decline precedes the onset of microalbuminuria and its progression to macroalbuminuria. Diabetes Care. 2013 (Epub ahead of print).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Merchant ML, Perkins BA, Boratyn GM, Ficociello LH, Wilkey DW, Barati MT, Bertram CC, Page GP, Rovin BH, Warram JH, Krolewski AS, Klein JB. Urinary peptidome may predict renal function decline in type 1 diabetes and microalbuminuria. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;20(9):2065–74.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Skupien J, Warram JH, Smiles AM, Niewczas MA, Gohda G, Pezzolesi MG, Cantarovich D, Stanton R, Krolewski AS. Early renal function decline predicts risk of ESRD: 5–18 year follow-up of patients with type 1 diabetes and proteinuria. Kidney Int. 2012;82(5):589–97.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Krolewski M, Eggers PW, Warram JH. Magnitude of end-stage renal disease in IDDM: a 35 year follow-up study. Kidney Int. 1996;50(6):2041–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yu MA, Sánchez-Lozada LG, Johnson RJ, Kang DH. Oxidative stress with an activation of the renin–angiotensin system in human vascular endothelial cells as a novel mechanism of uric acid-induced endothelial dysfunction. J Hypertens. 2010;28(6):1234–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mazzali M, Kanellis J, Han L, Feng L, Xia YY, Chen Q, Kang DH, Gordon KL, Watanabe S, Nakagawa T, Lan HY, Johnson RJ. Hyperuricemia induces a primary renal arteriolopathy in rats by a blood pressure-independent mechanism. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2002;282(6):F991–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Talbott JH, Terplan KL. The kidney in gout. Medicine. 1960;39:405–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Siu YP, Leung KT, Tong MK, Kwan TH. Use of allopurinol in slowing the progression of renal disease through its ability to lower serum uric acid level. Am J Kidney Dis. 2006;47:51–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Doria A, Niewczas M, Fiorina P. Can existing drugs approved for other indications retard renal function decline in patients with Type 1 diabetes and nephropathy. Semin Nephrol. 2012;32(5):437–44.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gohda T, Niewczas MA, Ficociello LH, Walker WH, Skupien J, Rosetti F, Cullere X, Johnson AC, Crabtree G, Smiles AM, Mayadas TN, Warram JH, Krolewski AS. Circulating TNF receptors 1 and 2 predict stage 3 of CKD in Type 1 diabetes. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;23(3):516–24.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Niewczas MA, Gohda T, Skupien J, Smiles AM, Walker WH, Rosetti F, Cullere X, Eckfeldt JH, Doria A, Mayadas TN, Warram JH, Krolewski AS. Circulating TNF receptors 1 and 2 predict ESRD in type 2 diabetes. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;23(3):507–15.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mauer SM, Steffes MW, Ellis EN, Sutherland DE, Brown DM, Goetz FC. Structural-functional relationships in diabetic nephropathy. J Clin Invest. 1984;74:1143–55.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gilbert RE, Cooper ME. The tubulointerstitium in progressive diabetic kidney disease: more than an aftermath of glomerular injury? Kidney Int. 1999;56:1627–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bohle A, Wehrmann M, Bogenschutz O, Batz C, Muller CA, Muller GA. The pathogenesis of chronic renal failure in diabetic nephropathy. Investigation of 488 cases of diabetic glomerulosclerosis. Pathol Res Pract. 1991;187:251–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Suzuki D, Miyazaki M, Naka R, Koji T, Yagame M, Jinde K, Endoh M, Nomoto Y, Sakai H. In situ hybridization of interleukin 6 in diabetic nephropathy. Diabetes. 1995;44:1233–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wada T, Furuichi K, Sakai N, Iwata Y, Yoshimoto K, Shimizu M, Takeda SI, Takasawa K, Yoshimura M, Kida H, Kobayashi KI, Mukaida N, Naito T, Matsushima K, Yokoyama H. Up-regulation of monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 in tubulointerstitial lesions of human diabetic nephropathy. Kidney Int. 2000;58:1492–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schmid H, Boucherot A, Yasuda Y, Henger A, Brunner B, Eichinger F, Nitsche A, Kiss E, Bleich M, Grone HJ, Nelson PJ, Schlondorff D, Cohen CD, Kretzler M, European Renal cDNA Bank (ERCB) Consortium. Modular activation of nuclear factor-kappaB transcriptional programs in human diabetic nephropathy. Diabetes. 2006;55:2993–3003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Morcos M, Sayed AA, Bierhaus A, Yard B, Waldherr R, Merz W, Kloeting I, Schleicher E, Mentz S, Abd el Baki RF, Tritschler H, Kasper M, Schwenger V, Hamann A, Dugi KA, Schmidt AM, Stern D, Ziegler R, Haering HU, Andrassy M, van der Woude F, Nawroth PP. Activation of tubular epithelial cells in diabetic nephropathy. Diabetes. 2002;51:3532–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wolkow PP, Niewczas MA, Perkins B, Ficociello LH, Lipinski B, Warram JH, Krolewski AS. Association of urinary inflammatory markers and renal decline in microalbuminuric type 1 diabetics. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;19:789–97.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Segerer S, Nelson PJ, Schlondorff D. Chemokines, chemokine receptors, and renal disease: from basic science to pathophysiologic and therapeutic studies. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2000;11:152–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rodriguez-Iturbe B, Pons H, Herrera-Acosta J, Johnson RJ. Role of immunocompetent cells in nonimmune renal diseases. Kidney Int. 2001;59:1626–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Anders HJ, Vielhauer V, Schlondorff D. Chemokines and chemokine receptors are involved in the resolution or progression of renal disease. Kidney Int. 2003;63:401–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Grgic I, Campanholle G, Bijol V, Wang C, Sabbisetti VS, Ichimura T, Humphreys BD, Bonventre JV. Targeted proximal tubule injury triggers interstitial fibrosis and glomerulosclerosis. Kidney Int. 2012;82:172–83.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wanic K, Krolewski B, Ju W, Placha G, Niewczas MA, Walker W, Warram JH, Kretzler M, Krolewski AS. Transcriptome analysis of proximal tubular cells (HK-2) exposed to urines of type 1 diabetes patients at risk of early progressive renal function decline. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(3):e57751.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Woroniecka KI, Park AS, Mohtat D, Thomas DB, Pullman JM, Susztak K. Transcriptome analysis of human diabetic kidney disease. Diabetes. 2011;60:2354–69.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Krolewski AS, Warram JH, Forsblom C, Smiles A, Thorn L, Skupien J, Harjutsalo V, Stanton R, Eckfeldt JH, Inker LA, Groop PH. Serum concentration of cystatin C and risk of ESRD in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(11):2311–6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Krolewski AS, Bonventre JV. High risk of ESRD in type 1 diabetes: new strategies are needed to retard progressive renal function decline. Semin Nephrol. 2012;32(5):407–14.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Degome EM, Rivera G, Lilly SM, Usman MH, Mohler ER. Personalized vascular medicine; individualizing drug therapy. Vasc Med. 2011;16(5):391–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Chokrungvaranon N, Deer J, Reaven PD. Intensive glycemic control and cardiovascular disease; are there patients who may benefit? Postgrad Med. 2011;123(6):114–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Higgins MJ, Baselga J. Targeted therapies for breast cancer. J Clin Invest. 2011;121(10):3797–803.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Cantarovich D, Perrone V. Pancreas transplant as treatment to arrest renal function decline in patients with type 1 diabetes and proteinuria. Semin Nephrol. 2012;32(5):432–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Pavlakis M, Kher A. Pre-emptive kidney transplantation to improve survival in patients with Type 1 diabetes and imminent risk of ESRD. Semin Nephrol. 2012;32(5):505–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Gilbert RE, Zhang Y, Yuen DA. Cell therapy for diabetic nephropathy: is the future, now? Semin Nephrol. 2012;32(5):486–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Nephrology 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrzej S. Krolewski
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tomohito Gohda
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Monika A. Niewczas
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Section on Genetics and EpidemiologyResearch Division of Joslin Diabetes CenterBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of MedicineHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  3. 3.Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal MedicineJuntendo University School of MedicineTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations