A retrospective case - control study for assessing the risk factors for development of Diabetic Kidney Disease among people with Type 2 Diabetes in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry

Introduction

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2D) is the most common form of diabetes, constituting 90% of the diabetic population worldwide (Wild et al. 2004) and the number has been steadily rising in low- and middle-income countries (Brown and for CDC 2009). Globally, prevalence of T2D has increased by ∼10-12% in the last two decades (Tewari et al. 2021). According to the Diabetes Atlas 2019, India has the largest number of diabetic patients in the world, estimated around 40.9 million in 2007 and expected is to increase by 69.9 million by 2025 (Unnikrishnan I et al. 2007). The impact of sedentary living, high-energy dietary intake and other unclear genetic and environmental factors are the main causes of rise in the prevalence and incidence of T2D (Kolb and Martin 2017). People diagnosed with T2D often have at least one additional comorbidity ranging from hypertension and obesity to kidney, liver disease and sleep apnea (Fruh 2017). The comorbidity burden increases with age and is higher in men compared to women (Iglay et al. 2016).

Diabetic Kidney Disease (DKD) alias diabetic nephropathy is a major long-term complication of T2D and is the leading cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end stage kidney disease (ESRD) (Farah et al. 2021). In 2017 globally, there were 697.5 million CKD cases with one third living in China (132.3 million) and India (115.1 million) (Bikbov et al. 2020). Around 40% of the T2D diagnosed patients develop DKD which has a major effect not only on global health in respect to mortality, morbidity, but also puts burden on the family (Alicic et al. 2017). The factors contributing to increase in the risk of kidney disease in T2D patients include hypertension, uncontrolled blood sugar, obesity, presence of other comorbidities etc. (Hussain et al. 2021a).

Interestingly, DKD often stays undiagnosed until severe complication manifestation starts to show up (Hussain et al. 2021a). Many researchers have noticed that delayed diagnosis may have arisen from insufficient knowledge and understanding about kidney disease (Vassalotti et al. 2010). Considering variability across the globe in respect to prevalence and incidence of kidney disease among T2D patients and to implement region specific screening program in early course of disease, careful assessment of DKD epidemiology is needed.

There are few studies published on the prevalence of diabetic nephropathy in India (Kumar et al. 2022), (Tewari et al. 2021). Efforts have also been made to understand the prevalence, and determinants associated with CKD at regional level (Parameswaran et al. 2020; Bala et al. 2021; Eswarappa et al. 2022). Although attempts have been made in countries like India (Kumar et al. 2022), but still limited information is available around baseline characteristics of DKD not only at regional level but also at national level. Hussain and coworkers conducted the study to assess the awareness of kidney disease among T2D patients in India and found that 56% of them had poor information around kidney function (Hussain et al. 2019). A cross-sectional study conducted among the Tamil Nadu population reported that the participants had ample knowledge of the risk factors, signs, and symptoms of CKD, while insufficient knowledge on the kidney’s physiological function, and the diagnosis of CKD (Bala et al. 2021).

Current study has a refined set of participants from southern part of India primarily Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. It is a case-control observational study that tries to provide a baseline characteristic associated with epidemiological, clinical, and therapeutic management in DKD patients in the real world setting at regional level.

Materials And Methods

Results

Recruitment rate and sites

Our initial plan was to recruit 500 participants from 9 sites. However, due to Covid-19 pandemic, the study was cut short to 7 months, and we were able to enroll 482 participants.

Out of 482 participants, 422 (87.6%) met the inclusion criteria while the remaining 60 participants did not meet the criteria. 82.0% of the screen failed participants initially belonged to T2D group, however based on their biochemical results especially eGFR values, they were showing signs of early-stage nephropathy. Majority of the participants were neither smoking nor were taking any abuse substances.

Study participants were recruited from 9 centers that includes hospitals, clinics, and research facilities around Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. 81.8% of the eligible participants were recruited from different sites within Chennai, the fourth largest city in India and capital of Tamil Nadu (Table 2). Among the eligible participants, 71.0% of them were outpatients who had come for routine health checkups and the remaining of them were either visiting for regular dialysis (22.0%) or were hospitalized for various other reasons (7.0%) [Fig.1].

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig 1: Participants visit status: This figure illustrates the proportion of participants based on the type of visit.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig 2: Prevalence of T2DM (Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus) and Diabetic Kidney Disease in various age groups

Eligible participants were categorized either into DKD group or T2D group based on physician confirmation and biochemical test result. 238 (56.4%) participants belonged to the DKD group (participants having T2D with kidney disease) and the remaining 184 (43.6%) participants formed the T2D group (participants having T2D with healthy kidney).

Discussion

In this retrospective study, we provide an insight into the clinical and epidemiological characteristics of T2D and DKD individuals from southern part of India, primarily Tamil Nadu. To understand the associated risk factors in the development of kidney disease, we compared the baseline and other clinical parameters of the participants belonging to DKD group (T2D participants with kidney disease) and T2D group (T2D participants with healthy kidney).

We found male sex, increasing age, longer duration of T2D, and hypertension as the major risk factors of DKD. In addition, we found a higher risk of developing additional comorbidities such as diabetic retinopathy, coronary artery disease among the DKD individuals.

In our study, we found higher prevalence of T2D and DKD among men than women. The ratio being 2:1 for DKD participants and 11:4 for T2D participants, respectively and was statistically significant. Our findings align with earlier studies that have reported higher prevalence of T2D and DKD among Indian men compared to women (Kumar et al. 2022) (Ramachandran et al. 1988) (Yu et al. 2012). Additionally, studies like UKPDS 74 study, where Retnakaran and his coworkers found male sex as a risk factor for DKD. They also reported that males were more likely to follow an albuminuric pathway leading to decline in eGFR value whereas females were more likely to follow non-albuminuric pathway (Retnakaran et al. 2006). In contrast, very few studies have reported female sex as a risk factor of DKD (Roy et al. 2021).

Many studies have shown increasing age as a key risk factor for the development of DKD (Metsärinne et al., 2015), (Tewari et al., 2021). As people age (>60 years), Roy et al. showed that renal function (eGFR value) decreased in both diabetes and non-diabetic individuals (Roy et al., 2021) and is in line with the findings of our study in both the groups. We observed that in T2D individuals eGFR value declines with age, while in DKD individuals eGFR value was fluctuating with increasing age.

Studies have reported that longer duration of diabetes increases the prevalence rate of albuminuria. In a study it has been reported, if duration of diabetes was less than 4 years the prevalence rate of albuminuria is around 20.9% which increases to 54.1% for duration greater than or equal to 20 years (Reutens 2013). Another study involving a large cohort of 27,029 persons with T2D showed that elderly people and those who had diabetes for a longer duration were having 49.0% risk of developing DKD (Goderis et al. 2013) (de Cosmo et al. 2016). On lines - to the earlier study findings, we found that longer duration of diabetes plays a role in the development of DKD. Many of our study participants having diabetic history of more than 10 years are suffering from DKD which is in line with earlier study reports. T2D participants having diabetic duration of greater than 10 years showed early stages of nephropathy and were falling under G2 category of eGFR classification i.e., having kidney damage with a mild decrease in their glomerulus filtration rate (GFR).

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines overweight and obesity as abnormal or excessive fat accumulation that presents a risk to health (WHO, 2016a). In our study, participants having BMI greater than 30 kg/m² were considered obese (Kim 2016)(WHO, 2016a). Agrawal et al. in his 2017 study reported obesity as one of the risk factors associated with kidney disease (Agrawal et al. 2017) however in current study no relation could be established between obesity and DKD. Based on our results, obesity cannot be considered as a significant factor for predicting kidney disease. In 2013, Maric-Bilkan and his coworkers studied the mechanism by which obesity may lead to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and reported obesity as one of the driving forces leading to increase in prevalence of T2D and hypertension which indirectly paves the way for DKD (Maric-Bilkan 2013).

The Framingham study cohort showed that BMI could predict reduced kidney function regardless of the presence of comorbidities like diabetes or hypertension (Foster et al. 2008), (Maric-Bilkan 2013). However, in respect to BMI, the current study is in lines with Thakkar et al. study, where the author failed to show any correlation between BMI and DKD among newly diagnosed participants with Diabetes Mellitus (Thakkar et al. 2011). Janssen et al., evaluated the predictive power of BMI in assessing the obesity related comorbidities in his study and reported that BMI may not be a robust parameter for predicting kidney disease as BMI cannot differentiate between body muscle and body fat. Since BMI does not account for the difference between the body muscle and body fat, it might not be used as a dependable indicator of reduced eGFR or decline in renal function, particularly among T2D people (Janssen et al. 2004).

We saw poor glycaemic control among the DKD participants compared to T2D group and this correlation was statistically significant (p value=<.0001). In line with our study, Mir et al. in 2019 also reported statistically significant positive correlation between prevalence of DKD and increase of HbA1c (Mir et al. 2019). Additionally, few studies have reported HbA1c value greater than 8% being associated with higher incidence of kidney disease by increasing the albumin concentration (Debbarma et al. 2015) (Limkunakul et al. 2019). Study by Viberti in the newly diagnosed T2D patients reported a decrease in albumin excretion with improved glucose levels (Viberti et al. 1979). A great deal of evidence reports that good control of blood glucose levels prevents DKD development (Muskiet et al. 2014).

Family history has been reported as one of the independent risk factors for the development of T2D in many studies (Anjana et al. 2017) (Scott et al. 2013). In our study, 19% of the total participants had reported family history of T2D among their first-degree relatives. Among those participants, we observed the incidence of association of family history of T2D was lower in participants with DKD compared to participants with T2D. In 2021, Roy et al., had reported similar findings about the association of family history of diabetes significantly among the group of participants with T2D and without DKD (Roy et al. 2021). In 2017, Geetha A et al., studied the impact of family history of diabetes among the T2D patients in Kancheepuram district at Tamil Nadu. They showed that participants with positive family history of diabetes were more prone to early onset of diabetes and development of other complications (A. et al. 2017). Many T2D studies have shown that family history plays a major role in its progression of T2D to the next generation (A. et al. 2017), (Anjana et al. 2017). Scott in his study has shown that the greatest risk of developing T2D was among those participants who had biparental history of T2D (Scott et al. 2013). Wang in his study involving young participants suffering from diabetes has reported rapid decline in eGFR was significantly higher in participants having diabetic family history especially first-degree relatives. (Wang et al. 2019). In the current study, we do not see a decline in eGFR value based on family history probably due to small sample size. Moreover, many studies have linked the family history and risk of T2D to both genetic and shared environmental components among the family members, but the precise factors accounting for this increase in risk are poorly understood (Scott et al. 2013). We would like to extend the scope of this study to understand the influence of genetics in T2D by genotyping of the samples collected from the participants.

Several studies have reported higher frequencies of association of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular accidents among the DKD participants. (Roy et al. 2021). In line with these studies, we observed an association of several comorbid medical conditions such as hypertension, coronary artery disease and diabetic retinopathy significantly higher in our DKD participants compared to T2D participants. Many studies have reported hypertension as an important independent risk factor for DKD (Tapp et al. 2004) (Agrawal et al. 2017) (Colosia et al. 2013) (Tedla et al. 2011). In line with the previous study reports, hypertension was significantly higher in our participants with DKD when compared to T2D participants (p <.0001). Additionally, studies have shown the existence of hypertension among the T2D participants prior to kidney disease (van Buren and Toto 2011). Study by Do Carmo have reported that hypertension combined with diabetes and obesity contributes to progression of renal injury and DKD (do Carmo et al. 2009). Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) guidelines emphasize the necessity of strict blood pressure management in treating DKD, with a suggested blood pressure target of less than 130/80 mmHg (van Buren and Toto 2011). Further, several studies have shown clear renal protection with respect to slowing progression of nephropathy in patients with T2D via blood pressure lowering (Grossman and Messerli 2011) (Heerspink and de Zeeuw 2011).

Early diagnosis of kidney disease is a necessity of time, and it will help to control the progression of the disease, extend the life expectancy thereby reducing the humanistic and economic load (Hussain et al. 2021b). For the diagnosis of DKD, the most used available markers in clinical practice are albuminuria (UACR) and serum creatinine (eGFR) (Hussain et al. 2021b). UACR is highly recommended by ADA guidelines for early diagnosis of DKD (Stempniewicz et al. 2021) however Retnakaran et al., reported that UACR fails to identify advancing renal disease to its final stages (Retnakaran et al., 2006). Branten et al showed that serum creatinine predicts DKD only if the damage is severe (Branten et al. 2005). Such studies outline the importance of monitoring of both eGFR and UACR twice annually in patients with diabetes(Stempniewicz et al. 2021). In our study, we observed 2 DKD participants who had normal eGFR value but when considering UACR, the value was abnormal (>300 mg/g), conversely, we also found 11 DKD participants had normal UACR value but eGFR value was less than normal range, underlying the importance of regular measurement of both markers in especially among DKD individuals on regular intervals yearly.

We observed that more than half of the study participants in both groups were managed by one or more diabetic medications. In our study, a considerable number of DKD participants were prescribed with insulin rather than oral diabetic medications and these results were in-line with the study conducted by Roy et al., in 2021 (Roy et al. 2021). Among the various classes of medications, the majority of our T2D participants were treated with metformin (Biguanides) compared to DKD participants. Shaw et al., had proposed pragmatic eGFR limits to guide metformin prescribing in patients with renal impairment. It has been reported that CKD stage 4 or greater should be an absolute contraindication to metformin, while CKD stage 3 should alert clinicians to consider other risk factors before initiating or continuing treatment with metformin (Shaw et al. 2007). However, metformin has been used safely, without causing hypoglycemia in patients with prediabetic hyperglycemia (Knowler WC et al.,2002). Next commonly used drugs were DPP-4 inhibitors and Sulphonylureas. These results were in line with other study reports which shows metformin as a common drug used among the diabetic patients in India followed by other drug categories (Roy et al. 2021).

Being a retrospective study, our study has few limitations. Since we did not have direct interaction with the participants and all the medical and sociodemographic information were shared by the site-specific clinical research coordinators, hence it is possible that certain information, such as disease duration, medical and family history, could not been reliably ascertained. Another limitation was that the COVID pandemic restricted us from recruiting the number of participants planned in our study and we were able to enroll less than 500 participants, which does not represent the true subset population of a region. An observational study with small sample size and possible selection bias, findings of our study need to be carefully reviewed before considering it generalizable to a general population with T2D and DKD. The key strength of our study was the availability of participants who were recruited from specialists treating T2D and DKD and they were categorized into two groups based on stringent eligibility criteria. Additionally, all the data entered by the site team was reviewed and had undergone source data verification at site by the study monitoring team.