Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
28.03.2026
Размер:
48.17 Mб
Скачать

92

Klein

showing the efficacy of lipid lowering agents in reducing the progression of retinopathy, the incidence of macular edema or the loss of vision. In persons with type 2 diabetes, the ACCORD study will permit examination of whether raising the serum HDL cholesterol and lowering triglyceride levels in the context of good glycemic control reduces the incidence of macular edema and progression of retinopathy compared to a strategy that only achieves desirable levels of LDL cholesterol and glycemic control.

SUBCLINICAL AND CLINICAL DIABETIC NEPHROPATHY

Both retinopathy and nephropathy have been linked together as sharing a common “microvascular” origin and similar risk factors. This notion has been supported by data from most studies showing associations between diabetic nephropathy, as manifest by microalbuminuria or gross proteinuria, and retinopathy (13, 14, 39, 87, 89, 91, 94, 120–122). Independent of levels of blood sugar and blood pressure, it has been hypothesized that inflammatory, lipid, rheological, and platelet abnormalities associated with nephropathy may be involved in the pathogenesis of retinopathy.

Microalbuminuria and Diabetic Retinopathy

In the WESDR, in cross-sectional analyses while controlling for duration of diabetes, glycosylated hemoglobin, and diastolic blood pressure, persons with microalbuminuria were more likely to have retinopathy present (for those with type 1 diabetes, OR 1.90, 95% CI, 0.95–3.78 and for those with type 2 diabetes, OR 1.80, 95% CI, 1.22–2.65) than those with normoalbuminuria (123). In multivariable analyses, microalbuminuria remained statistically significantly associated with PDR in those with type 1 (OR 2.14, 95% CI, 1.27–3.61) but not type 2 diabetes (OR 1.05, 95% CI, 0.56–1.96). While controlling for other risk factors, the relationship of microalbuminuria to CSME was not statistically significant in either persons with type 1 diabetes (OR 2.05, 95% CI, 0.81, 5.17, P = 0.13) or those with type 2 diabetes (OR 1.26, 95% CI, 0.52–3.06, P = 0.62). In a cross-sectional analysis of 982 Danish patients with type 1 diabetes, the prevalence of proliferative retinopathy and vision loss increased with increasing levels of albuminuria, being 12% and 1%, respectively, in persons with normoalbuminuria, 28% and 6% in those with microalbuminuria, and 58% and 11% in those with gross proteinuria (124).

While data from cross-sectional studies suggest early nephropathy, as manifest by microalbuminuria, is associated with more severe retinopathy, data regarding the longitudinal relationship of microalbuminuria to incident and progressed retinopathy are less consistent. In a clinic-based study, persons with type 1 diabetes and microalbuminuria had a higher annual incidence of PDR (10–15%) compared to only 1% in patients without signs of nephropathy (125). In another study of 82 patients with type 1 diabetes, of the 13 who developed a progressive increase in their albumin excretion rate and persistent microalbuminuria during the study period, 62% (8/13) developed macular edema or PDR compared with 7% (5/69) who remained normoalbuminuric (126). In the populationbased Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications (EDC) Study, persons with type 1 diabetes and higher albumin excretion rates were more likely to develop incident PDR (127, 128). In the WESDR, while controlling for other factors at baseline, microalbuminuria

The Epidemiology of Diabetic Retinopathy

93

status was not associated with the incidence of retinopathy, its progression to CSME, or the incidence of proliferative disease (123).

Gross Proteinuria and Retinopathy

In cross-sectional analyses in the WESDR, those with gross proteinuria were more likely to have signs of any retinopathy, PDR, or CSME at baseline than those without gross proteinuria (123). While controlling for other factors, the odds of having PDR present when gross proteinuria was present varied from 4.58 (95% CI, 3.10–6.77) in those with type 1 diabetes to 2.27 (95% CI, 1.65–3.11) in those with type 2 diabetes compared to those without gross proteinuria; for CSME, the odds were 2.42 (95% CI, 1.20–4.88) and 1.47 (95% CI, 0.83–2.61) in type 1 and type 2 diabetes, respectively. These findings are also consistent with other epidemiological and clinical studies. In Hispanics, gross proteinuria was cross-sectionally related to diabetic retinopathy (OR 11.14, 95% CI, 1.2–103), but there was no relationship in whites (129).

In a clinical study in Denmark, the cumulative 5-year incidence of nonproliferative retinopathy and PDR in persons with type 1 diabetes with gross proteinuria was 93% and 74%, respectively, and it was 37% and 14%, respectively, in those without (130). In Oklahoma Indians with type 2 diabetes, gross proteinuria was associated with retinopathy at baseline but was not found to be a risk factor for the development of retinopathy (95, 96). In Pima Indians with type 2 diabetes, while controlling for other risk factors, the presence of proteinuria or renal insufficiency at baseline predicted the development of PDR (131). The incidence–rate ratio was 4.8. However, in people with type 2 diabetes in Rochester, Minnesota, persistent proteinuria was not an independent predictor of subsequent incidence of retinopathy (88). In the WESDR, the presence of gross proteinuria was associated with the 10-year incidence of PDR in type 1 diabetes; otherwise, gross proteinuria was not associated with the progression of retinopathy or incidence of CSME (123). The lack of an association in the WESDR may have been due, in part, to the high risk of persons with gross proteinuria who develop severe retinopathy dying and not being seen at follow-up.

There are no clinical trial data to show that interventions that prevent or slow diabetic nephropathy reduce the incidence and progression of retinopathy.

In summary, while both retinopathy and nephropathy are linked together as “microvascular” in origin and share similar risk factors, the fact that after long duration of disease most individuals develop retinopathy but only about two-thirds develop clinical signs of nephropathy suggests possible genetic differences making susceptibility to damage of each system different for a given level of exposure of blood pressure, glycemia, and other risk factors. Epidemiological data support nephropathy as a risk indicator and risk factor for retinopathy and suggest that nephrotic patients might benefit from having regular ophthalmologic evaluation.

Diabetic Retinopathy as a Risk Indicator of Subclinical Nephropathy

Diabetic retinopathy severity has been shown to be related to preclinical glomerulopathy lesions in the baseline biopsies in normotensive normoalbuminuric persons with type 1 diabetes and normal or increased glomerular filtration rate (132). The severity of