Valutazione del rapporto urinario proteine totali/creatinina e albumina/creatinina in cani affetti da iperadrenocorticismo e da diabete mellito

INTRODUCTION – In human medicine, diabetes mellitus (DM), hypertension, proteinuria and nephropathy are often associated although it is still not clear whether hypertension is the consequence or the cause of nephropathy and albuminuria. Microalbuminuria, in humans, is an early and sensitive marker which permits timely and effective therapy in the early phase of renal damage. Conversely, in dogs, these relationships were not fully investigated, even though hypertension has been associated with many diseases (Bodey and Michell, 1996). In a previous study, 20% of diabetic dogs were found proteinuric based on a U:P/C > 1 and 46% were hypertensive; this latter finding is similar to the prevalence of hypertension in diabetic people (40-80%) (Struble et al., 1998). In the same canine study, hypertension was also positively correlated with the duration of the disease, as is the case in human beings. Hypertension was also found to be a common complication of hypercortisolism (HC) in dogs, with a prevalence which varies from 50 (Goy-Thollot et al., 2002) to 80% (Danese and Aron, 1994).The aim of our study was to evaluate the urinary albumin to creatinine ratio (U:A/C) in dogs affected by Diabetes Mellitus and HC in order to ascertain if, as in human beings, it could represent an early and more sensitive marker of renal damage than U:P/C. Furthermore, the relationship between proteinuria and hypertension in DM and HC was also investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS – Twenty dogs with DM, 14 with HC and 21 healthy dogs (control group) were included in the prospective case-control study. Inclusion criteria were hyperglycaemia, glicosuria and serum fructosamine above the reference range for DM dogs and a positive ACTH stimulation test and/or low-dose dexamethasone test and consistent findings of HC on abdominal ultrasonography in HC dogs. Dogs were excluded if affected by urinary tract infections and if the serum creatinine or urea values were above the reference range. At the moment of inclusion, an appropriate therapy had already been instituted less than 1 month earlier in 12 diabetic dogs. The control dogs were considered healthy based on clinical exam and clinicopathological findings. All dogs underwent urine sample collection by cystocentesis and systemic blood pressure measurement by means of either an oscillometric device (BP-88 Next, Colin Corporation, Japan) or by Doppler ultrasonic traducer (Minidop ES-100VX, Hadeco, Japan). The choice of method depended on the dog’s body weight: Doppler ultrasonography was employed in dogs < 20 kg of body weight and the oscillometric method in the other subjects. Dogs were considered hypertensive whenever systemic blood pressure was found ≥ 160 mmHg. The urine was assayed for U:P/C and U:A/C (Gentilini et al., 2005). The data between groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. The reference ranges for U:P/C and U:A/C had already been established by our laboratory as 0.6 and 0.05, respectively. U:P/C and U:A/C findings were correlated to systemic blood pressure and Spearman R correlation coefficients were calculated. In all cases, p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS – The mean ± sd urinary albumin concentration in the three groups was 1.79 mg/dl ± 2.18; 20.02 mg/dl ± 43.25; 52.02 mg/dl ± 98.27, in healthy, diabetic and hypercortisolemic dogs, respectively. The urine albumin concentration differed significantly between healthy and diabetic dogs (p = 0.008) and between healthy and HC dogs (p = 0.011). U:A/C values ranged from 0.00 to 0.34 (mean ± sd 0.02 ± 0.07), 0.00 to 6.72 (mean ± sd 0.62 ± 1.52) and 0.00 to 5.52 (mean ± sd 1.27 ± 1.70) in the control, DM and HC groups, respectively; U:P/C values ranged from 0.1 to 0.6 (mean ± sd 0.17 ± 0.15) 0.1 to 6.6 (mean ± sd 0.93 ± 1.15) and 0.2 to 7.1 (mean ± sd 1.90 ± 2.11) in the control, DM and HC groups, respectively. In diabetic dogs, U:A/C was above the reference range in 11 out of 20 dogs (55%). Among these, 5/20 (25%) showed an increase only in the U:A/C ratio while, in 6/20 (30%), both the U:P/C and the U:A/C were abnormal. Among the latter, 4 dogs had already undergone therapy. In subjects affected with HC, U:P/C and U:A/C were both increased in 10/14 (71%) while in 2/14 (14%) only U:A/C was above the reference range. Overall, by comparing U:P/C and U:A/C in the various groups, a significant increase in protein excretion in disease-affected animals compared to healthy dogs was found. Blood pressure (BP) in diabetic subjects ranged from 88 to 203 mmHg (mean ± sd 143 ± 33 mmHg) and 7/20 (35%) dogs were found to be hypertensive. In HC dogs, BP ranged from 116 to 200 mmHg (mean ± sd 167 ± 26 mmHg) and 9/14 (64%) dogs were hypertensive. Blood pressure and proteinuria were not significantly correlated. Furthermore, in the DM group, U:P/C and U:A/C were both increased in 3 hypertensive dogs and 2 normotensive dogs while the only increase of U:A/C was observed in 2 hypertensive and 3 normotensive dogs. In the HC group, the U:P/C and the U:A/C were both increased in 6 hypertensive and 2 normotensive dogs; the U:A/C was the sole increased parameter in 1 hypertensive dog and in 1 dog with normal pressure. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION- The findings of this study suggest that, in dogs affected by DM and HC, an increase in U:P/C, U:A/C and systemic hypertension is frequently present. Remarkably, some dogs affected by both DM and HC showed an U:A/C but not U:P/C above the reference range. In diabetic dogs, albuminuria was observed in 25% of the subjects, suggesting the possibility that this parameter could be employed for detecting renal damage at an early phase when common semiquantiative tests and even U:P/C fall inside the reference range. In HC dogs, a higher number of subjects with overt proteinuria was found while only 14% presented an increase only in the U:A/C. This fact, associated with a greater number of hypertensive dogs having HC rather than DM, could suggest a greater influence on renal function by the mechanisms involved in hypertension secondary to hypercortisolemia. Furthermore, it is possible that, in HC dogs, the diagnosis was more delayed than in DM dogs. However, the lack of a statistically significant correlation between hypertension and increased protein excretion as well as the apparently random distribution of proteinuric subjects in normotensive and hypertensive cases, imply that other factors besides hypertension are involved in causing proteinuria. Longitudinal studies are needed to further investigate the relationship between hypertension and proteinuria.

Metodi di misurazione e implicazioni dell'albuminuria e della proteinuria nel cane

La proteinuria è un marker di danno renale nel cane. L’obiettivo dello studio è di valutare la capacità del dipstick urinario e dell’UPC di diagnosticare precocemente l’albuminuria nel cane. Sono stati raccolti 868 campioni di urina, con sedimento spento e assenza di ematuria, nell’Ospedale Didattico Veterinario della Facoltà di Medicina Veterinaria di Bologna. Per 550 campioni è stata effettuata l’analisi delle urine, la misurazione dell’UPC e dell’UAC, mentre UPC e UAC sono stati misurati in tutti gli 868 campioni. I campioni di urina sono stati analizzati con il metodo dipstick mediante lettura automatizzata. Utilizzando come valore di riferimento l’UAC è stata valutata l’accuratezza diagnostica del dipstick urinario e dell’UPC. L’intervallo di riferimento dell’UAC (0-0,024) è stato determinato utilizzando 60 cani sani. I dati raccolti sono stati classificati utilizzando differenti cut-off per il peso specifico urinario (1012 o 1030), per la proteinuria al dipstick (30 o 100 mg/dl), per l’UPC (0,2) e per l’UAC (0,024). Sono stati valutati l’agreement diagnostico e la correlazione di Spearman tra dipstick, UPC e UAC. E’ stata stimata l’accuratezza diagnostica misurando l’area al di sotto della curva di ROC nell’analisi dell’UAC. Il livello di significatività è stato definito per p < 0,05. Indipendentemente dal peso specifico urinario, l’agreement diagnostico tra dipstick, UPC e UAC è risultato forte (k=0,62 e k=0,61, rispettivamente; p<0,001) con valori di dipstick ≥30 mg/dl, debole (k=0,27 e k=0,26, rispettivamente; p<0,001) con valori di dipstick ≥100 mg/dl. L’accuratezza diagnostica del dipstick messa a confronto con UPC e con UAC è molto buona (AUC 0,84 e 0,84, rispettivamente; p<0,001) e i risultati negativi al dipstick presentano il 100% di sensitività. UPC e UAC sono fortemente correlate (r=0,90; p<0,001). Mettendo a confronto UPC e UAC, l’accuratezza diagnostica è risultata eccellente (AUC 0,94; p<0,001), con massima sensitività e specificità per UPC≥0.3.