Urine Metabolites Could Forecast Renal Outcomes in T2D
Researchers analyzed data of 1894 patients with T2D (mean age, 57.4 years; 51.1% men) from a regional hospital and a primary care facility in Singapore to study the role of urine metabolites of the choline oxidation pathway in the progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD).
Urine metabolites (choline, betaine, dimethylglycine, and sarcosine) were quantified or semiquantified using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry.
Variables such as heart conditions, blood pressure, tubulopathy biomarkers, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were either self-reported or measured, with patients being followed-up using electronic medical records and in-person research visits.
The primary outcome was a composite of incident end-stage kidney disease (defined as having a sustained eGFR < 15 mL/min/1.73 m2, undergoing maintenance dialysis, or death from renal causes) or the doubling of serum creatinine levels. TAKEAWAY: Overall, 263 participants experienced renal events over a median follow-up of 9.2 years. Those who experienced renal events had higher baseline levels of urine choline (median, 32.1 vs 16.9 µM) and dimethylglycine (median, 1.25 vs 0.74 units) than those who did not.
Each SD increase in levels of urine choline (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.33) and dimethylglycine (aHR, 1.30) was associated with an increased risk for the composite renal outcome ( P < .001 for both).
< .001 for both). Researchers postulated that tubular stress may partly mediate the link between urine choline, dimethylglycine, and the risk for adverse renal outcome.
After adjusting for clinical risk factors, each SD increase in levels of urine choline and dimethylglycine was associated with a 1.2-fold and 1.17-fold increase in the risk for all-cause death, respectively ( P < .05 for both). IN PRACTICE:
'High levels of urine choline and dimethylglycine in the choline oxidation pathway were strongly associated with a high risk for CKD progression independent of traditional risk factors in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Dysregulation of choline metabolism in the kidney may be involved in pathogenesis of tubulopathy and plays a role in progressive loss of kidney disease,' the authors wrote. SOURCE:
This study was led by Jian-Jun Liu, Clinical Research Unit, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital (KTPH) in Singapore. It was published online on May 13, 2025, in Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism . LIMITATIONS:
It could not be inferred whether urine metabolites caused kidney disease progression. Residual confounding could not be ruled out due to observational nature of this study. Some of the urine metabolites were semiquantified with relatively high technical differences. DISCLOSURES:
This study received grants from KTPH STAR and Singapore National Medical Research Council. The authors reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Medscape Medical News © 2025 WebMD, LLC
Cite this: Urine Metabolites Could Forecast Renal Outcomes in T2D - Medscape - May 22, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
22 minutes ago
- Medscape
Anticoagulants in AF Post-ICH: The Dilemma Continues
TOPLINE: In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) with a recent episode of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), the use of oral anticoagulants significantly reduced net adverse clinical events — primarily driven by a reduced risk for ischemic stroke/systemic thromboembolism — but with an increased risk for recurrent ICH. METHODOLOGY: Oral anticoagulants prevent stroke in patients with AF, but their efficacy in those who have recently experienced an ICH remains unclear. Researchers conducted a systematic literature review through March 2025 and performed an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the use of oral anticoagulants with placebo or antiplatelets in patients with nonvalvular AF after a spontaneous ICH. The analysis included 653 patients (weighted mean age, 78.2 years; 38% women; 95% White) from four trials with a low risk for bias, with follow-up durations ranging from a mean of 0.53 years to a median of 1.9 years. The primary endpoint was net adverse clinical events — a composite of ischemic stroke/systemic thromboembolism, nonfatal myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, recurrent ICH, and extracranial major bleeding. TAKEAWAY: The breakdown of oral anticoagulants used was 65% apixaban, 15% edoxaban, 14% dabigatran, 4% rivaroxaban, and 1% warfarin. The use of oral anticoagulants reduced net adverse clinical events by 31% (relative risk [RR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52-0.93) and ischemic stroke/systemic thromboembolism by 76% (RR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09-0.61), translating into a number needed to treat of 12 and 8, respectively. However, oral anticoagulants carried a more than threefold higher risk or recurrent ICH (RR, 3.20; 95% CI, 1.30-7.85), translating to a number needed to harm of 22. There were no significant differences in fatal ischemic stroke, fatal ICH, major extracranial hemorrhage, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular death on the basis of oral anticoagulant use. IN PRACTICE: '[This] meta-analysis informs shared decision-making between clinicians and patients, demonstrating a net clinical benefit of OACs [oral anticoagulants] predominantly through a reduction in ischemic stroke/systemic thromboembolism, while being cognizant of an increased risk of recurrent ICH,' the researchers wrote. 'The magnitude of benefit and risk may differ across ICH subtypes and with the timing of OACs initiation, warranting further investigation through [individual patient data] meta-analysis,' they further added. SOURCE: This study was led by Kuan-Yu Chi, MD, and Pei-Lun Lee, MD, of Jacobi Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City, and Yu Chang, MD, of the National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan. It was published online on July 21, 2025, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. LIMITATIONS: This study lacked individual patient data, which prevented deeper analyses such as timing of events. The number of included trials and participants were insufficient to detect the effects on outcomes that occurred less frequently. All the included trials had an open-label design. DISCLOSURES: Three authors reported receiving research funding and awards from various sources including the Johns Hopkins University Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center funded by the National Institute on Aging; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and National Institutes of Health National Institute of Aging. One author reported serving as a consultant for Novo Nordisk, Merck, and HeartFlow, Inc. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Medscape
22 minutes ago
- Medscape
Prevention, Screening, Treatment: Impact on Cancer Deaths
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Hello. I'm Dr Maurie Markman from City of Hope, and I'd like to discuss a very important study. I think many of you may have heard about this, but it's important to emphasize what these investigators reported in terms of the impact of what we are doing in the cancer world today and, in my opinion, what the focus needs to be on in the future. The paper I'm referring to is "Estimation of Cancer Deaths Averted From Prevention, Screening, and Treatment Efforts, 1975-2020," published in JAMA Oncology . This was a very interesting effort; there was modeling done, and assumptions were made, in order to do what these investigators did. But this is, I think, very high-quality and reasonable data science. The paper outlines the assumptions made in coming to the conclusions reached by these investigators. They looked at breast, cervix, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers — obviously, major cancers — and specifically looked at what the impact has been over the past 45 years of these three different strategies in averting deaths: prevention, screening, and actual treatment. The bottom line, as reported by these investigators, is that over this 45-year period, 5.94 million deaths have been averted in these five cancers combined, due to the efforts of countless numbers of individuals, researchers, clinicians, public health officials, government regulators, etc. It's an incredible and an enormously positive contribution to society and to individual patient health. They note, and this is a powerful message, that 8 of the 10 deaths, 80%, that had been averted were due to efforts in cancer prevention and screening. It may come as a surprise to some, but not to all, because of our often very intense focus and money spent on treatments for established and advanced cancers over the past decades. There's no intent either in this paper or by me to denigrate — in any way, shape, or form — the enormous efforts that have been made in treatment. But if you look at the question of deaths averted, the vast majority have come from prevention and screening efforts. And clearly, there's cost involved in these efforts, but far less than that associated with development of treatments. They're even more specific in this paper: Screening, according to these investigators, has been responsible for essentially all reduction in cervix cancer, which we certainly know from the enormous contributions of the Pap smear screening and now HPV screening: 25% of breast cancer deaths were averted due to screening; 56% from prostate cancer; 79% of deaths from colorectal cancer; and, of course, from lung cancer, 98% of the impacts on cancer deaths has resulted from a reduction in smoking. So, overall a tremendous impact, a positive impact. So many individuals and organizations avert deaths, but it's critical to remember the role of prevention and screening. And as we move forward to the future, as we look at the epidemic we have of obesity in this country and the concern about the risk of alcohol on the risk for cancer, it is important to remember the critical role to the present but also for the future of prevention and screening. Thank you for your attention.
Medscape
2 hours ago
- Medscape
TNT Shows Similar Efficacy Across Regimens in Rectal Cancer
TOPLINE: In a multicentre study of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, substantial variation existed in the choice of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT), but efficacy was comparable across different regimens and consistent with that reported in clinical trials. METHODOLOGY: Researchers conducted an international, multicentre study in 21 countries and included 1585 patients (median age, 61 years; 37.1% women) with stage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma from September 2012 to December 2023. The primary objective focused on the type of TNT administered depending on the regimen, timing and type of chemotherapy, and type of radiotherapy. Secondary objectives encompassed safety and efficacy overall and on the basis of the type of TNT after propensity vector matching. Efficacy endpoints included pathologic complete response, complete response, local or distant progression at the time of treatment failure, event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS). Overall, 17.7%, 33.4%, 12%, and 16.2% of patients were treated according to PRODIGE 23-like, RAPIDO-like, OPRA induction-like, and OPRA consolidation-like regimens, respectively. TAKEAWAY: Chemotherapy was given as induction, consolidation, and sandwich for 34.5%, 51.0%, and 14.5% of patients, respectively; regimens were single agent (1.1%), doublet (78.8%), and triplet (20.1%). Radiotherapy was delivered as short-course radiotherapy in 37.2% and long-course chemoradiotherapy in 62.8% of cases. The pathologic complete response rate was 21.3%, and the complete response rate was 23.2%; local and distant progression at the time of treatment failure were 7% and 16.2%, respectively. Three-year EFS reached 68%, and 5-year OS was 79%. In the overall population, PRODIGE 23-like regimens showed better survival outcomes than RAPIDO-like regimens (EFS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; P = .03; OS: HR, 0.51; P = .04), OPRA induction-like regimens (EFS: HR, 0.66; P = .04; OS: HR, 0.35; P = .003), and OPRA consolidation-like regimens (EFS: HR, 0.64; P = .02; OS: HR, 0.50; P = .05). After the propensity vector matching analysis of 928 patients (58.5%), no significant differences in survival outcomes were observed between TNT regimens. IN PRACTICE: "This case series study illuminates the applicability of TNT to clinical practice," the authors of the study wrote. "TNT decisions should be made based on the individual risk profile and following an accurate discussion about the positives and negatives of each option while considering patient preferences and expectations," they added. SOURCE: This study was led by Alessandro Audisio, MD, Université libre de Bruxelles, Institut Jules Bordet-Hôpital Erasme, Brussels, Belgium. It was published online on July 10, 2025, in JAMA Oncology. LIMITATIONS: The retrospective design of the study introduced potential data collection errors and biases, which were only partially addressed through remote monitoring and data imputation. The relatively short follow-up period may have prevented the detection of differences in long-term outcomes between TNT regimens. Additionally, variations in treatment delivery, staging methods, and supportive care across institutions complicated direct comparisons. Despite involving multiple countries, the predominant European patient population limited the generalisability of the results. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by the Institut Jules Bordet and endorsed by the Oncodistinct Network. Several authors reported receiving personal fees and grants and having other ties with various sources. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
