Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Feb 20;21(2):e0343210. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0343210

Diabetic kidney disease in northwest Ethiopia: Prevalence and determinants among adults with type 2 diabetes

Workagegnehu Hailu 1,*, Tadesse Asmamaw Dejene 2, Markeshaw Tiruneh 2, Meseret Derbew Molla 2, Eshetie Melese Birru 3,4,5, Shitaye Alemu 1, Tadesse Awoke 6
Editor: Francesca D'Addio7
PMCID: PMC12923007  PMID: 41719294

Abstract

Background

Diabetic kidney disease (DKD), mainly due to type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is the leading cause of end-stage kidney disease globally. However, DKD prevalence in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly Ethiopia, is underexplored, especially using reliable markers like quantified albuminuria and cystatin C based estimated glomerular equations (eGFR). This study aimed to assess DKD prevalence and associated factors using multiple diagnostic markers.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted in adult T2DM patients at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital using systematic random sampling. Data on socio-demographics and lab parameters were collected, with DKD diagnosed via eGFR and/or albuminuria (spot urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio and 24-hour collection). SPSS version 28 was used for data analysis, and factors were identified through multivariable logistic regression, with significance at 95% CI and p < 0.05.

Results

In a study of 204 T2DM patients (mean age 60.2 years; 57.4% female), the prevalence of DKD was 37.3% (95% CI: 30.6–44.3). Significant factors associated with DKD included urban residence (AOR = 0.278, p = 0.023), poor blood pressure control (AOR = 2.33, p = 0.016), poor glycemic control (AOR = 2.93, p = 0.007), and longer diabetes duration (AOR = 6.78, p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

This study shows a high prevalence of DKD in T2DM patients, mainly identified via albuminuria. Poor blood pressure control, inadequate glycemic control, and longer diabetes duration were significantly associated with DKD. Regular screening and improved glycemic and blood pressure control are essential to slow DKD progression.

Introduction

Diabetes mellitus is a metabolic disorder characterized by chronic hyperglycemia due to defects in insulin secretion, action, or both [1]. The International Diabetes Federation estimates that 537 million adults globally have diabetes, with projections reaching 783 million by 2045; over 75% of these individuals live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In Ethiopia, the prevalence of diabetes among adults is estimated at 3.3%. [2]. Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) accounts for 87% to 91% of the global diabetes burden [3,4].

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is defined as abnormalities in kidney structure or function lasting over three months that have health implications. it is classified based on the cause, GFR category (G1–G5), and albuminuria category (A1–A3) [5]. Nearly half of patients with T2DM develop diabetic kidney diseases(DKD)during their lifetime. Globally, DKD is the leading cause of CKD and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), accounting for 50% of cases in developed countries [4,6].

DKD is defined as persistently elevated urine albumin excretion (albumin-to-creatinine ratio [ACR] ≥ 30 mg/g) and/or a reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m²) in individuals with diabetes mellitus, lasting for at least three months [5]. While DKD typically progresses from microalbuminuria to macroalbuminuria, there are diverse clinical presentations, with some patients experiencing renal function decline without albuminuria [7,8].

The prevalence of DKD is increasing, particularly in LMICs, yet it remains under-recognized and often diagnosed late [9].The reported prevalence of DKD varies across studies and this may arise from regional differences, methods of GFR estimation, variations in albuminuria measurement, as well as racial differences and disparities in economic resources and healthcare access [10,11]. Significant disparities exist in the prevalence of DKD among the major ethnic groups [12,13].

Evidence on kidney disease burden among diabetics in Africa is limited. A systematic review indicated that urine protein measurement was the most common method for assessing kidney damage, with CKD prevalence in Africa ranging from 11% to 83.7% [14]. In sub-Saharan Africa, the prevalence of microalbuminuria among T2DM patients was found to be 40.24% [15]. Similarly, another systematic review and meta-analysis in sub-Saharan Africa reported an overall pooled prevalence of DKD at 35.3% with 29.7% in Eastern Africa [16].

In Ethiopia, systematic reviews show CKD prevalence among diabetes patients ranging from 18.22% to 35.5% [17,18]. Institution based studies in Ethiopia including in our study area reposted prevalence of CKD ranging 17.3% to 26% [19–24].

Individual studies [19–24] in Ethiopia exhibit considerable variability in methodology and definitions. Many of these studies rely on creatinine and eGFR without assessing albuminuria or use unreliable tests for albuminuria, such as urine dipstick tests. This may underestimate the true prevalence. Newer GFR estimation methods, such as cystatin C-based formulas, offer advantages for early identification of declining renal function [25]. Consequently, the true prevalence of DKD in Ethiopia, using more reliable diagnostic markers such as quantified albuminuria and eGFR based on various markers, including serum cystatin C, remains inadequately addressed.

Therefore, the aim of this study was to comprehensively assess the prevalence of DKD in patients with T2DM by using different diagnostic markers, including 24-hours urine albumin, spot albumin-to-creatinine ratio, and eGFR using both serum creatinine and cystatin C measurements. This approach aimed to fill the existing gaps in the literature and provide a more accurate understanding of DKD prevalence in the area.

Methods

Study design and setting

This cross-sectional, institution-based study was conducted at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital (UoGCSH), Gondar, Ethiopia, from October 1, 2023 to January 31, 2024. The hospital is located in the historic town of Gondar, approximately 750 km from the capital, Addis Ababa. It is one of Ethiopia’s oldest and most pioneering healthcare institutions, with a bed capacity of 800, providing both teaching and referral services to a catchment area of over 7 million people in the region and neighboring areas.

The Department of Internal Medicine manages various diseases, including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, CKD, and other cardiovascular conditions. The hospital’s diabetes clinic is well-established and operates daily, serving an average of 50 diabetic patients daily. Additionally, there are regular biweekly nephrology and hypertension clinics, where approximately 25 patients with kidney disease and 80 patients with hypertension patients are seen weekly.

The hospital’s dialysis unit, equipped with four functional hemodialysis machines, provides hemodialysis services for patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) and kidney failure. However, the dialysis service is only available to those who can afford to pay out of pocket. There is no kidney transplant service available.

Basic laboratory tests, such as serum glucose, urea, creatinine, and urine dipstick tests, are routinely available at the hospital. However, more specialized tests like hemoglobin A1c, quantitative urine protein measurements (such as the albumin-to-creatinine ratio and 24-hour urine protein), and serum cystatin C measurements are unavailable. This study follows the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines for the design, analysis, and reporting to ensure transparent and accurate documentation (https://www.strobe-statement.org/). A completed STROBE checklist is provided in Table S1 in S1 File.

Source and study population

The source population for this study consisted of all patients with T2DM receiving follow-up care at UoGCSH. The study participants were both male and female adult patients with T2DM who attended the diabetes follow-up clinics during the study period. All adults aged 18 years and above with an established diagnosis of T2DM and currently taking antidiabetic medications were included. Individuals who were critically ill or diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus were excluded.

Sample size and sampling technique

The sample size was determined based on previous reports of 17.3% prevalence of CKD among patients with T2DM [22]. Using a 95% confidence level, a precision of 0.5, and accounting for a 10% contingency, the sample size was calculated using a single proportion formula and determined to be 200. Systematic random sampling was used to select participants with T2DM.

Variables and operational definitions

The outcome variable of interest was the presence of diabetic kidney disease (DKD). The independent variables included demographic factors such as age and sex, duration of diabetes, diabetes control status, and comorbidities.

DKD was defined as elevated urine albumin excretion (albumin-to-creatinine ratio [ACR] ≥ 30 mg/g or 24-hour albumin excretion rate [AER] > 30 mg/day) and/or a reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m²) in individuals with diabetes mellitus [5].For the purpose of this study, we used the 24-hour AER, as it is the most precise test to measure albuminuria. To estimate eGFR, we applied the CKD-EPI equation, which utilizes both serum creatinine and cystatin C levels.

CKD and albuminuria definition and classification were according to the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guideline: GFR category, and albuminuria category [26].

The GFR categories are defined as follows: G1 indicates a GFR of ≥ 90 mL/minute/1.73 m²; G2 represents a GFR of 60–89 mL/minute/1.73 m²; G3a corresponds to a GFR of 45–59 mL/minute/1.73 m²; G3b indicates a GFR of 30–44 mL/minute/1.73 m²; G4 is defined as a GFR of 15–29 mL/minute/1.73 m²; and G5 reflects a GFR of < 15 mL/minute/1.73 m². Regarding albuminuria, A1 signifies urinary AER < 30 mg/24 hours and UACR < 30 mg/g (normal-to-mildly increased), A2 indicates urinary AER of 30–299 mg/24 hours and UACR of 30–299 mg/g (moderately increased), while A3 corresponds to urinary AER ≥ 300 mg/24 hours and UACR ≥ 300 mg/g (severely increased).

“Controlled blood pressure” was defined as blood pressure < 140/90 mmHg while on antihypertensive treatment, whereas “uncontrolled blood pressure” was defined as blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg while on antihypertensive treatment.

“Controlled diabetes mellitus” was defined as hemoglobin A1c (A1c) < 7% while on antidiabetic treatment, while “uncontrolled diabetes mellitus” was defined as A1c ≥ 7% while on treatment.

Current smokers were defined as those who reported smoking any number of cigarettes every day or some days

Alcohol consumption is considered to be “positive” if an individual has consumed any amount of alcohol within the past 12 months and ‘negative’ if no alcohol intake in the past 12 months.

Data collection methods and procedures

Data were collected through a pre-tested, interviewer-administered structured questionnaire. Information on demographic factors, including age, sex, place of residence, education level, occupation, alcohol consumption, smoking behavior, and physical activity was obtained by interviewing the participants. Additional clinical and laboratory findings, such as the duration of diabetes mellitus, comorbidities, and type of medication used (oral hypoglycemic agents, insulin, or both), were collected from individual medical record reviews.

Height and weight were measured to calculate body mass index (BMI), which was then classified according to WHO categories. Blood pressure was measured using an appropriate cuff size and an aneroid sphygmomanometer to assess hypertension and control status.

Blood and urine sample collection and processing

Blood and urine samples were collected from each participant by trained laboratory technologists. Blood samples were obtained through venipuncture, and biochemical analytes such as cystatin C and creatinine were measured in the serum.

A first-morning midstream urine sample was collected to measure a spot urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR). The ACR measurement was performed once and was not repeated. Urine ACR was measured using the Kinetic Alkaline Picrate (Jaffe Reaction) method on the Abbott Alinity instrument (Abbott Laboratories, USA). Additionally, 24-hours urine samples were collected from all participants after providing with appropriate verbal and written instructions on collection methods. These samples were used to measure 24-hours urine albumin levels using the COBAS 6000 analyzer (Roche, Switzerland).

Hemoglobin A1C was measured from whole blood collected with EDTA using an enzymatic assay on the Abbott Alinity instrument. Serum creatinine and cystatin C were measured using the automated particle-enhanced immunoturbidimetric method on the COBAS 6000 analyzer, based on the enzymatic colorimetric principle. The values of serum creatinine and cystatin C were then used to estimate GFR using the race-free 2021 CKD-EPI equation [27]. Three eGFR calculations were performed for each patient: eGFRcr (based on creatinine alone), eGFRcys (based on cystatin C alone), and eGFRcr-cys (based on both creatinine and cystatin C).

Data quality assurance

To ensure data quality, the data collection tool was prepared in English and translated into the local language, Amharic, and then back-translated into English by the project team members. The questionnaire was pretested, and training was provided for the data collectors and supervisors. Data were collected by two MSc students in Biochemistry and supervised by a biochemist, a lab technologist, and the principal investigator (PI), who is a nephrologist.

Statistical analysis

Data were checked, cleaned, coded, and entered using double entry into EpiData version 4.6 and exported to SPSS version 28 for statistical analysis. Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD), while categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages in tables and graphs. Descriptive statistics summarized demographic and clinical data. Bivariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with DKD in T2DM patients. Variables with a P-value of less than 0.2 in the bivariate analysis were included in the multivariate analysis to control the effect of confounders. Associations were reported using adjusted odds ratios (AOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and a P-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Gondar, college of medicine and health sciences, college ethics review committee (Ref No. R/T/T/C/Eng./187/11/22). Written informed consent was obtained from each participant.

Results

Socio demographic characteristics

A total of 210 T2DM patients were approached for participation in the study, and 204 provided complete responses, resulting in a response rate of 97.1%. The mean age of patients was 60.23 years (SD ± 10.66). More than half of the participants, 111 (54.41%), were under the age of 60, and with the majority being female 117(57.35%) (Table 1).

Table 1. Socio demographic and behavioral characteristics of T2DM patients at University of Gondar Specialized Hospital. (N = 204), Gondar, Ethiopia, 2024.

Variables Number Percent
Age, Mean(±SD)= 60.23(±10.66)
Sex of Patients
 Male 87 42.65
 Female 117 57.35
Age of patients (years)
  ≥ 60 93 45.59
  < 60 111 54.41
Residence
 Urban 184 90.20
 Rural 20 9.80
Educational status
 Uneducated 83 40.69
 Primary 32 15.69
 High school 48 23.53
 College and above 41 20.10
Alcohol consumption
 Yes 38 18.63
 No 166 81.37
Smoking status
 Smoker 4 1.86
 Non-smoker 200 98.04
Occupational status
 Unemployed 144 70.59
 Employed 60 29.41
Marital status
 Single 68 33.33
 Married 136 66.67
Body mass index(BMI)
 Underweight 4 1.96
 Normal 104 50.98
 Overweight 67 32.84
 Obesity 29 14.22

Clinical and treatment related characteristics

The majority of participants, 128 (62.75%), had at least one comorbidity, with hypertension (83 participants, 63.36%) and dyslipidemia (35 participants, 26.72%) being the most common comorbidities. The mean duration of diabetes mellitus was 7.74 years (SD ± 5.79), while the median duration was 6.50 years (IQR: 3.00–10.75). Nearly three-quarters of the participants (72.06%) had poor diabetic control (Table 2).

Table 2. Clinical and treatment related characteristics of type T2DM patients at University of Gondar Specialized Hospital. (N = 204), Gondar, Ethiopia, 2024.

Variables Number Percentage
Comorbidity
 Yes 128 62.75
 No 76 37.25
Type of comorbidity
 Hypertension 83 63.36
 Dyslipidemia 35 26.72
 Others* 13 9.92
Duration of diabetes
  < 5 yrs 65 31.86
  ≥ 5 yrs 139 68.14
Glycemic control status
 Good control 57 27.94
 Poor control 147 72.06
Type of anti-diabetic treatment
 Metformin(MTF)alone 67 32.84
 Sulfonylureas (SU)alone 4 1.96
 MTF + SU 71 34.80
 Insulin alone 29 14.22
 Insulin + MTF 33 16.18
Blood Pressure control status
 Controlled 163 79.90
 Uncontrolled 41 20.10

• Stroke, ischemic heart disease, Bronchial asthma, Gout arthritis.

Albuminuria among patients with T2DM

Using a spot urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio test, nearly half (48.5%) of the patients had albuminuria (≥ 30 mg/g). In contrast, using a 24-hour urine albumin excretion rate, 33.3% of patients had albuminuria. The majority of patients fell within the range of moderately elevated albuminuria (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Proportion of albuminuria using spot urine ACR (mg/g) and AER (mg/24hrs) in T2DM patients (N = 204), Gondar, Ethiopia, 2024.

Fig 1

ACR: Albumin to creatinine ratio (mg/g); AER: Albumin excretion rate (mg/24hrs); A1 = Normal; A2 = moderately elevated; A3 = severely elevated.

Prevalence of DKD and associated factors among patients with T2DM

The prevalence of DKD (defined by a 24-hour AER of ≥30 mg/24 hr or eGFR using cystatin C and creatinine of <60 mL/min/1.73 m², or both) was 37.3% (95% CI: 30.6–44.3) (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Proportion of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) among patients with T2DM (N = 204), Gondar, Ethiopia, 2024.

Fig 2

The proportions of albuminuria and reduced eGFR using different diagnostic markers are depicted in Table 3.

Table 3. Proportion of DKD among T2DM patients using different diagnostic markers at the University of Gondar Specialized Hospital (N = 204), Gondar, Ethiopia, 2024.

Diagnostic marker Number Percentage
Spot urine ACR>=30 mg/g 99 48.5
24 hr urine AER>=30 mg/24hrs 68 33.3
eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73m2 using CKD-EPI creatinine equation 13 6.4
eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73m2 using CKD-EPI creatinine and cystatin C equation 15 7.4
eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73m2 using CKD-EPI cystatin C equation 22 10.8

ACR: albumin to creatinine ratio; AER albumin excretion rate; eGFR: estimated glomerular filtration rate; CKD-EPI: Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration.

Factors associated with DKD in patients with T2DM

A bivariate logistic regression was conducted for variables including age, gender, BMI, and the presence of comorbidities such as hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and dyslipidemia, as well as duration of diabetes, blood pressure (BP), and glycemic control status. Variables with a p-value of 0.20 or less—namely, place of residence, presence of comorbidities, BP control status, glycemic control status, and duration of diabetes—were selected for multivariable logistic regression.

As presented in Table 4, the multivariable analysis, found that place of residence, poor BP control, poor glycemic control, and duration of diabetes since diagnosis were significantly associated with the development of DKD. Urban participants had a 72.2% lower likelihood of developing DKD than those in rural areas (AOR = 0.278, 95% CI: 0.09–0.84, p = 0.023). Patients with poor BP control had over twice the risk of developing DKD compared to those with good BP control (AOR = 2.33, 95% CI: 1.17–4.66, p = 0.016), while he odds of having DKD were nearly three times higher in patients with poor glycemic control compared to those with good glycemic control (AOR = 2.93, 95% CI: 1.35–6.39, p = 0.007). Additionally, having diabetes for more than five years was significantly associated with a higher likelihood of developing DKD (AOR = 6.78, 95% CI: 2.93–15.70, p < 0.0001).

Table 4. Factors associated with DKD in patients with T2DM at University of Gondar Specialized Hospital (N = 204), Gondar, Ethiopia, 2024.

Variable Category DKD COR(95% CI) p value AOR(95% CI) p value
Yes No
Residence Urban 65 119 0.45(0.18-1.13) 0.09 0.278(0.09-0.84) 0.023
Rural 11 9 1 1
Comorbidity Yes 55 73 1.97(1.07-3.64) 0.03 1.70(0.86-3.38) 0.129
No 21 55 1 1
BP control Poor 34 35 2.15(1.16-3.91) 0.012 2.33(1.17-4.66) 0.016
Good 43 93 1 1
Glycemic control Poor 63 84 2.54(1.26-5.11) 0.009 2.93(1.35-6.39) 0.007
Good 13 44 1 1
Duration of DM >= 5 years 66 73 4.97(2.35-10.54) <0.0001 6.78(2.93-15.70) <0.0001
< 5 years 10 55 1 1

DKD: diabetic kidney disease; BP; blood pressure; DM: diabetes mellitus.

Discussion

The prevalence of DKD, defined by a 24-hour AER ≥ 30 mg/24 hr or eGFRcr-cys < 60 mL/min/1.73 m², or both, was 37.3%. This result was more than double that of a previous report from the same study setting in Ethiopia, where the prevalence of DKD using eGFR (<60 mL/min/1.73 m²) alone was 17.3% [22]. The difference is likely due to variations in diagnostic criteria. While the previous study assessed DKD using only low eGFR, the current study incorporates both quantitatively measured albuminuria and eGFR determinations. Relying solely on eGFR decline as a screening tool for DKD can overlook cases where albuminuria is present but eGFR is still within normal range, as many patients exhibit albuminuria before experiencing a decrease in eGFR [9].

The current results reveal a higher prevalence than individual studies from Northeast Ethiopia (26.3%), Southwest Ethiopia (26%), Southern Ethiopia (18.2%), and Amhara region (10.8%), as well as a systematic review and meta-analysis report from Ethiopia (18.22%) [18–20,23]. However, it is similar to another systematic review and meta-analysis from Ethiopia, which reported a prevalence of 35.5% [17]. The lower proportions reported in previous studies may be due to differences in the markers used to assess DKD. Most studies relied on urine dipsticks and GFR estimations based on creatinine levels. Urine dipsticks can miss moderately elevated albuminuria and may underestimate the true prevalence. A positive urinary dipstick test is nearly always associated with an abnormal albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR). However, fewer than half of adults with both T2DM and an abnormal ACR have a positive dipstick test [25]. In contrast, our study utilized quantitatively measured albuminuria and incorporated cystatin C and creatinine-based equations; therefore, this study is likely to more accurately reflect the true prevalence of DKD.

The prevalence result from our study was comparable to studies from Nigeria (42.9%) and China (35.5%) but higher than the findings from a systematic review and meta-analysis of sub-Saharan Africa (29.7%) focusing on East Africa [16,28,29]. This discrepancy is likely related to differences in methodologies used to diagnose DKD.

The majority of patients were diagnosed to have DKD based on albuminuria criteria and only 7.4% participants have eGFR bellow 60 ml/min/1.732. This is due to the fact that patients with DKD can have albuminuria while remaining asymptomatic and maintaining a normal eGFR early in the diagnosis of DKD. In DKD, albuminuria often develops before a decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) because the initial pathogenic changes in the diabetic kidney primarily affect the glomerular filtration barrier rather than overall filtration function. Chronic hyperglycemia induces both structural and functional alterations in the glomerular capillary wall, including thickening of the basement membrane, podocyte injury or loss, widening of foot processes, and endothelial dysfunction with reduced nitric oxide production and decreased negative charge of the basement membrane. Proximal tubular dysfunction may also impair reabsorption of filtered albumin, contributing to albuminuria even when eGFR is still preserved. Hemodynamic changes, such as glomerular hyperfiltration, hyperperfusion, and elevated intraglomerular pressure, further promote early albumin leakage [30–32]. Lack of early screening and delayed diagnosis remain major challenges in low- and middle-income countries [33].

In the current study, 34.8% of patients with T2DM had moderately elevated albuminuria, while 13.7% had severely elevated albuminuria, as measured by ACR. This finding is consistent with studies from Egypt and a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of microalbuminuria in Africa [15,34].

Several factors have been associated with DKD in the literature. In the current study, place of residence, poor glycemic control, inadequate blood pressure control, and duration of diabetes mellitus since diagnosis were associated with DKD. Urban participants were less likely to develop DKD than their rural counterparts. This may be linked to better access to quality healthcare, higher education levels, and greater availability of information about diabetes. Rural populations with diabetes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) encounter significant challenges in meeting diabetes care performance metrics [35,36].

In the current study, poor glycemic control was associated with increased risk of developing DKD. Prior studies have also identified poor glycemic control as a major factor in the development and progression of DKD [17,21,37]. Elevated blood glucose levels contribute to kidney damage through mechanisms such as increased glomerular pressure and hyperfiltration, which can lead to glomerulosclerosis and the loss of nephrons. In this study, patients with uncontrolled hypertension had more than twice the risk of developing DKD, which aligns with previous research findings [37,38]. Additionally, a longer duration of diabetes was associated with higher DKD risk. Studies consistently show that the longer a patient has diabetes, the greater their risk of both developing and progressing to more severe stages of DKD [17,21,37–39]. Early and continuous management of blood glucose and blood pressure is critical in delaying the onset and slowing the progression of DKD in these patients.

Participants in this study were treated with metformin, sulfonylureas, and insulin. None of the participants were receiving SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists. Emerging antidiabetic agents, particularly SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists, have demonstrated renoprotective effects and are associated with reduced progression of chronic kidney disease [40,41]. Improving access to these medications in resource-limited settings is therefore essential.

Strength and limitations of the study

This study has several important strengths. It is based on primary data collected specifically for the purpose of this investigation, in contrast to many previous studies from similar low- and middle-income settings that relied on secondary data or registry-based analyses. This approach allowed for standardized data collection and a more detailed and accurate assessment of diabetic kidney disease (DKD).

Another key strength is the comprehensive assessment of DKD using multiple validated markers. While many prior studies in similar settings defined DKD solely on the basis of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), thereby primarily identifying more advanced disease (CKD stage 3 and above), our study employed complementary measures, including spot urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR), 24-hour urine protein measurement (the gold standard for proteinuria assessment), and eGFR estimated using both serum creatinine and cystatin C. This multidimensional approach enabled the identification of early stages of DKD, including albuminuria in patients with preserved eGFR, which is particularly relevant for early detection and timely intervention.

Furthermore, this study represents one of the first detailed descriptions of DKD in an Ethiopian population with type 2 diabetes, contributing valuable data from a region where evidence remains scarce. The findings have important clinical and public health implications, particularly in low-resource settings where access to kidney replacement therapy is limited and early detection and prevention strategies are essential to reduce disease progression and associated morbidity.

Despite these strengths, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital, where patients with more complex or advanced type 2 diabetes mellitus are more likely to seek follow-up care. As a result, the findings may not be fully generalizable to diabetic patients managed in primary or community-based settings. Although DKD was defined clinically using albuminuria and reduced eGFR according to KDIGO guidelines, individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus may have other causes of chronic kidney disease. Consequently, some patients without DKD may have been misclassified as having DKD. In addition, due to the cross-sectional nature of the study, some patients with transient albuminuria may have been incorrectly classified as having DKD.

Although both verbal and written instructions were provided for the 24-hour urine collection procedure, a 24-hour creatinine excretion test was not performed to verify collection completeness. As a result, errors in urine collection may have occurred, potentially affecting the accuracy of albuminuria measurements.

Conclusion

The prevalence of DKD among patients with T2DM in this cohort, predominantly diagnosed through albuminuria, was high. Poor blood pressure control, inadequate glycemic control, and the duration of diabetes since diagnosis were significantly associated with the development of DKD. Regular screening for DKD, particularly using quantified albuminuria for early diagnosis, along with efforts to achieve good glycemic and blood pressure control, can help mitigate its progression.

Supporting information

S1 File. Completed STROBE checklist.

(PDF)

pone.0343210.s001.pdf (159.8KB, pdf)
S2 File. Clinical and laboratory data.

(XLS)

pone.0343210.s002.xls (54KB, xls)

Acknowledgments

We sincerely thank all the participants who generously contributed their time and information to this study. We also appreciate the dedication and efforts of the data collectors who supported the research process.

Abbreviations

ACR

Albumin-to-Creatinine Ratio

AER

Albumin Excretion Rate

AKI

Acute Kidney Injury

BMI

Body Mass Index

CKD

Chronic Kidney Disease

CKD-EPI

Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration

CI

Confidence Interval

COR

Crude Odds Ratio

DKD

Diabetic Kidney Disease

DN

Diabetic Nephropathy

eGFR

Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate

ESKD

End-Stage Kidney Disease

KIDIGO

Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes

LMICs

Low- and Middle-Income Countries

MTF

Metformin

SD

Standard Deviation

SU

Sulfonylurea

T2DM

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

Funding for this research was obtained from the University of Gondar, College of Medicine and Health Sciences- research, technology transfer, and community engagement. (Ref No. R/T/T/C/Eng./189/11/22). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.World Health Organiztion. Definition, diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus and its complications: report of a WHO consultation. Part 1, Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus; 1999. Available from: https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/66040 [Google Scholar]
  • 2.International Diabetes Federation. IDF diabetes atlas. 10th ed; 2021. Available from: https://diabetesatlas.org [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Reutens AT, Prentice L, Atkins RC. The epidemiology of diabetic kidney disease. In: Epidemiology of diabetes mellitus. 2nd ed; 2008. p. 499–517. doi: 10.1002/9780470779750.ch31 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Koye DN, Magliano DJ, Nelson RG, Pavkov ME. The global epidemiology of diabetes and kidney disease. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2018;25(2):121–32. doi: 10.1053/j.ackd.2017.10.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Diabetes Work Group. KDIGO 2022 clinical practice guideline for diabetes management in chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int. 2022;102(5S):S1–127. doi: 10.1016/j.kint.2022.06.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Tuttle KR, Bakris GL, Bilous RW, Chiang JL, de Boer IH, Goldstein-Fuchs J, et al. Diabetic kidney disease: a report from an ADA Consensus Conference. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(10):2864–83. doi: 10.2337/dc14-1296 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Chen Y, Lee K, Ni Z, He JC. Diabetic kidney disease: challenges, advances, and opportunities. Kidney Dis (Basel). 2020;6(4):215–25. doi: 10.1159/000506634 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Bhalla V, Zhao B, Azar KMJ, Wang EJ, Choi S, Wong EC, et al. Racial/ethnic differences in the prevalence of proteinuric and nonproteinuric diabetic kidney disease. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(5):1215–21. doi: 10.2337/dc12-0951 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hussain S, Chand Jamali M, Habib A, Hussain MS, Akhtar M, Najmi AK. Diabetic kidney disease: an overview of prevalence, risk factors, and biomarkers. Clin Epidemiol Glob Health. 2021;9:2–6. doi: 10.1016/j.cegh.2020.05.016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mattiotti M, Righini M, Vetrano D, Ribichini D, Vicennati V, Aiello V, et al. Diabetic kidney disease: evidence from two selected cohorts of patients from low-middle and high income countries. Life (Basel). 2025;15(9):1429. doi: 10.3390/life15091429 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Gheith O, Othman N, Nampoory N, Halimb M, Al-Otaibi T. Diabetic kidney disease: difference in the prevalence and risk factors worldwide. J Egypt Soc Nephrol Transplant. 2016;16(3):65. doi: 10.4103/1110-9165.197379 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Dreyer G, Hull S, Aitken Z, Chesser A, Yaqoob MM. The effect of ethnicity on the prevalence of diabetes and associated chronic kidney disease. QJM. 2009;102(4):261–9. doi: 10.1093/qjmed/hcn177 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Dias JP, Shardell M, Golden SH, Ahima RS, Crews DC. Racial/ethnic trends in prevalence of diabetic kidney disease in the United States. Kidney Int Rep. 2018;4(2):334–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ekir.2018.10.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Noubiap JJN, Naidoo J, Kengne AP. Diabetic nephropathy in Africa: a systematic review. World J Diabetes. 2015;6(5):759–73. doi: 10.4239/wjd.v6.i5.759 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Mohammed O, Alemayehu E, Bisetegn H, Debash H, Gedefie A, Ebrahim H, et al. Prevalence of microalbuminuria among diabetes patients in africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2023;16:2089–103. doi: 10.2147/DMSO.S409483 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Wagnew F, Eshetie S, Kibret GD, Zegeye A, Dessie G, Mulugeta H, et al. Diabetic nephropathy and hypertension in diabetes patients of sub-Saharan countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Res Notes. 2018;11(1):565. doi: 10.1186/s13104-018-3670-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Shiferaw WS, Akalu TY, Aynalem YA. Chronic kidney disease among diabetes patients in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nephrol. 2020;2020:8890331. doi: 10.1155/2020/8890331 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tolossa T, Fetensa G, Regassa B, Yilma MT, Besho M, Fekadu G, et al. Burden and determinants of chronic kidney disease among diabetic patients in ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Public Health Rev. 2021;42:1603969. doi: 10.3389/phrs.2021.1603969 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Fiseha T, Kassim M, Yemane T. Chronic kidney disease and underdiagnosis of renal insufficiency among diabetic patients attending a hospital in Southern Ethiopia. BMC Nephrol. 2014;15:198. doi: 10.1186/1471-2369-15-198 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kumela Goro K, Desalegn Wolide A, Kerga Dibaba F, Gashe Fufa F, Wakjira Garedow A, Edilu Tufa B, et al. Patient awareness, prevalence, and risk factors of chronic kidney disease among diabetes mellitus and hypertensive patients at Jimma University Medical Center, Ethiopia. Biomed Res Int. 2019;2019:2383508. doi: 10.1155/2019/2383508 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Mariye Zemicheal T, Bahrey Tadesse D, Tasew Atalay H, Teklay Weldesamuel G, Gebremichael GB, Tesfay HN, et al. Determinants of diabetic nephropathy among diabetic patients in general public hospitals of Tigray, Ethiopia, 2018/19. Int J Endocrinol. 2020;2020:6396483. doi: 10.1155/2020/6396483 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Alemu H, Hailu W, Adane A. Prevalence of chronic kidney disease and associated factors among patients with diabetes in northwest Ethiopia: a hospital-based cross-sectional study. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2020;92:100578. doi: 10.1016/j.curtheres.2020.100578 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ahmed MA, Ferede YM, Takele WW. Incidence and predictors of chronic kidney disease in type-II diabetes mellitus patients attending at the Amhara region referral hospitals, Ethiopia: a follow-up study. PLoS One. 2022;17(1):e0263138. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263138 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Fiseha T, Tamir Z. Prevalence and awareness of chronic kidney disease among adult diabetic outpatients in Northeast Ethiopia. BMC Nephrol. 2020;21(1):129. doi: 10.1186/s12882-020-01768-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Thomas MC, Brownlee M, Susztak K, Sharma K, Jandeleit-Dahm KAM, Zoungas S, et al. Diabetic kidney disease. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2015;1:15018. doi: 10.1038/nrdp.2015.18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Guideline CP, Disease CK. Editorial board. Kidney Int. 2024;105(4):A1. doi: 10.1016/s0085-2538(24)00110-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.National Kidney Foundation. eGFR calculator. [cited 2024 Jun 5]. Available from: https://www.kidney.org/professionals/gfr_calculator [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Chiroma I, Sulaiman MM, Mubi BM. Prevalence and risk factors of diabetic kidney disease in north eastern Nigeria. Ann African Med Res. 2020;3(135):84–8. doi: 10.4081/aamr.2020 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Duan J, Wang C, Liu D, Qiao Y, Pan S, Jiang D, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of chronic kidney disease and diabetic kidney disease in Chinese rural residents: a cross-sectional survey. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):10408. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-46857-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kitada M, Kanasaki K, Koya D. Clinical therapeutic strategies for early stage of diabetic kidney disease. World J Diabetes. 2014;5(3):342–56. doi: 10.4239/wjd.v5.i3.342 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Jefferson JA, Shankland SJ, Pichler RH. Proteinuria in diabetic kidney disease: a mechanistic viewpoint. Kidney Int. 2008;74(1):22–36. doi: 10.1038/ki.2008.128 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Zhang R, Wang Q, Li Y, Li Q, Zhou X, Chen X, et al. A new perspective on proteinuria and drug therapy for diabetic kidney disease. Front Pharmacol. 2024;15:1349022. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1349022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.George C, Echouffo-Tcheugui JB, Jaar BG, Okpechi IG, Kengne AP. The need for screening, early diagnosis, and prediction of chronic kidney disease in people with diabetes in low- and middle-income countries-a review of the current literature. BMC Med. 2022;20(1):247. doi: 10.1186/s12916-022-02438-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Elhefnawy KA, Elsayed AM. Prevalence of diabetic kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Egypt J Intern Med. 2019;31(2):149–54. doi: 10.4103/ejim.ejim_113_18 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Flood D, Geldsetzer P, Agoudavi K, Aryal KK, Brant LCC, Brian G, et al. Rural-urban differences in diabetes care and control in 42 low- and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study of nationally representative individual-level data. Diabetes Care. 2022;45(9):1961–70. doi: 10.2337/dc21-2342 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ahn J, Yang Y. Factors associated with poor glycemic control amongst rural residents with diabetes in Korea. Healthcare (Basel). 2021;9(4):391. doi: 10.3390/healthcare9040391 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Macisaac RJ, Ekinci EI, Jerums G. Markers of and risk factors for the development and progression of diabetic kidney disease. Am J Kidney Dis. 2014;63(2 Suppl 2):S39-62. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2013.10.048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Siddiqui K, George TP, Joy SS, Alfadda AA. Risk factors of chronic kidney disease among type 2 diabetic patients with longer duration of diabetes. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022;13:1079725. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.1079725 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Al-Momany A, Almomani EY, Almomani HY, Al-Azzam SI, Qablan A. Evaluating kidney function and the associated risk factors among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a cross-sectional study at a tertiary hospital in Jordan. BMJ Open. 2023;13(10):e073536. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073536 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Nuffield Department of Population Health Renal Studies Group, SGLT2 inhibitor Meta-Analysis Cardio-Renal Trialists’ Consortium. Impact of diabetes on the effects of sodium glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors on kidney outcomes: collaborative meta-analysis of large placebo-controlled trials. Lancet. 2022;400(10365):1788–801. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02074-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Bae JH. SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in diabetic kidney disease: evolving evidence and clinical application. Diabetes Metab J. 2025;49(3):386–402. doi: 10.4093/dmj.2025.0220 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Francesca D'Addio

17 Nov 2025

Dear Dr. Hailu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:-->The paper sounds very interesting in addressing an emerging epidemic, the development of DKD, also in Africa. It is well-structured and clear-cut. Although the analysis is limited to a single experience it provides an important information in how DKD is also expanding in non western countries. As a main suggestion to appreciate the relevance of the study, it would be interesting to reinforce the strenghts of the study in the discussion. Why is this study informative despite its limitations? How does it compare to other studies conducted in similar countries? Is it larger? First describing DKD in a specific population? The descriptive nature of the study should be also better clarifies in the text. The Literature cited is quite limited and sometimes not updated. The Authors should follow the Reviewers suggestions to improve this section. Please pay particular attention to Reviewer #1 comments, which may improve the text. ?>

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 01 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Francesca D'Addio, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“Funding for this research was obtained from the University of Gondar, College of Medicine and Health Sciences- research, technology transfer, and community engagement. (Ref No. R/T/T/C/Eng./189/11/22).”

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“We are grateful to the research, technology transfer and community engagement office of the College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, for providing financial assistance for the study.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“Funding for this research was obtained from the University of Gondar, College of Medicine and Health Sciences- research, technology transfer, and community engagement. (Ref No. R/T/T/C/Eng./189/11/22).”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

5. We notice that your supplementary figures are uploaded with the file type 'Other'. Please amend the file type to 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments:

The paper sounds very interesting in addressing an emerging epidemic, the development of DKD, also in Africa. It is well-structured and clear-cut. Although the analysis is limited to a single experience it provides an important information in how DKD is also expanding in non western countries. As a main suggestion to appreciate the relevance of the study, it would be interesting to reinforce the strenghts of the study in the discussion. Why is this study informative despite its limitations? How does it compare to other studies conducted in similar countries? Is it larger? First describing DKD in a specific population? The descriptive nature of the study should be also better clarifies in the text. The Literature cited is quite limited and sometimes not updated. The Authors should follow the Reviewers suggestions to improve this section. Please pay particular attention to Reviewer #1 comments, which may improve the text.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: 1) In the multivariable analysis, rural residence has an AOR < 1 (0.278), suggesting lower odds of DKD; however, the Discussion interprets rural residence as a risk factor. Can the authors confirm the reference category, re-check multivariable model coding and interpretation and correct text accordingly.

2) Since CKD-EPI and albuminuria categories were used, full KDIGO classification (G and A categories) should be reported. It would be good add a table summarizing G-stage and A-stage distributions.

3)Participants were recruited from a tertiary care center and may not reflect the community diabetic population, therefore it is necessary to clarify to what extent the cohort is representative.

4) Multiple statements imply causation, even if this is a cross-sectional study, I suggest to make a revision of the language using “associated with” rather than “predicts” or “leads to”

5) Can the authors add more details about the regression model, clarifying which variables were included and why they were chosen.

6) In the introduction I suggest to reduce the epidemioloy

7) Can the author clarify whether ACR measurement was repeated to confirm presence of albuminuria?

8) Can you clarify whether DKD prevalence differs between urban and rural subgroups?

9) In the discussion can the authors explain the mechanism behind early albuminuria with preserved eGFR?

10) The diabetic drugs in use are insulin, metformin, sulfonylureas which don’t provide diabetic kidney protection, can you make a comment regarding the neuw class of drugs such as SGLT2i and GLP-1RA mentioning the following articles:

-AWARE A novel web application to rapidly assess cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus Berra, C., Manfrini, R., Mirani, M., ... Fiorina, P., Folli, F. Acta Diabetologica, 2023, 60(9), pp. 1257–1266

-Improved glycemic and weight control with Dulaglutide addition in SGLT2 inhibitor treated obese type 2 diabetic patients at high cardiovascular risk in a real-world setting. The AWARE−2 study Berra, C., Manfrini, R., Bifari, F., ... Cimino, V., Folli, F. Pharmacological Research, 2024, 210, 107517

11) Check the english spelling and change Sulfonureas into Sufonylureas

Reviewer #2: The paper is overall well written and structured and give novel information concerning the prevalence of DKD in Ethiopia.

To put the paper in a bigger scenario, I suggest including a paragraph in the discussion concerning novel therapeutic approaches to couteract DKD. In particular the authors can consider to cite the following papers: PMID 35908663; PMID 36871895

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Feb 20;21(2):e0343210. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0343210.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


15 Jan 2026

Answer to editor and Reviewers comment

Editor’s comment

The paper sounds very interesting in addressing an emerging epidemic, the development of DKD, also in Africa. It is well-structured and clear-cut. Although the analysis is limited to a single experience it provides an important information in how DKD is also expanding in non western countries. As a main suggestion to appreciate the relevance of the study, it would be interesting to reinforce the strenghts of the study in the discussion. Why is this study informative despite its limitations? How does it compare to other studies conducted in similar countries? Is it larger? First describing DKD in a specific population? The descriptive nature of the study should be also better clarifies in the text. The Literature cited is quite limited and sometimes not updated. The Authors should follow the Reviewers suggestions to improve this section. Please pay particular attention to Reviewer #1 comments, which may improve the text.

Response to editor’s comment

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for your constructive and insightful feedback. We have carefully addressed your comments as well as those of the reviewers.

1. In response to your suggestion to better emphasize the relevance of the study, we have revised the Discussion section by renaming the final subsection from “Limitations” to “Strengths and Limitations” and by explicitly highlighting the strengths of our research.

The key strength of our study is that it is based on primary data collected specifically for this investigation, whereas many previous studies from similar settings relied on secondary or registry data. In addition, several prior studies defined DKD solely using eGFR, which primarily captures more advanced disease (CKD stage 3 and above). In contrast, our study employed multiple complementary markers of DKD, including spot urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR), 24-hour urine protein measurement, and eGFR estimated using both creatinine and cystatin C. This comprehensive approach allowed us to identify early stages of DKD, including albuminuria in patients with preserved eGFR, which is particularly relevant for early detection and prevention strategies in resource limited settings where access to kidney replacement therapy is limited.

See “Strengths and Limitation” section

2. Descriptive nature of the study- Thank you for this comment. We would like to clarify that our study is an analytical cross-sectional study with a descriptive component, designed to estimate the prevalence of diabetic kidney disease and to examine factors associated with its presence.

3. Thank you for your comment regarding the literature cited. We have carefully reviewed the reference list and updated it to include more recent and relevant studies on diabetic kidney disease, particularly from low- and middle-income countries. Additional references have been added throughout the manuscript to provide a more comprehensive and current context for our study.

Response to Reviewer #1 comment

Comment 1: In the multivariable analysis, rural residence has an AOR < 1 (0.278), suggesting lower odds of DKD; however, the Discussion interprets rural residence as a risk factor. Can the authors confirm the reference category, re-check multivariable model coding and interpretation and correct text accordingly.

Response: Thank you for this comment. We have re-checked the coding of the multivariable model and confirmed that urban residence is the exposure with an AOR < 1 (AOR = 0.278), indicating a protective effect compared with rural residence (the reference category). The Results and Discussion have been reviewed and are consistent with this interpretation. (See Table 4 and Discussion section)

Comment 2: Since CKD-EPI and albuminuria categories were used, full KDIGO classification (G and A categories) should be reported. It would be good add a table summarizing G-stage and A-stage distributions.

Response: Thank you for this important suggestion. In our study, the majority of DKD cases were identified based on albuminuria, and the albuminuria categories (A-stages) are presented in Figure 1. In addition, the proportion of DKD diagnosed using different criteria is summarized in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, only 7.4% of participants met the CKD definition based on reduced eGFR (CKD-EPI creatinine, eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m²).

We explored presenting the full KDIGO G and A combined staging (e.g., G1A2, G1A3, G2A2, G2A3, G3A1, G3A2, G3A3 etc). However, because the proportion of participants with G3 or higher stages was very small, this resulted in a lengthy table with several cells containing very low frequencies, which we felt would add limited interpretive value. Therefore, we opted to present the data as currently shown.

Nevertheless, we are happy to include a table summarizing the full KDIGO G and A staging if the reviewer feels it is necessary.

Comment 3: Participants were recruited from a tertiary care center and may not reflect the community diabetic population, therefore it is necessary to clarify to what extent the cohort is representative.

Response: Thank you for this valid comment. We have addressed this issue by adding the following statement to the Limitations section to clarify the representativeness of the study population:

“The study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital, where patients with more complex or advanced type 2 diabetes mellitus are more likely to seek follow-up care. As a result, the findings may not be fully generalizable to diabetic patients managed in primary or community-based settings.”

Comment 4: Multiple statements imply causation, even if this is a cross-sectional study, I suggest to make a revision of the language using “associated with” rather than “predicts” or “leads to”

Response: Thank you for this important comment. We have revised the manuscript to remove causal language and replaced by “associated with”

Comment 5: Can the authors add more details about the regression model, clarifying which variables were included and why they were chosen.

Response: Thank you for this comment. We have clarified the regression modeling approach in the Methods section (under “statistical analysis”) and Results section (under “Factors associated with DKD in patients with T2DM.” Variables with a p-value ≤ 0.20 in the bivariate analysis—namely place of residence, presence of comorbidities, blood pressure control status, glycemic control status, and duration of diabetes—were selected for inclusion in the multivariable logistic regression model.

Comment 6: In the introduction I suggest to reduce the epidemiology

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have revised the Introduction to reduce the epidemiology content and improve focus and conciseness.

Comment 7: Can the author clarify whether ACR measurement was repeated to confirm presence of albuminuria?

Response: Thank you for this important question. The spot urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) measurement was not repeated. However, all participants additionally underwent quantitative urine protein assessment using a 24-hour urine protein excretion test, which was used as the reference (gold standard) to confirm the presence of albuminuria and to define DKD in this study. To clarify this we put the following in the methods (under blood and urine collection and processing section) “A first-morning midstream urine sample was collected from all participants for measurement of the spot urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR). The ACR measurement was performed once and was not repeated. In addition, all participants underwent quantitative assessment of albuminuria using a 24-hour urine protein excretion test”

Comment 8: Can you clarify whether DKD prevalence differs between urban and rural subgroups?

Response: Thank you for this question. DKD prevalence was 35.3% in urban participants (65/184) and 55.0% in rural participants (11/20). A chi-square test showed no statistically significant difference between the groups (χ² = 2.20, p = 0.14). In the multivariable analysis, urban residence was associated with lower odds of DKD (AOR = 0.278, Table 4), as discussed in the manuscript.

Comment 9: In the discussion can the authors explain the mechanism behind early albuminuria with preserved eGFR?

Response: Thank you for this valid comment. We have addressed this by adding a dedicated paragraph in the Discussion section explaining the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the development of albuminuria in the presence of preserved eGFR, within the section where albuminuria is discussed. We have added the following paragraph with respective references

“In DKD, albuminuria often develops before a decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) because the initial pathogenic changes in the diabetic kidney primarily affect the glomerular filtration barrier rather than overall filtration function. Chronic hyperglycemia induces both structural and functional alterations in the glomerular capillary wall, including thickening of the basement membrane, podocyte injury or loss, widening of foot processes, and endothelial dysfunction with reduced nitric oxide production and decreased negative charge of the basement membrane. Proximal tubular dysfunction may also impair reabsorption of filtered albumin, contributing to albuminuria even when eGFR is still preserved. Hemodynamic changes, such as glomerular hyperfiltration, hyperperfusion, and elevated intraglomerular pressure, further promote early albumin leakage”.

Comment 10: The diabetic drugs in use are insulin, metformin, sulfonylureas which don’t provide diabetic kidney protection, can you make a comment regarding the neuw class of drugs such as SGLT2i and GLP-1RA mentioning the following articles:

-AWARE A novel web application to rapidly assess cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus Berra, C., Manfrini, R., Mirani, M., ... Fiorina, P., Folli, F. Acta Diabetologica, 2023, 60(9), pp. 1257–1266

-Improved glycemic and weight control with Dulaglutide addition in SGLT2 inhibitor treated obese type 2 diabetic patients at high cardiovascular risk in a real-world setting. The AWARE−2 study Berra, C., Manfrini, R., Bifari, F., ... Cimino, V., Folli, F. Pharmacological Research, 2024, 210, 107517

Response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have added a paragraph in the Discussion highlighting the potential of novel therapeutic approaches, including SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists, in slowing the progression of diabetic kidney disease. We also emphasize the importance of improving access to and appropriate use of these effective therapies in resource-limited settings like Ethiopia. We have included citation related to this.

Comment 11: Check the english spelling and change Sulfonureas into Sufonylureas

Response: Thank you for noting this. We have corrected the spelling accordingly

Response to Reviewer #2

Comment 1: The paper is overall well written and structured and give novel information concerning the prevalence of DKD in Ethiopia.

Response: Thank you for your positive comment and appreciation of our work

Comment 2: To put the paper in a bigger scenario, I suggest including a paragraph in the discussion concerning novel therapeutic approaches to couteract DKD. In particular the authors can consider to cite the following papers: PMID 35908663; PMID 36871895

Response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have added a paragraph in the Discussion highlighting the potential of novel therapeutic approaches, including SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists, in slowing the progression of diabetic kidney disease. We also emphasize the importance of improving access to and appropriate use of these effective therapies in resource-limited settings like Ethiopia. The suggested references have been cited accordingly

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0343210.s004.docx (20.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Francesca D'Addio

4 Feb 2026

<p>Diabetic Kidney Disease in Northwest Ethiopia: Prevalence and Determinants Among Adults with Type 2 Diabetes

PONE-D-25-53996R1

Dear Dr. Hailu,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Francesca D'Addio, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

By responding for the most part to the main comments raised by the Reviewers, the paper has been significantly improved and it is now suitable for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors has adequately addressed the comments and now the article has reached a good level and It is now acceptable for publication, it is presented in a n intelligible fashion and written in standard english.

Reviewer #2: The authors addressed all reviewers' comments. I just would like to highlight that the bibliography han not been updated as compared to the previous version.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Francesca D'Addio

PONE-D-25-53996R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Hailu,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Francesca D'Addio

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Completed STROBE checklist.

    (PDF)

    pone.0343210.s001.pdf (159.8KB, pdf)
    S2 File. Clinical and laboratory data.

    (XLS)

    pone.0343210.s002.xls (54KB, xls)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0343210.s004.docx (20.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES