| Literature DB >> 30647739 |
Kun Wang1, Qun-Fang Yang2, Xing-Lin Chen1, Yu-Wei Liu1, Sheng-Shuai Shan1, Hua-Bo Zheng1, Xiao-Fang Zhao1, Chang-Zhong Chen3, Cheng-Yun Liu1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: It has well established that metabolic syndrome (MetS) can predict the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in some population groups. However, limited evidence is available regarding the predictive effect of MetS for incident T2DM in mainland Chinese population.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30647739 PMCID: PMC6311882 DOI: 10.1155/2018/9376179
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Endocrinol ISSN: 1687-8337 Impact factor: 3.257
Figure 1Flow chart of the 3-year cohort study.
Baseline characteristics of participants included in the follow-up study according to the presence of incident T2DM.
| Characteristic∗ | Incident T2DM at 3-year follow-up | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| No ( | Yes ( |
| |
| Age (years) | 43.21 ± 13.23 | 52.78 ± 12.72 | <0.001 |
| Gender, no. (%) | <0.001 | ||
| Male | 5087 (58.90%) | 801 (72.88%) | |
| Female | 3549 (41.10%) | 298 (27.12%) | |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 23.45 ± 3.16 | 25.33 ± 3.11 | <0.001 |
| Plasma glucose | |||
| FBG (mmol/L) | 4.92 ± 0.50 | 5.29 ± 0.68 | <0.001 |
| PG2h (mmol/L) | 6.51 ± 1.25 | 7.68 ± 1.37 | <0.001 |
| Blood pressure | |||
| Systolic (mm Hg) | 116.33 ± 15.70 | 125.33 ± 16.97 | <0.001 |
| Diastolic (mm Hg) | 77.52 ± 10.13 | 81.70 ± 10.56 | <0.001 |
| Pulse pressure (mm Hg) | 38.81 ± 10.73 | 43.63 ± 12.66 | <0.001 |
| Lipid profile (mmol/L) | |||
| Total cholesterol | 4.77 ± 0.82 | 5.23 ± 0.92 | <0.001 |
| HDL cholesterol | 1.54 ± 0.36 | 1.46 ± 0.36 | <0.001 |
| LDL cholesterol | 2.47 ± 0.65 | 2.74 ± 0.71 | <0.001 |
| Triglycerides | 1.22 (0.86–1.78) | 1.91 (1.35–2.73) | <0.001 |
| Metabolic syndrome, no. (%) | 429 (5.6) | 457 (29.3) | <0.001 |
| Overweight | 2231 (29.95%) | 483 (50.47%) | <0.001 |
| IGR | 1551 (17.96%) | 625 (56.87%) | <0.001 |
| FBG ≥ 6.1 mmol/L | 212 (2.48%) | 163 (14.87%) | <0.001 |
| PG2h ≥ 7.8 mmol/L | 1452 (16.81%) | 598 (54.41%) | <0.001 |
| Hypertension | 1876 (23.45%) | 490 (47.90%) | <0.001 |
| Dyslipidemia | 2556 (29.98%) | 591 (54.07%) | <0.001 |
| TG ≥ 1.7 mmol/L | 2361 (27.70%) | 655 (59.93%) | <0.001 |
| Low HDLc | 297 (3.76%) | 63 (6.46%) | <0.001 |
Data are shown as means ± SD, median (interquartile range), or no (%). T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus; IGR: impaired glucose regulation; FBG: fasting blood glucose; PG2h: 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose; TG: triglycerides; HDLc: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Overweight: defined as BMI greater than 25.0 kg/m2; hypertension: defined as systolic/diastolic blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg or taking antihypertensive agents; low HDL cholesterol: defined as fasting HDL-C < 0.9 or <1.0 mmol/L in males and females, respectively. ∗The number of participants for each category varies slightly due to occasional missing values.
Multivariate analysis of incident T2DM according to MetS and its components∗.
| Variable | Male | Female | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) ∗ |
| HR (95% CI) ∗ |
| |
| Metabolic syndrome | 2.68 (2.27, 3.17) | <0.001 | 2.59 (1.83, 3.65) | <0.001 |
| Overweight | 1.76 (1.52, 2.04) | <0.001 | 1.94 (1.49, 2.52) | <0.001 |
| IGR | 3.87 (3.36, 4.46) | <0.001 | 3.61 (2.87, 4.55) | <0.001 |
| FBG ≥ 6.1 mmol/L | 3.12 (2.56, 3.79) | <0.001 | 3.05 (2.12, 4.38) | <0.001 |
| PG2h ≥ 7.8 mmol/L | 3.81 (3.32, 4.39) | <0.001 | 3.61 (2.87, 4.54) | <0.001 |
| Hypertension | 1.63 (1.40, 1.90) | <0.001 | 1.53 (1.15, 2.02) | 0.0030 |
| Dyslipidemia | 2.38 (2.07, 2.75) | <0.001 | 2.18 (1.73, 2.75) | <0.001 |
| TG ≥ 1.7 mmol/L | 3.09 (2.66, 3.57) | <0.001 | 2.98 (2.36, 3.76) | <0.001 |
| Low HDLc | 1.19 (0.67, 2.11) | 0.5452 | 1.74 (0.97, 3.10) | 0.0619 |
Data are hazard ratio (95% CI), P value. T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus; MetS: metabolic syndrome; IGR: impaired glucose regulation; FBG: fasting blood glucose; PG2h: 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose; TG: triglycerides; HDLc: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Overweight: defined as BMI greater than 25.0 kg/m2; hypertension: defined as systolic/diastolic blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg or taking antihypertensive agents; low HDL cholesterol: defined as fasting HDL-C < 0.9 or< 1.0 mmol/L in males and females, respectively. ∗Adjusted for age.
Predictive value of baseline MetS and its components in predicting risk of T2DM at 3-year follow-up∗.
| Variable | Male | Female | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | |
| Metabolic syndrome | 36 | 88 | 31 | 90 | 23 | 96 | 31 | 94 |
| Overweight | 54 | 61 | 18 | 89 | 39 | 83 | 16 | 94 |
| IGR | 59 | 80 | 31 | 92 | 52 | 85 | 23 | 95 |
| FBG ≥ 6.1 mmol/L | 16 | 97 | 48 | 88 | 11 | 98 | 33 | 93 |
| PG2h ≥ 7.8 mmol/L | 56 | 81 | 32 | 92 | 50 | 86 | 23 | 95 |
| Hypertension | 50 | 70 | 21 | 90 | 42 | 86 | 19 | 95 |
| Dyslipidemia | 58 | 63 | 20 | 90 | 43 | 80 | 15 | 94 |
| TG ≥ 1.7 mmol/L | 64 | 63 | 22 | 92 | 48 | 85 | 21 | 95 |
| Low HDLc | 2 | 99 | 15 | 87 | 4 | 97 | 11 | 92 |
MetS: metabolic syndrome; T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus; PPV: positive predictive value; NPV: negative predictive value; IGR: impaired glucose regulation; FBG: fasting blood glucose; PG2h: 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose; TG: triglycerides; HDLc: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Overweight: defined as BMI greater than 25.0 kg/m2; hypertension: defined as systolic/diastolic blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg or taking antihypertensive agents; low HDL cholesterol: defined as fasting HDL-C < 0.9 or< 1.0 mmol/L in males and females, respectively. ∗Using bootstrap resampling (times = 500).
Three prediction models for T2DM using components of MetS∗.
| Model | AUC (95% CI) | Cut-off value | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| MFP | 0.781 (0.762, 0.800) | −2.038 | 73 | 68 | 26 | 94 |
| Full | 0.779 (0.760, 0.799) | −2.071 | 74 | 67 | 26 | 94 |
| Stepwise | 0.779 (0.759, 0.799) | −2.064 | 74 | 67 | 26 | 94 |
|
| ||||||
| MFP | 0.861 (0.837, 0.885) | −2.925 | 91 | 69 | 18 | 99 |
| Full | 0.861 (0.838, 0.885) | −3.050 | 90 | 70 | 18 | 99 |
| Stepwise | 0.860 (0.836, 0.883) | −3.067 | 88 | 69 | 18 | 99 |
For males: MFP model: −1.92837-0.17487∗(age/100)−2 + 1.17798∗(PG2h ≥ 7.8 = 1) + 0.90866∗(T ≥ 1.7 = 1) + 0.97866∗(FBG ≥ 6.1 = 1) + 0.26414∗(hypertension = 1). Full model: −4.63421 + 0.03516∗age e + 0.23344∗(hypertension = 1) + 0.10789∗(overweight = 1) + 1.20251∗(PG2h ≥ 7.8 = 1) + 0.96130∗(FBG ≥ 6.1 = 1) + 0.95317∗(TG ≥ 1.7 = 1) + 0.00978∗(HDLc < 0.9 = 1). Stepwise model: −4.57730 + 0.03431∗age + 0.28763∗(hypertension = 1) + 1.20539∗(PG2h ≥ 7.8 = 1) + 0.96970∗(FBG ≥ 6.1 = 1) + 0.98210∗(TG ≥ 1.7 = 1). For females: MFP model: 0.98518–1.94843∗(age/100)−1 + 1.12166∗(PG2h ≥ 7.8 = 1) + 1.01383∗(TG ≥ 1.7 = 1) + 0.82966∗(FBG ≥ 6.1 = 1). Full model: −6.82459 + 0.07260∗age −0.07548∗(hypertension = 1) + 0.21320∗(overweight = 1) + 0.82601∗(FBG ≥ 6.1 = 1) + 1.14685∗(PG2h ≥ 7.8 = 1) −0.38866∗(HDLc <1.0 = 1) + 1.09116∗(TG ≥ 1.7 = 1). Stepwise model: −6.81323+ 0.07236∗age + 0.90655∗(FBG ≥ 6.1 = 1) + 1.17439∗(PG2h ≥ 7.8 = 1) + 1.12417∗(TG ≥ 1.7 = 1). AUC: area under curve. ∗Using bootstrap resampling (times = 500).
Figure 2ROC curves of the components of MetS at baseline in predicting T2DM in man and woman (bootstrap resampling times = 500). AUC confidence interval and significance tests using bootstrap resampling. ROC: receiver operating characteristic curves; AUC: area under curve.
Figure 3Nomogram to estimate the risk of T2DM using part of the components of MetS (stepwise model, bootstrap resampling times = 500). To use the nomogram, find the position of each variable on the corresponding axis, draw a line to the points axis for the number of points, add the points from all of the variables, and draw a line from the total point axis to determine the T2DM probabilities in 3 years at the lower line of the nomogram.
Figure 4Calibration curves of the stepwise model nomogram (bootstrap resampling times = 500). On the calibration curve, x-axis is nomogram-predicted probability of incident T2DM in 3 years, and y-axis is observed incident T2DM in 3 years. The red line represents a perfect prediction by an ideal model. The black line represents the performance of the nomogram, which is a closer fit to the diagonal dotted line, representing improved prediction. The pink area is the 95% CI of the calibration curve.
(a) Prediction model for man
| Item | Item score |
| (1) Age ≥ 50 years | 44 |
| (2) Hypertension | 8 |
| (3) 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose (2hPG) ≥ 7.8 mmol/L | 37 |
| (4) Fasting plasma glucose level ≥ 6.1 mmol/L | 30 |
| (5) Triglyceride ≥ 1.7 mmol/L | 30 |
|
| |
| Total item score | 3-year risk of T2DM |
| 0~65 | <10% |
| 66~92 | 10%~20% |
| 93~108 | 20%~30% |
| 109~122 | 30%~40% |
| 123~135 | 40%~50% |
| 136~141 | 50%~60% |
| >141 | >60% |
(b) Prediction model for woman
| Item | Item score |
| (1) Age ≥ 55 years | 57 |
| (2) Fasting plasma glucose level ≥ 6.1 mmol/L. | 14 |
| (3) 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose (2hPG) ≥ 7.8 mmol/L | 21 |
| (4) Triglyceride ≥ 1.7 mmol/L | 19 |
|
| |
| Total item score | 3-year risk of T2DM |
| 0~67 | <10% |
| 68~80 | 10%~20% |
| 81~90 | 20%~30% |
| 91~97 | 30%~40% |
| 98~105 | 40%~50% |
| >105 | >50% |