Hui Shao1, Shuang Yang2, Charles Stoecker2, Vivian Fonseca3, Dongzhe Hong2, Lizheng Shi4. 1. College of Pharmacy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 2. School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA. 3. School of Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA. 4. School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA. Electronic address: lshi1@tulane.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop a practical solution for modeling diabetes progression and account for the variations in risks of diabetes complications in different regions of the world, which is critical for model-based evaluations on the value of diabetes intervention across populations from different regions globally. METHODS: A literature search was conducted to identify eligible clinical trials to support calibration. The Building, Relating, Assessing, and Validating Outcomes (BRAVO) model was employed to simulate diabetes complications using the baseline characteristics of each clinical trial cohort. We utilized regression methods to estimate regional variations across the United States, Europe, Asia, and other regions (eg, Latin America, Africa) in 6 outcomes: myocardial infarction (MI), congestive heart failure (CHF), stroke, angina, revascularization, and mortality. RESULTS: Regional variations were detected in 4 outcomes. Compared with other regions, individuals from the United States had higher risks of MI (hazard ratio [HR] 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI]1.41-1.91) and revascularization (HR 3.6; 95% CI 2.94-4.41). Individuals from Europe had a lower risk of stroke (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.46-0.81), and individuals from other regions outside of the United States, Europe, and Asia had a lower risk of CHF (HR 0.18; 95% CI 0.06-0.58). Finally, the simulated outcomes were regressed on observed outcomes using an ordinary least squares model, with an intercept (0.026), slope (1.005), and R-squared value (0.789) indicating good prediction accuracy. CONCLUSION: Recalibrating the BRAVO model's diabetes risk engine to account for regional differences shows improved prediction accuracy when the model is applied to multi-region populations commonly recruited for clinical trials.
OBJECTIVES: To develop a practical solution for modeling diabetes progression and account for the variations in risks of diabetes complications in different regions of the world, which is critical for model-based evaluations on the value of diabetes intervention across populations from different regions globally. METHODS: A literature search was conducted to identify eligible clinical trials to support calibration. The Building, Relating, Assessing, and Validating Outcomes (BRAVO) model was employed to simulate diabetes complications using the baseline characteristics of each clinical trial cohort. We utilized regression methods to estimate regional variations across the United States, Europe, Asia, and other regions (eg, Latin America, Africa) in 6 outcomes: myocardial infarction (MI), congestive heart failure (CHF), stroke, angina, revascularization, and mortality. RESULTS: Regional variations were detected in 4 outcomes. Compared with other regions, individuals from the United States had higher risks of MI (hazard ratio [HR] 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI]1.41-1.91) and revascularization (HR 3.6; 95% CI 2.94-4.41). Individuals from Europe had a lower risk of stroke (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.46-0.81), and individuals from other regions outside of the United States, Europe, and Asia had a lower risk of CHF (HR 0.18; 95% CI 0.06-0.58). Finally, the simulated outcomes were regressed on observed outcomes using an ordinary least squares model, with an intercept (0.026), slope (1.005), and R-squared value (0.789) indicating good prediction accuracy. CONCLUSION: Recalibrating the BRAVO model's diabetes risk engine to account for regional differences shows improved prediction accuracy when the model is applied to multi-region populations commonly recruited for clinical trials.
Authors: Jennifer B Green; M Angelyn Bethel; Paul W Armstrong; John B Buse; Samuel S Engel; Jyotsna Garg; Robert Josse; Keith D Kaufman; Joerg Koglin; Scott Korn; John M Lachin; Darren K McGuire; Michael J Pencina; Eberhard Standl; Peter P Stein; Shailaja Suryawanshi; Frans Van de Werf; Eric D Peterson; Rury R Holman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-06-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J S Hochman; J Boland; L A Sleeper; M Porway; J Brinker; J Col; A Jacobs; J Slater; D Miller; H Wasserman Journal: Circulation Date: 1995-02-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Philip D Home; Stuart J Pocock; Henning Beck-Nielsen; Paula S Curtis; Ramon Gomis; Markolf Hanefeld; Nigel P Jones; Michel Komajda; John J V McMurray Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-06-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Simon J Griffin; Knut Borch-Johnsen; Melanie J Davies; Kamlesh Khunti; Guy E H M Rutten; Annelli Sandbæk; Stephen J Sharp; Rebecca K Simmons; Maureen van den Donk; Nicholas J Wareham; Torsten Lauritzen Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-06-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Partha Sardar; Jacob A Udell; Saurav Chatterjee; Sameer Bansilal; Debabrata Mukherjee; Michael E Farkouh Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2015-05-05 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Steven P Marso; Gilbert H Daniels; Kirstine Brown-Frandsen; Peter Kristensen; Johannes F E Mann; Michael A Nauck; Steven E Nissen; Stuart Pocock; Neil R Poulter; Lasse S Ravn; William M Steinberg; Mette Stockner; Bernard Zinman; Richard M Bergenstal; John B Buse Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-06-13 Impact factor: 176.079