| Literature DB >> 32725485 |
Yali Zhang1, Rong Shi1, Liang Yu1, Liping Ji1, Min Li1, Fan Hu2.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is becoming more prevalent in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and can contribute to serious liver damage in this patient population. The aim of this study was to develop a risk nomogram for NAFLD in a Chinese population with T2DM.Entities:
Keywords: Nomogram; Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; Risk factor; Type 2 diabetes mellitus
Year: 2020 PMID: 32725485 PMCID: PMC7434817 DOI: 10.1007/s13300-020-00893-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diabetes Ther ISSN: 1869-6961 Impact factor: 2.945
Fig. 1Flow diagram of study design. BMI Body mass index, DBP diastolic blood pressure, HDL-C high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, NAFLD non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, SUA serum uric acid, TC total cholesterol, T2DM type 2 diabetes mellitus
Characteristics of the 874 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus enrolled in the study according to presence/absence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and randomization to training set and validation set
| Items | Total patient cohort ( | Patients with T2DM with NAFLD ( | Patients with T2DM without NAFLD ( | Training set ( | Validation set ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 64.32 ± 5.92 | 63.65 ± 5.80 | 64.92 ± 5.98 | 64.17 ± 5.94 | 64.76 ± 5.86 | 0.001 |
| Sex, | ||||||
| Male | 394 (45.1%) | 158 (38.1%) | 236 (51.4%) | 300 (45.6%) | 94 (43.5%) | 0.326 |
| Female | 480 (54.9%) | 257 (61.9%) | 223 (48.6%) | 358 (54.4%) | 122 (56.5%) | 0.000 |
| Diabetic retinopathy, | 150 (17.2%) | 76 (18.3%) | 74 (16.1%) | 118 (17.9%) | 32 (14.8%) | 0.391 |
| Diabetic nephropathy, | 313 (35.8%) | 171 (41.2%) | 142 (30.9%) | 238 (36.2%) | 75 (34.7%) | 0.002 |
| Hypertension, | 355 (40.6%) | 114 (27.5%) | 241 (52.5%) | 388 (59.0%) | 131 (60.6%) | 0.000 |
| Course of disease (years) | 9.28 ± 6.31 | 8.36 ± 6.05 | 10.11 ± 6.42 | 9.02 ± 6.16 | 10.08 ± 6.68 | 0.000 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 25.26 ± 3.47 | 26.87 ± 3.30 | 23.81 ± 2.94 | 25.28 ± 3.48 | 25.21 ± 3.44 | 0.000 |
| Waistline (cm) | 87.24 ± 9.09 | 90.86 ± 8.58 | 83.96 ± 8.27 | 87.34 ± 9.15 | 86.94 ± 8.92 | 0.000 |
| SBP (mmHg) | 144.95 ± 20.05 | 147.56 ± 19.98 | 142.60 ± 19.85 | 144.4 ± 19.47 | 146.66 ± 21.69 | 0.000 |
| DBP (mmHg) | 80.26 ± 10.46 | 82.44 ± 10.42 | 78.29 ± 10.11 | 79.9 ± 10.32 | 81.37 ± 10.82 | 0.000 |
| FBG (mmol/L) | 7.77 ± 2.52 | 7.80 ± 2.35 | 7.75 ± 2.66 | 7.72 ± 2.42 | 7.94 ± 2.78 | 0.771 |
| PBG (mmol/L) | 12.32 ± 4.74 | 12.09 ± 4.49 | 12.53 ± 4.94 | 12.21 ± 4.55 | 12.68 ± 5.27 | 0.166 |
| HbA1c (%) | 7.15 ± 1.39 | 7.20 ± 1.33 | 7.10 ± 1.44 | 7.14 ± 1.37 | 7.17 ± 1.46 | 0.311 |
| TC (mmol/L) | 4.98 ± 1.11 | 5.07 ± 1.19 | 4.90 ± 1.02 | 4.98 ± 1.13 | 5.00 ± 1.05 | 0.030 |
| TG (mmol/L) | 1.92 ± 1.10 | 2.32 ± 1.26 | 1.55 ± 0.76 | 1.90 ± 1.11 | 1.97 ± 1.07 | 0.000 |
| LDL-C (mmol/L) | 1.62 ± 0.47 | 1.66 ± 0.50 | 1.59 ± 0.43 | 1.62 ± 0.48 | 1.64 ± 0.44 | 0.014 |
| HDL-C (mmol/L) | 1.60 ± 0.39 | 1.50 ± 0.33 | 1.69 ± 0.42 | 1.59 ± 0.39 | 1.62 ± 0.39 | 0.000 |
| BUN (mmol/L) | 5.55 ± 1.52 | 5.50 ± 1.51 | 5.60 ± 1.53 | 5.47 ± 1.50 | 5.80 ± 1.557 | 0.371 |
| SCR (μmoI/L) | 65.25 ± 18.36 | 64.53 ± 19.13 | 65.91 ± 17.62 | 65.51 ± 18.98 | 64.47 ± 16.337 | 0.269 |
| SUA (μmol/L) | 309.66 ± 79.31 | 328.51 ± 82.31 | 292.62 ± 72.47 | 307.88 ± 79.96 | 315.07 ± 77.22 | 0.000 |
| UCR (μmoI/L) | 9.02 ± 4.13 | 8.99 ± 4.10 | 9.04 ± 4.16 | 9.13 ± 4.15 | 8.65 ± 4.05 | 0.880 |
| UMA (mg/mmol) | 49.1 ± 72.92 | 57.29 ± 78.57 | 41.69 ± 66.62 | 48.39 ± 71.61 | 51.25 ± 76.89 | 0.002 |
| ACR | 55.81 ± 102.87 | 68.78 ± 122.88 | 44.08 ± 78.96 | 55.52 ± 103.25 | 56.69 ± 101.96 | 0.001 |
Values in table are presented as the mean with the standard deviation in parenthesis, unless indicated otherwise
BMI Body mass index, SBP/DBP systolic/diastolic blood pressure, FBG fasting blood glucose, PBG postprandial blood glucose, HbA1c hemoglobin A1c, TC total cholesterol, TG triglyceride, LDL-C low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, HDL-C high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, BUN blood urea nitrogen, SCR serum creatinine, SUA serum uric acid, UCR urinary creatinine, UMA urine microalbumin, ACR urine albumin:creatinine ratio
Fig. 2Variable selection by the LASSO binary logistic regression model. A coefficient profile plot was constructed against the log(lambda) sequence. a Ten variables with nonzero coefficients were selected by deriving the optimal lambda. b Following verification of the optimal parameter (lambda) in the LASSO model, we plotted the partial likelihood deviance (binomial deviance) curve versus log(lambda) and drew dotted vertical lines based on 1 standard error criteria. LASSO Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator
Logistic regression analysis of the predictors for the risk of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in patients with T2DM identified
| Intercept and variables | Estimate | Prediction model | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds ratio | Confidence interval (2.5%) | Confidence interval (97.5%) | ||||
| Intercept | − 7.350 | − 4.147 | < 0.001 | 0.000 | 1.865 | 0.020 |
| Sex | 0.902 | 4.279 | < 0.001 | 2.464 | 1.638 | 3.746 |
| Age | 0.058 | − 3.365 | < 0.001 | 0.944 | 9.123 | 0.976 |
| Course of disease | − 0.038 | − 2.281 | 0.022 | 0.963 | 9.314 | 0.994 |
| BMI | 0.216 | 4.610 | < 0.001 | 1.241 | 1.134 | 1.363 |
| Waistline | 0.041 | 2.398 | 0.016 | 1.042 | 1.008 | 1.077 |
| DBP | 0.023 | 2.468 | 0.014 | 1.024 | 1.005 | 1.044 |
| TG | 0.565 | 4.599 | < 0.001 | 1.760 | 1.397 | 2.260 |
| HDL-C | − 1.283 | − 4.322 | < 0.001 | 0.277 | 1.530 | 0.491 |
| SUA | 0.003 | 2.169 | 0.030 | 1.003 | 1.000 | 1.006 |
Fig. 3a Risk factors of sex, age, course of disease, BMI, waistline, DBP, TG,HDL and UA for nomogram prediction model. b Dynamic nomogram used as an example. The significance of the asterisks beside each variable in part b represent importance of all the risk factors
Fig. 4Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) validation of the NAFLD risk nomogram prediction. The y-axis represents the true positive rate of the risk prediction, the x-axis represents the false positive rate of the risk prediction. The thick blue line represents the performance of the nomogram in the training set (a) and validation set (b)
Fig. 5Calibration curves of the predictive NAFLD risk nomogram. The y-axis represents actual diagnosed cases of NAFLD, the x-axis represents the predicted risk of NAFLD. The diagonal dotted line represents a perfect prediction by an ideal model, the solid line represents the performance of the training set (a) and validation set (b), with the results indicating that a closer fit to the diagonal dotted line represents a better prediction
Fig. 6Decision curve analysis for the NAFLD risk nomogram. The y-axis measures the net benefit. The thick solid line represents the assumption that all patients have no NAFLD, the thin solid line represents the assumption that all patients have NAFLD, the dotted line represents the risk nomogram. a From the training set, b from the validation set
| The prevalence of diabetes in the Chinese adult population is estimated to be as high as 9.7%. |
| About one- to two-thirds of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) may develop non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), placing a serious economic burden on healthcare systems and posing health risks to individuals and society. |
| In this study, factors potentially influencing the development of NAFLD in T2DM were assessed by developing a nomogram risk predictive model, with the aim to identify important risk factors for the development of NAFLD in patients with T2DM. |
| The results showed that nine indicators, namely sex, age, total cholesterol, body mass index, waistline, diastolic blood pressure, serum uric acid, course of disease and high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, are effective risk predictors of NAFLD in T2DM. |
| The risk nomogram is useful for prediction of NAFLD risk in persons with T2DM, and the nomogram method can also be extrapolated to other complications and study-related risk factors. |
| The prediction model was established using LASSO regression, logistic regression and a newly developed risk nomogram. This nomogram of NAFLD was validated, and the results were also verified by external verification methods (including ROC, C-INDEX, DCA), with good results. |