Cargando…

Comparison of Accuracy of Diabetes Risk Score and Components of the Metabolic Syndrome in Assessing Risk of Incident Type 2 Diabetes in Inter99 Cohort

BACKGROUND: Given the increasing worldwide incidence of diabetes, methods to assess diabetes risk which would identify those at highest risk are needed. We compared two risk-stratification approaches for incident type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM); factors of metabolic syndrome (MetS) and a previously...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shafizadeh, Tracy B., Moler, Edward J., Kolberg, Janice A., Nguyen, Uyen Thao, Hansen, Torben, Jorgensen, Torben, Pedersen, Oluf, Borch-Johnsen, Knut
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3146499/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21829540
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022863
_version_ 1782209222514049024
author Shafizadeh, Tracy B.
Moler, Edward J.
Kolberg, Janice A.
Nguyen, Uyen Thao
Hansen, Torben
Jorgensen, Torben
Pedersen, Oluf
Borch-Johnsen, Knut
author_facet Shafizadeh, Tracy B.
Moler, Edward J.
Kolberg, Janice A.
Nguyen, Uyen Thao
Hansen, Torben
Jorgensen, Torben
Pedersen, Oluf
Borch-Johnsen, Knut
author_sort Shafizadeh, Tracy B.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Given the increasing worldwide incidence of diabetes, methods to assess diabetes risk which would identify those at highest risk are needed. We compared two risk-stratification approaches for incident type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM); factors of metabolic syndrome (MetS) and a previously developed diabetes risk score, PreDx® Diabetes Risk Score (DRS). DRS assesses 5 yr risk of incident T2DM based on the measurement of 7 biomarkers in fasting blood. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: DRS was evaluated in baseline serum samples from 4,128 non-diabetic subjects in the Inter99 cohort (Danes aged 30–60) for whom diabetes outcomes at 5 years were known. Subjects were classified as having MetS based on the presence of at least 3 MetS risk factors in baseline clinical data. The sensitivity and false positive rate for predicting diabetes using MetS was compared to DRS. When the sensitivity was fixed to match MetS, DRS had a significantly lower false positive rate. Similarly, when the false positive rate was fixed to match MetS, DRS had a significantly higher specificity. In further analyses, subjects were classified by presence of 0–2, 3 or 4–5 risk factors with matching proportions of subjects distributed among three DRS groups. Comparison between the two risk stratification schemes, MetS risk factors and DRS, were evaluated using Net Reclassification Improvement (NRI). Comparing risk stratification by DRS to MetS factors in the total population, the NRI was 0.146 (p = 0.008) demonstrating DRS provides significantly improved stratification. Additionally, the relative risk of T2DM differed by 15 fold between the low and high DRS risk groups, but only 8-fold between the low and high risk MetS groups. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: DRS provides a more accurate assessment of risk for diabetes than MetS. This improved performance may allow clinicians to focus preventive strategies on those most in need of urgent intervention.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3146499
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31464992011-08-09 Comparison of Accuracy of Diabetes Risk Score and Components of the Metabolic Syndrome in Assessing Risk of Incident Type 2 Diabetes in Inter99 Cohort Shafizadeh, Tracy B. Moler, Edward J. Kolberg, Janice A. Nguyen, Uyen Thao Hansen, Torben Jorgensen, Torben Pedersen, Oluf Borch-Johnsen, Knut PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Given the increasing worldwide incidence of diabetes, methods to assess diabetes risk which would identify those at highest risk are needed. We compared two risk-stratification approaches for incident type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM); factors of metabolic syndrome (MetS) and a previously developed diabetes risk score, PreDx® Diabetes Risk Score (DRS). DRS assesses 5 yr risk of incident T2DM based on the measurement of 7 biomarkers in fasting blood. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: DRS was evaluated in baseline serum samples from 4,128 non-diabetic subjects in the Inter99 cohort (Danes aged 30–60) for whom diabetes outcomes at 5 years were known. Subjects were classified as having MetS based on the presence of at least 3 MetS risk factors in baseline clinical data. The sensitivity and false positive rate for predicting diabetes using MetS was compared to DRS. When the sensitivity was fixed to match MetS, DRS had a significantly lower false positive rate. Similarly, when the false positive rate was fixed to match MetS, DRS had a significantly higher specificity. In further analyses, subjects were classified by presence of 0–2, 3 or 4–5 risk factors with matching proportions of subjects distributed among three DRS groups. Comparison between the two risk stratification schemes, MetS risk factors and DRS, were evaluated using Net Reclassification Improvement (NRI). Comparing risk stratification by DRS to MetS factors in the total population, the NRI was 0.146 (p = 0.008) demonstrating DRS provides significantly improved stratification. Additionally, the relative risk of T2DM differed by 15 fold between the low and high DRS risk groups, but only 8-fold between the low and high risk MetS groups. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: DRS provides a more accurate assessment of risk for diabetes than MetS. This improved performance may allow clinicians to focus preventive strategies on those most in need of urgent intervention. Public Library of Science 2011-07-29 /pmc/articles/PMC3146499/ /pubmed/21829540 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022863 Text en Shafizadeh et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Shafizadeh, Tracy B.
Moler, Edward J.
Kolberg, Janice A.
Nguyen, Uyen Thao
Hansen, Torben
Jorgensen, Torben
Pedersen, Oluf
Borch-Johnsen, Knut
Comparison of Accuracy of Diabetes Risk Score and Components of the Metabolic Syndrome in Assessing Risk of Incident Type 2 Diabetes in Inter99 Cohort
title Comparison of Accuracy of Diabetes Risk Score and Components of the Metabolic Syndrome in Assessing Risk of Incident Type 2 Diabetes in Inter99 Cohort
title_full Comparison of Accuracy of Diabetes Risk Score and Components of the Metabolic Syndrome in Assessing Risk of Incident Type 2 Diabetes in Inter99 Cohort
title_fullStr Comparison of Accuracy of Diabetes Risk Score and Components of the Metabolic Syndrome in Assessing Risk of Incident Type 2 Diabetes in Inter99 Cohort
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Accuracy of Diabetes Risk Score and Components of the Metabolic Syndrome in Assessing Risk of Incident Type 2 Diabetes in Inter99 Cohort
title_short Comparison of Accuracy of Diabetes Risk Score and Components of the Metabolic Syndrome in Assessing Risk of Incident Type 2 Diabetes in Inter99 Cohort
title_sort comparison of accuracy of diabetes risk score and components of the metabolic syndrome in assessing risk of incident type 2 diabetes in inter99 cohort
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3146499/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21829540
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022863
work_keys_str_mv AT shafizadehtracyb comparisonofaccuracyofdiabetesriskscoreandcomponentsofthemetabolicsyndromeinassessingriskofincidenttype2diabetesininter99cohort
AT moleredwardj comparisonofaccuracyofdiabetesriskscoreandcomponentsofthemetabolicsyndromeinassessingriskofincidenttype2diabetesininter99cohort
AT kolbergjanicea comparisonofaccuracyofdiabetesriskscoreandcomponentsofthemetabolicsyndromeinassessingriskofincidenttype2diabetesininter99cohort
AT nguyenuyenthao comparisonofaccuracyofdiabetesriskscoreandcomponentsofthemetabolicsyndromeinassessingriskofincidenttype2diabetesininter99cohort
AT hansentorben comparisonofaccuracyofdiabetesriskscoreandcomponentsofthemetabolicsyndromeinassessingriskofincidenttype2diabetesininter99cohort
AT jorgensentorben comparisonofaccuracyofdiabetesriskscoreandcomponentsofthemetabolicsyndromeinassessingriskofincidenttype2diabetesininter99cohort
AT pedersenoluf comparisonofaccuracyofdiabetesriskscoreandcomponentsofthemetabolicsyndromeinassessingriskofincidenttype2diabetesininter99cohort
AT borchjohnsenknut comparisonofaccuracyofdiabetesriskscoreandcomponentsofthemetabolicsyndromeinassessingriskofincidenttype2diabetesininter99cohort