Dataset Information

Racial Differences in the Performance of Existing Risk Prediction Models for Incident Type 2 Diabetes: The CARDIA Study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

In 2010, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) added hemoglobin A1c (A1C) to the guidelines for diagnosing type 2 diabetes. However, existing models for predicting diabetes risk were developed prior to the widespread adoption of A1C. Thus, it remains unknown how well existing diabetes risk prediction models predict incident diabetes defined according to the ADA 2010 guidelines. Accordingly, we examined the performance of an existing diabetes prediction model applied to a cohort of African American (AA) and white adults from the Coronary Artery Risk Development Study in Young Adults (CARDIA).

Research design and methods

We evaluated the performance of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) diabetes risk prediction model among 2,456 participants in CARDIA free of diabetes at the 2005-2006 exam and followed for 5 years. We evaluated model discrimination, calibration, and integrated discrimination improvement with incident diabetes defined by ADA 2010 guidelines before and after adding baseline A1C to the prediction model.

Results

In the overall cohort, re-estimating the ARIC model in the CARDIA cohort resulted in good discrimination for the prediction of 5-year diabetes risk (area under the curve [AUC] 0.841). Adding baseline A1C as a predictor improved discrimination (AUC 0.841 vs. 0.863, P = 0.03). In race-stratified analyses, model discrimination was significantly higher in whites than AA (AUC AA 0.816 vs. whites 0.902; P = 0.008).

Conclusions

Addition of A1C to the ARIC diabetes risk prediction model improved performance overall and in racial subgroups. However, for all models examined, discrimination was better in whites than AA. Additional studies are needed to further improve diabetes risk prediction among AA.

SUBMITTER: Lacy ME

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4722943 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Aims/hypothesisThe identification of people who are at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes is a key part of population-level prevention strategies. Previous studies have evaluated the predictive utility of omics measurements, such as metabolites, proteins or polygenic scores, but have considered these separately. The improvement that combined omics biomarkers can provide over and above current clinical standard models is unclear. The aim of this study was to test the predictive performance of genome, proteome, metabolome and clinical biomarkers when added to established clinical prediction models for type 2 diabetes.MethodsWe developed sparse interpretable prediction models in a prospective, nested type 2 diabetes case-cohort study (N=1105, incident type 2 diabetes cases=375) with 10,792 person-years of follow-up, selecting from 5759 features across the genome, proteome, metabolome and clinical biomarkers using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression. We compared the predictive performance of omics-derived predictors with a clinical model including the variables from the Cambridge Diabetes Risk Score and HbA1c.ResultsAmong single omics prediction models that did not include clinical risk factors, the top ten proteins alone achieved the highest performance (concordance index [C index]=0.82 [95% CI 0.75, 0.88]), suggesting the proteome as the most informative single omic layer in the absence of clinical information. However, the largest improvement in prediction of type 2 diabetes incidence over and above the clinical model was achieved by the top ten features across several omic layers (C index=0.87 [95% CI 0.82, 0.92], Δ C index=0.05, p=0.045). This improvement by the top ten omic features was also evident in individuals with HbA1c <42 mmol/mol (6.0%), the threshold for prediabetes (C index=0.84 [95% CI 0.77, 0.90], Δ C index=0.07, p=0.03), the group in whom prediction would be most useful since they are not targeted for preventative interventions by current clinical guidelines. In this subgroup, the type 2 diabetes polygenic risk score was the major contributor to the improvement in prediction, and achieved a comparable improvement in performance when added onto the clinical model alone (C index=0.83 [95% CI 0.75, 0.90], Δ C index=0.06, p=0.002). However, compared with those with prediabetes, individuals at high polygenic risk in this group had only around half the absolute risk for type 2 diabetes over a 20 year period.Conclusions/interpretationOmic approaches provided marginal improvements in prediction of incident type 2 diabetes. However, while a polygenic risk score does improve prediction in people with an HbA1c in the normoglycaemic range, the group in whom prediction would be most useful, even individuals with a high polygenic burden in that subgroup had a low absolute type 2 diabetes risk. This suggests a limited feasibility of implementing targeted population-based genetic screening for preventative interventions.

Project description:Prediction models for population-based screening need, for global usage, to be resource-driven, involving predictors that are affordably resourced. Here, we report the development and validation of three resource-driven risk models to identify people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) at risk of stage 3 CKD defined by a decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) to below 60 mL/min/1.73m2. The observational study cohort used for model development consisted of data from a primary care dataset of 20,510 multi-ethnic individuals with T2DM from London, UK (2007-2018). Discrimination and calibration of the resulting prediction models developed using cox regression were assessed using the c-statistic and calibration slope, respectively. Models were internally validated using tenfold cross-validation and externally validated on 13,346 primary care individuals from Wales, UK. The simplest model was simplified into a risk score to enable implementation in community-based medicine. The derived full model included demographic, laboratory parameters, medication-use, cardiovascular disease history (CVD) and sight threatening retinopathy status (STDR). Two less resource-intense models were developed by excluding CVD and STDR in the second model and HbA1c and HDL in the third model. All three 5-year risk models had good internal discrimination and calibration (optimism adjusted C-statistics were each 0.85 and calibration slopes 0.999-1.002). In Wales, models achieved excellent discrimination(c-statistics ranged 0.82-0.83). Calibration slopes at 5-years suggested models over-predicted risks, however were successfully updated to accommodate reduced incidence of stage 3 CKD in Wales, which improved their alignment with the observed rates in Wales (E/O ratios near to 1). The risk score demonstrated similar model performance compared to direct evaluation of the cox model. These resource-driven risk prediction models may enable universal screening for Stage 3 CKD to enable targeted early optimisation of risk factors for CKD.

Project description:ImportanceData are sparse regarding which blood pressure (BP) components in young adulthood optimally determine cardiovascular disease (CVD) by middle age.ObjectivesTo assess which BP components best determine incident CVD events in young adults and determine whether these associations vary by race and age at BP measurement.Design, setting, and participantsUsing data from the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study, this study assessed the longitudinal race-stratified associations between BP and cardiovascular outcomes. CARDIA is a community-based cohort that recruited black and white individuals (age range, 18-30 years) from March 26, 1985, through June 7, 1986. CARDIA followed up participants for up to 28 years, and 94% of the surviving cohort completed at least 1 telephone interview or examination from August 2009 through August 2014.ExposuresBlood pressures measubred at baseline (Y0) and 15 years later (Y15).Main outcomes and measuresComposite CVD events, including coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, and other vascular diseases.ResultsA total of 4880 participants participated in the study (mean [SD] age, 24.9 [3.6] years at Y0 and 25.0 [3.6] years at Y15; 2223 male [45.6%] at Y0 and 1800 [44.2%] at Y15; 2657 female [54.4%] at Y0 and 2277 [55.8%] at Y0; 2473 black individuals [50.7%] at Y0 and 1994 [48.9%] at Y15; and 2407 white individuals [49.3%] at Y0 and 2083 [51.1%] at Y15). The mean SBP/DBP was 112/69 mm Hg in blacks and 109/68 mm Hg in whites at Y0 and 117/77 mm Hg in blacks and 110/72 mm Hg in whites at Y15. During a 25-year follow-up from Y0, 210 CVD events occurred (twice as many events in blacks [n?=?140] compared with whites), of which 131 (87 in blacks) occurred after Y15. With adjustments for covariates, results from Cox proportional hazards models, including SBP and DBP, jointly suggested that, at Y0, SBP (hazard ratio [HR] per 1-SD increase, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.09-1.61) but not DBP (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.88-1.26) was associated with CVD risk in blacks, whereas DBP (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.21-2.50) but not SBP (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.57-1.18) was associated with CVD risk in whites. At Y15, SBP was the strongest indicator of CVD in blacks (HR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.25-2.16) and whites (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.02-2.69).Conclusions and relevanceThis study questions the classic view that DBP is more able to identify future CVD events than SBP in all individuals younger than 50 years. In young adulthood, SBP in black individuals and DBP in white individuals were the most robust indicators of future CVD. In middle-age, SBP in both races identified risk of incident CVD.

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify and assess the quality and accuracy of prognostic models for nephropathy and to validate these models in external cohorts of people with type 2 diabetes.DesignSystematic review and external validation.Data sourcesPubMed and Embase.Eligibility criteriaStudies describing the development of a model to predict the risk of nephropathy, applicable to people with type 2 diabetes.MethodsScreening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were done in duplicate. Eligible models were externally validated in the Hoorn Diabetes Care System (DCS) cohort (n=11 450) for the same outcomes for which they were developed. Risks of nephropathy were calculated and compared with observed risk over 2, 5, and 10 years of follow-up. Model performance was assessed based on intercept adjusted calibration and discrimination (Harrell's C statistic).Results41 studies included in the systematic review reported 64 models, 46 of which were developed in a population with diabetes and 18 in the general population including diabetes as a predictor. The predicted outcomes included albuminuria, diabetic kidney disease, chronic kidney disease (general population), and end stage renal disease. The reported apparent discrimination of the 46 models varied considerably across the different predicted outcomes, from 0.60 (95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.64) to 0.99 (not available) for the models developed in a diabetes population and from 0.59 (not available) to 0.96 (0.95 to 0.97) for the models developed in the general population. Calibration was reported in 31 of the 41 studies, and the models were generally well calibrated. 21 of the 64 retrieved models were externally validated in the Hoorn DCS cohort for predicting risk of albuminuria, diabetic kidney disease, and chronic kidney disease, with considerable variation in performance across prediction horizons and models. For all three outcomes, however, at least two models had C statistics >0.8, indicating excellent discrimination. In a secondary external validation in GoDARTS (Genetics of Diabetes Audit and Research in Tayside Scotland), models developed for diabetic kidney disease outperformed those for chronic kidney disease. Models were generally well calibrated across all three prediction horizons.ConclusionsThis study identified multiple prediction models to predict albuminuria, diabetic kidney disease, chronic kidney disease, and end stage renal disease. In the external validation, discrimination and calibration for albuminuria, diabetic kidney disease, and chronic kidney disease varied considerably across prediction horizons and models. For each outcome, however, specific models showed good discrimination and calibration across the three prediction horizons, with clinically accessible predictors, making them applicable in a clinical setting.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020192831.

Project description:BackgroundPeople with intermediate hyperglycemia (IH), including impaired fasting glucose and/or impaired glucose tolerance, are at higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D) than those with normoglycemia. We aimed to evaluate the performance of published T2D risk prediction models in Chinese people with IH to inform them about the choice of primary diabetes prevention measures.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted to identify Asian-derived T2D risk prediction models, which were eligible if they were built on a prospective cohort of Asian adults without diabetes at baseline and utilized routinely-available variables to predict future risk of T2D. These Asian-derived and five prespecified non-Asian derived T2D risk prediction models were divided into BASIC (clinical variables only) and EXTENDED (plus laboratory variables) versions, with validation performed on them in three prospective Chinese IH cohorts: ACE (n = 3241), Luzhou (n = 1333), and TCLSIH (n = 1702). Model performance was assessed in terms of discrimination (C-statistic) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test).ResultsForty-four Asian and five non-Asian studies comprising 21 BASIC and 46 EXTENDED T2D risk prediction models for validation were identified. The majority were at high (n = 43, 87.8%) or unclear (n = 3, 6.1%) risk of bias, while only three studies (6.1%) were scored at low risk of bias. BASIC models showed poor-to-moderate discrimination with C-statistics 0.52-0.60, 0.50-0.59, and 0.50-0.64 in the ACE, Luzhou, and TCLSIH cohorts respectively. EXTENDED models showed poor-to-acceptable discrimination with C-statistics 0.54-0.73, 0.52-0.67, and 0.59-0.78 respectively. Fifteen BASIC and 40 EXTENDED models showed poor calibration (P < 0.05), overpredicting or underestimating the observed diabetes risk. Most recalibrated models showed improved calibration but modestly-to-severely overestimated diabetes risk in the three cohorts. The NAVIGATOR model showed the best discrimination in the three cohorts but had poor calibration (P < 0.05).ConclusionsIn Chinese people with IH, previously published BASIC models to predict T2D did not exhibit good discrimination or calibration. Several EXTENDED models performed better, but a robust Chinese T2D risk prediction tool in people with IH remains a major unmet need.