Dataset Information

Identification of two novel subgroups in patients with diabetes mellitus and their association with clinical outcomes: A two-step cluster analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Aims/introduction

The aim of this study was to determine whether distinct subphenotypes of patients with type 2 diabetes in the European classification exist in Chinese populations, and to further establish novel subphenotypes more suitable for Chinese populations.

Material and methods

The research retrospectively analyzed 5414 patients with type 2 diabetes from the National Clinical Research Center for Metabolic Diseases Diabetes Center in China, and a two-step cluster analysis was carried out. First, we confirmed the European classification in Chinese populations by six parameters, including age at disease onset, body mass index, glycosylated hemoglobin, homeostatic model assessment 2 to estimate β-cell function and insulin resistance, and glutamate decarboxylase antibodies. Furthermore, triglycerides and uric acid were added to refine the cluster analysis, and Cox regression was used to evaluate the risk of diabetic complications.

Results

Just three clusters were replicated in our cohort according to Emma Ahlqvist's European classification. When other variables were added to the cluster analysis, seven subgroups were identified, including five clusters of the European classification and two novel subgroups, namely, uric acid-related diabetes and inheritance-related diabetes. Compared with patients with inheritance-related diabetes, patients with severe insulin-resistant diabetes showed a higher risk of diabetic peripheral neuropathy, hypertension and chronic kidney disease, and the uric acid-related diabetes subgroup showed a higher risk of coronary heart disease, cerebral vascular disease and end-stage renal disease. Patients with severe insulin-deficient diabetes showed a higher risk of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic foot than those with inheritance-related diabetes. Furthermore, there were sex-specific associations between subgroups and clinical outcomes. No significant difference was observed in the prevalence of cancer in each subgroup.

Conclusions

Seven subgroups of type 2 diabetes were identified in Chinese populations, with distinct characteristics and disparate clinical outcomes. This etiology-based stratification might contribute to the diagnosis and management of type 2 diabetes.

SUBMITTER: Xiong XF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8354513 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Aims/hypothesisGestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a heterogeneous condition. Given such variability among patients, the ability to recognise distinct GDM subgroups using routine clinical variables may guide more personalised treatments. Our main aim was to identify distinct GDM subtypes through cluster analysis using routine clinical variables, and analyse treatment needs and pregnancy outcomes across these subgroups.MethodsIn this cohort study, we analysed datasets from a total of 2682 women with GDM treated at two central European hospitals (1865 participants from Charité University Hospital in Berlin and 817 participants from the Medical University of Vienna), collected between 2015 and 2022. We evaluated various clustering models, including k-means, k-medoids and agglomerative hierarchical clustering. Internal validation techniques were used to guide best model selection, while external validation on independent test sets was used to assess model generalisability. Clinical outcomes such as specific treatment needs and maternal and fetal complications were analysed across the identified clusters.ResultsOur optimal model identified three clusters from routinely available variables, i.e. maternal age, pre-pregnancy BMI (BMIPG) and glucose levels at fasting and 60 and 120 min after the diagnostic OGTT (OGTT0, OGTT60 and OGTT120, respectively). Cluster 1 was characterised by the highest OGTT values and obesity prevalence. Cluster 2 displayed intermediate BMIPG and elevated OGTT0, while cluster 3 consisted mainly of participants with normal BMIPG and high values for OGTT60 and OGTT120. Treatment modalities and clinical outcomes varied among clusters. In particular, cluster 1 participants showed a much higher need for glucose-lowering medications (39.6% of participants, compared with 12.9% and 10.0% in clusters 2 and 3, respectively, p<0.0001). Cluster 1 participants were also at higher risk of delivering large-for-gestational-age infants. Differences in the type of insulin-based treatment between cluster 2 and cluster 3 were observed in the external validation cohort.Conclusions/interpretationOur findings confirm the heterogeneity of GDM. The identification of subgroups (clusters) has the potential to help clinicians define more tailored treatment approaches for improved maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Project description:Objectives There is considerable worldwide controversy regarding optimal screening and diagnostic approaches for GDM. This study aimed to compare the prevalence, maternal and neonatal outcomes of a One-step with a Two-step approach for the screening and diagnosis of GDM in a large community sample of pregnant women. Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized community non-inferiority trial of GDM screening in Iran. For the current study, all pregnant women who met the inclusion criteria were randomized into two groups for GDM screening. The first group of women (n = 14611) was screened by a One-step screening approach [75-g 2-h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT)] and the second group (n = 14160) by a Two-step method (the 50-g glucose challenge test followed by the 100-g OGTT). All study participants were followed up until delivery, and the adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes were recorded in detail. Results GDM was diagnosed in 9.3% of the pregnant women who were assigned to the One-step and in 5.4% of those assigned to the Two-step approach with a statistically significant difference between them (p < 0.001). Intention-to-treat analyses showed no significant differences between the One-step and the Two-step group in the unadjusted risks of the adverse pregnancy outcomes of macrosomia, primary cesarean-section, preterm birth, hypoglycemia, hypocalcemia, hyperbilirubinemia, preeclampsia, neonatal intensive care unit admission, birth trauma, low birth weight, and intrauterine fetal death. Results remained unchanged after adjustment for potential confounder variables including gestational age at enrollment and delivery, maternal body mass index, gestational weight gain, type of delivery, treatment modality, and GDM diagnosis in the first trimester. Conclusion We found that although the rates of GDM more than doubled with the One-step strategy, the One-step approach was similar to the Two-step approach in terms of maternal and neonatal outcomes. These findings may warn that more caution should be exercised in adopting the One-step method worldwide. Future research is needed to assess the long-term harm and benefits of those approaches to GDM screening for both mothers and their offspring. Clinical trial registration https://www.irct.ir/trial/518, identifier (IRCT138707081281N1).