Dataset Information

Prediction Models for Type 2 Diabetes Risk in the General Population: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

This study aimed to provide an overview of prediction models of undiagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (U-T2DM) or the incident T2DM (I-T2DM) using the transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) checklist and the prediction model risk of the bias assessment tool (PROBAST).

Data sources

Both PUBMED and EMBASE databases were searched to guarantee adequate and efficient coverage.

Study selection

Articles published between December 2011 and October 2019 were considered.

Data extraction

For each article, information on model development requirements, discrimination measures, calibration, overall performance, clinical usefulness, overfitting, and risk of bias (ROB) was reported.

Results

The median (interquartile range; IQR) number of the 46 study populations for model development was 5711 (1971 - 27426) and 2457 (2060 - 6995) individuals for I-T2DM and U-T2DM, respectively. The most common reported predictors were age and body mass index, and only the Qrisk-2017 study included social factors (e.g., Townsend score). Univariable analysis was reported in 46% of the studies, and the variable selection procedure was not clear in 17.4% of them. Moreover, internal and external validation was reported in 43% the studies, while over 63% of them reported calibration. The median (IQR) of AUC for I-T2DM models was 0.78 (0.74 - 0.82); the corresponding value for studies derived before October 2011 was 0.80 (0.77 - 0.83). The highest discrimination index was reported for Qrisk-2017 with C-statistics of 0.89 for women and 0.87 for men. Low ROB for I-T2DM and U-T2DM was assessed at 18% and 41%, respectively.

Conclusions

Among prediction models, an intermediate to poor quality was reassessed in several aspects of model development and validation. Generally, despite its new risk factors or new methodological aspects, the newly developed model did not increase our capability in screening/predicting T2DM, mainly in the analysis part. It was due to the lack of external validation of the prediction models.

SUBMITTER: Asgari S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8453657 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective To provide an overview of prediction models for risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the general population.Design Systematic review.Data sources Medline and Embase until June 2013.Eligibility criteria for study selection Studies describing the development or external validation of a multivariable model for predicting CVD risk in the general population.Results 9965 references were screened, of which 212 articles were included in the review, describing the development of 363 prediction models and 473 external validations. Most models were developed in Europe (n=167, 46%), predicted risk of fatal or non-fatal coronary heart disease (n=118, 33%) over a 10 year period (n=209, 58%). The most common predictors were smoking (n=325, 90%) and age (n=321, 88%), and most models were sex specific (n=250, 69%). Substantial heterogeneity in predictor and outcome definitions was observed between models, and important clinical and methodological information were often missing. The prediction horizon was not specified for 49 models (13%), and for 92 (25%) crucial information was missing to enable the model to be used for individual risk prediction. Only 132 developed models (36%) were externally validated and only 70 (19%) by independent investigators. Model performance was heterogeneous and measures such as discrimination and calibration were reported for only 65% and 58% of the external validations, respectively.Conclusions There is an excess of models predicting incident CVD in the general population. The usefulness of most of the models remains unclear owing to methodological shortcomings, incomplete presentation, and lack of external validation and model impact studies. Rather than developing yet another similar CVD risk prediction model, in this era of large datasets, future research should focus on externally validating and comparing head-to-head promising CVD risk models that already exist, on tailoring or even combining these models to local settings, and investigating whether these models can be extended by addition of new predictors.

Project description:BackgroundThe prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has increased worldwide, including in Saudi Arabia.ObjectiveTo systematically review the available literature and assess the pooled prevalence of T2DM in Saudi Arabia between 2000 and 2020.MethodsObservational studies that reported quantitative estimates of the prevalence of T2DM as their main outcome, included the general population of Saudi Arabia, and were published between 2000-2020 and in English were retrieved using three electronic databases (namely, CINAHL, Medline via PubMed, and Web of Science). Retrieved studies were screened, and relevant data were extracted. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal guideline was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. A random-effects model was used to estimate the prevalence of T2DM.ResultsTwenty-three studies were included in the systematic review, of which 19 were included in the meta-analysis (total pooled population: 258,283). The overall pooled prevalence of T2DM in Saudi Arabia was 16.4% (95% CI: 11.6-17.5). However, there was heterogeneity in the results of the studies [I2 = 99.31%, P < 0.0001] and the summary values varied from 3.18% (95% CI: 1.46-5.95) to 94.34% (95% CI: 89.53-97.38). Although the prevalence of T2DM by age varied across studies, in most studies, it was higher among the older age groups. In addition, the prevalence of diabetes widely varied across the different geographical regions of Saudi Arabia.ConclusionsThis is the first meta-analysis that determined the pooled prevalence of T2DM in Saudi Arabia, and it revealed a high prevalence over the past two decades. However, owing to data collection inconsistencies in the identified studies, neither the modifiable (such as obesity, educational status, emotional support, etc.) nor the non-modifiable (such as gender and age) risk factors of T2DM could be determined, thereby indicating the need for a nationally collective effort in determining these factors.

Project description:BackgroundEfficacy of statins has been extensively studied, with much less information reported on their unintended effects. Evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on unintended effects is often insufficient to support hypotheses generated from observational studies. We aimed to systematically assess unintended effects of statins from observational studies in general populations with comparison of the findings where possible with those derived from randomized trials.MethodsMedline (1998 to January 2012, week 3) and Embase (1998 to 2012, week 6) were searched using the standard BMJ Cohort studies filter. The search was supplemented with reference lists of all identified studies and contact with experts in the field. We included prospective studies with a sample size larger than 1,000 participants, case control (of any size) and routine health service linkage studies of over at least one year duration. Studies in subgroups of patients or follow-up of patient case series were excluded, as well as hospital-based cohort studies.ResultsNinety studies were identified, reporting on 48 different unintended effects. Statins were associated with lower risks of dementia and cognitive impairment, venous thrombo-embolism, fractures and pneumonia, but these findings were attenuated in analyses restricted to higher quality studies (respectively: OR 0.74 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.87); OR 0.92 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.03); OR 0.97 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.05); OR 0.92 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.02)); and marked heterogeneity of effects across studies remained. Statin use was not related to any increased risk of depression, common eye diseases, renal disorders or arthritis. There was evidence of an increased risk of myopathy, raised liver enzymes and diabetes (respectively: OR 2.63 (95% CI 1.50 to 4.61); OR 1.54 (95% CI 1.47 to 1.62); OR 1.31 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.73)).ConclusionsOur systematic review and meta-analyses indicate that high quality observational data can provide relevant evidence on unintended effects of statins to add to the evidence from RCTs. The absolute excess risk of the observed harmful unintended effects of statins is very small compared to the beneficial effects of statins on major cardiovascular events.

Project description:IntroductionSodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) are licensed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and more recently for heart failure with or without diabetes. They have been shown to be safe (from the cardiovascular (CV) perspective) and effective (in terms of glycaemia, and in some cases, in reducing CV events) in extensive randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, there remain concerns regarding the generalisability of these findings (to those ineligible for RCT participation) and about non-CV safety. For effectiveness, population-based pharmacoepidemiology studies can confirm and extend the findings of RCTs to broader populations and explore safety, for which RCTs are not usually powered, in more detail.MethodsA pre-planned and registered ((International PROSPEctive Register Of Systematic Reviews) PROSPERO registration CRD42019160792) systematic review of population-based studies investigating SGLT2i effectiveness and safety, following Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines was conducted.ResultsA total of 37 studies were identified (total n = 1,300,184 adults; total follow-up 910,577 person-years; exposures: SGLT2i class, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin) exploring CV disease (CVD) outcomes, acute kidney injury (AKI), lower limb amputation (LLA), diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), bone fracture, urinary tract infection (UTI), genital mycotic infection (GMI), hypoglycaemia, pancreatitis and venous thromboembolism. For CV and mortality outcomes, studies confirmed the associated safety of these drugs and correlated closely with the findings from RCTs, which may extend to primary CVD prevention (major adverse cardiovascular events point estimate range (PER) hazard ratio (HR) 0.78-0.94; hospitalised heart failure PER HR 0.48-0.79). For safety outcomes, SGLT2i exposure was not associated with an increased risk of AKI (PER HR 0.40-0.96), fractures (PER HR 0.87-1.11), hypoglycaemia (PER HR 0.76-2.49) or UTI (PER HR 0.72-0.98). There was a signal for increased association for GMIs (PER HR 2.08-3.15), and possibly for LLA (PER HR 0.74-2.79) and DKA (PER HR 0.96-2.14), but with considerable uncertainty.ConclusionIn T2D, SGLT2is appear safe from the CV perspective and may have associated benefit in primary as well as secondary CVD prevention. For safety, they may be associated with an increased risk of GMI, LLA and DKA, although longer follow-up studies are needed.

Project description:IntroductionGlucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1RAs) are licensed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). They have been shown to be safe (from the cardiovascular (CV) perspective) and effective (in terms of glycaemia, and in some cases, reducing CV events) in extensive randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, there remain concerns regarding the generalisability of these findings (to those ineligible for RCT participation) and about non-CV safety. For effectiveness, population-based pharmacoepidemiology studies can confirm and extend the findings of RCTs findings to broader populations and explore safety, for which RCTs are not usually powered, in more detail.MethodWe did a pre-planned and registered (PROSPERO registration CRD42020165720) systematic review of population-based studies investigating GLP1RA effectiveness and safety, following Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines.ResultsA total of 22 studies were identified (including 200,148 participants and 396,457 person-years of follow-up) exploring exposure to GLP1RA class, exenatide and liraglutide (the only individual drugs with treatment effect estimates identified) on mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD), acute pancreatitis (AP), pancreatic cancer (PC), thyroid cancer (TC), acute renal failure (ARF), diabetic retinopathy (DR), breast cancer (BC) and hypoglycaemia. For CV and mortality outcomes, studies confirmed the associated safety of these drugs. For liraglutide, point estimate (PE) range (PER) major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (0.53-0.95) and PER heart failure (0.34-1.22) were similar in direction to the beneficial effect observed in RCTs for MACE but varied widely for heart failure. For safety outcomes, exposure was not associated with AP (PER 0.50-1.17), PC (PER 0.40-1.54), BC (PER 0.90-1.51) or hypoglycaemia (PER 0.59-1.06). Only one study was identified exploring each of TC (no evidence of association, hazard ratio (HR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98-2.19), renal outcomes (no evidence of association, HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.42-1.41) and DR (no evidence of association, HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.51-0.90).ConclusionIn T2D, GLP1RAs appear safe from the CV perspective and (for liraglutide) may have associated benefit in primary as well as secondary CVD prevention. For non-CV safety, GLP1RA exposure was not associated with an increased risk of AP, PC, BC or hypoglycaemia; the other outcomes had too few studies to draw firm conclusions and should be explored further.

Project description:Evidence of gut microbiota involvement in regulating glucose metabolism and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) progression is accumulating. The understanding of microbial dysbiosis and specific alterations of gut microbiota composition that occur during the early stages of glucose intolerance, unperturbed by anti-diabetic medications, is especially essential. Hence, this systematic review was conducted to summarise the existing evidence related to microbiota composition and diversity in individuals with prediabetes (preDM) and individuals newly diagnosed with T2DM (newDM) in comparison to individuals with normal glucose tolerance (nonDM). A systematic search of the PubMed, MEDLINE and CINAHL databases were conducted from inception to February 2021 supplemented with manual searches of the list of references. The primary keywords of "type 2 diabetes", "prediabetes", "newly-diagnosed" and "gut microbiota" were used. Observational studies that conducted analysis of the gut microbiota of respondents with preDM and newDM were included. The quality of the studies was assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale by independent reviewers. A total of 18 studies (5,489 participants) were included. Low gut microbial diversity was generally observed in preDM and newDM when compared to nonDM. Differences in gut microbiota composition between the disease groups and nonDM were inconsistent across the included studies. Four out of the 18 studies found increased abundance of phylum Firmicutes along with decreased abundance of Bacteroidetes in newDM. At the genus/species levels, decreased abundance of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, Roseburia, Dialister, Flavonifractor, Alistipes, Haemophilus and Akkermansia muciniphila and increased abundance of Lactobacillus, Streptococcus, Escherichia, Veillonella and Collinsella were observed in the disease groups in at least two studies. Lactobacillus was also found to positively correlate with fasting plasma glucose (FPG), HbA1c and/or homeostatic assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) in four studies. This renders a need for further investigations on the species/strain-specific role of endogenously present Lactobacillus in glucose regulation mechanism and T2DM disease progression. Differences in dietary intake caused significant variation in specific bacterial abundances. More studies are needed to establish more consistent associations, between clinical biomarkers or dietary intake and specific gut bacterial composition in prediabetes and early T2DM.