| 1. |
- Chatterjee, Saion, et al.
(author)
-
Type 2 Diabetes as a Risk Factor for Dementia in Women Compared With Men: A Pooled Analysis of 2.3 Million People Comprising More Than 100,000 Cases of Dementia
- 2016
-
In: Diabetes Care. - : American Diabetes Association. - 0149-5992 .- 1935-5548. ; 39:2, s. 300-307
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- OBJECTIVE Type 2 diabetes confers a greater excess risk of cardiovascular disease in women than in men. Diabetes is also a risk factor for dementia, but whether the association is similar in women and men remains unknown. We performed a meta-analysis of unpublished data to estimate the sex-specific relationship between women and men with diabetes with incident dementia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A systematic search identified studies published prior to November 2014 that had reported on the prospective association between diabetes and dementia. Study authors contributed unpublished sex-specific relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs on the association between diabetes and all dementia and its subtypes. Sex-specific RRs and the women-to-men ratio of RRs (RRRs) were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS Study-level data from 14 studies, 2,310,330 individuals, and 102,174 dementia case patients were included. In multiple-adjusted analyses, diabetes was associated with a 60% increased risk of any dementia in both sexes (women: pooled RR 1.62 [95% CI 1.45–1.80]; men: pooled RR 1.58 [95% CI 1.38–1.81]). The diabetes-associated RRs for vascular dementia were 2.34 (95% CI 1.86–2.94) in women and 1.73 (95% CI 1.61–1.85) in men, and for nonvascular dementia the RRs were 1.53 (95% CI 1.35–1.73) in women and 1.49 (95% CI 1.31–1.69) in men. Overall, women with diabetes had a 19% greater risk for the development of vascular dementia than men (multiple-adjusted RRR 1.19 [95% CI 1.08–1.30]; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Individuals with type 2 diabetes are at ∼60% greater risk for the development of dementia compared with those without diabetes. For vascular dementia, but not for nonvascular dementia, the additional risk is greater in women.
|
|
| 2. |
- Danaei, Goodarz, et al.
(author)
-
Effects of diabetes definition on global surveillance of diabetes prevalence and diagnosis: a pooled analysis of 96 population-based studies with 331288 participants
- 2015
-
In: The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. - 2213-8595 .- 2213-8587. ; 3:8, s. 624-637
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background Diabetes has been defined on the basis of different biomarkers, including fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2-h plasma glucose in an oral glucose tolerance test (2hOGTT), and HbA(1c). We assessed the effect of different diagnostic definitions on both the population prevalence of diabetes and the classification of previously undiagnosed individuals as having diabetes versus not having diabetes in a pooled analysis of data from population-based health examination surveys in different regions. Methods We used data from 96 population-based health examination surveys that had measured at least two of the biomarkers used for defining diabetes. Diabetes was defined using HbA(1c) (HbA(1c) >= 6 . 5% or history of diabetes diagnosis or using insulin or oral hypoglycaemic drugs) compared with either FPG only or FPG-or-2hOGTT definitions (FPG >= 7 . 0 mmol/L or 2hOGTT >= 11 . 1 mmol/L or history of diabetes or using insulin or oral hypoglycaemic drugs). We calculated diabetes prevalence, taking into account complex survey design and survey sample weights. We compared the prevalences of diabetes using different definitions graphically and by regression analyses. We calculated sensitivity and specificity of diabetes diagnosis based on HbA1c compared with diagnosis based on glucose among previously undiagnosed individuals (ie, excluding those with history of diabetes or using insulin or oral hypoglycaemic drugs). We calculated sensitivity and specificity in each survey, and then pooled results using a random-effects model. We assessed the sources of heterogeneity of sensitivity by meta-regressions for study characteristics selected a priori. Findings Population prevalence of diabetes based on FPG- or-2hOGTT was correlated with prevalence based on FPG alone (r= 0 . 98), but was higher by 2-6 percentage points at different prevalence levels. Prevalence based on HbA(1c) was lower than prevalence based on FPG in 42 . 8% of age-sex-survey groups and higher in another 41 . 6%; in the other 15 . 6%, the two definitions provided similar prevalence estimates. The variation across studies in the relation between glucose-based and HbA(1c)-based prevalences was partly related to participants' age, followed by natural logarithm of per person gross domestic product, the year of survey, mean BMI, and whether the survey population was national, subnational, or from specific communities. Diabetes defined as HbA(1c) 6 . 5% or more had a pooled sensitivity of 52 . 8% (95% CI 51 . 3-54 . 3%) and a pooled specificity of 99 . 74% (99 . 71-99 . 78%) compared with FPG 7 . 0 mmol/L or more for diagnosing previously undiagnosed participants; sensitivity compared with diabetes defined based on FPG-or-2hOGTT was 30 . 5% (28 . 7-32 . 3%). None of the preselected study-level characteristics explained the heterogeneity in the sensitivity of HbA(1c) versus FPG. Interpretation Different biomarkers and definitions for diabetes can provide different estimates of population prevalence of diabetes, and differentially identify people without previous diagnosis as having diabetes. Using an HbA(1c)-based definition alone in health surveys will not identify a substantial proportion of previously undiagnosed people who would be considered as having diabetes using a glucose-based test.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Pennells, Lisa, et al.
(author)
-
Equalization of four cardiovascular risk algorithms after systematic recalibration : individual-participant meta-analysis of 86 prospective studies
- 2019
-
In: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 40:7, s. 621-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Aims: There is debate about the optimum algorithm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimation. We conducted head-to-head comparisons of four algorithms recommended by primary prevention guidelines, before and after ‘recalibration’, a method that adapts risk algorithms to take account of differences in the risk characteristics of the populations being studied.Methods and results: Using individual-participant data on 360 737 participants without CVD at baseline in 86 prospective studies from 22 countries, we compared the Framingham risk score (FRS), Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE), pooled cohort equations (PCE), and Reynolds risk score (RRS). We calculated measures of risk discrimination and calibration, and modelled clinical implications of initiating statin therapy in people judged to be at ‘high’ 10 year CVD risk. Original risk algorithms were recalibrated using the risk factor profile and CVD incidence of target populations. The four algorithms had similar risk discrimination. Before recalibration, FRS, SCORE, and PCE over-predicted CVD risk on average by 10%, 52%, and 41%, respectively, whereas RRS under-predicted by 10%. Original versions of algorithms classified 29–39% of individuals aged ≥40 years as high risk. By contrast, recalibration reduced this proportion to 22–24% for every algorithm. We estimated that to prevent one CVD event, it would be necessary to initiate statin therapy in 44–51 such individuals using original algorithms, in contrast to 37–39 individuals with recalibrated algorithms.Conclusion: Before recalibration, the clinical performance of four widely used CVD risk algorithms varied substantially. By contrast, simple recalibration nearly equalized their performance and improved modelled targeting of preventive action to clinical need.
|
|
| 5. |
- Wormser, David, et al.
(author)
-
Adult height and the risk of cause-specific death and vascular morbidity in 1 million people : individual participant meta-analysis
- 2012
-
In: International Journal of Epidemiology. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0300-5771 .- 1464-3685. ; 41:5, s. 1419-1433
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BackgroundThe extent to which adult height, a biomarker of the interplay of genetic endowment and early-life experiences, is related to risk of chronic diseases in adulthood is uncertain.MethodsWe calculated hazard ratios (HRs) for height, assessed in increments of 6.5 cm, using individual-participant data on 174 374 deaths or major non-fatal vascular outcomes recorded among 1 085 949 people in 121 prospective studies.ResultsFor people born between 1900 and 1960, mean adult height increased 0.5-1 cm with each successive decade of birth. After adjustment for age, sex, smoking and year of birth, HRs per 6.5 cm greater height were 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.96-0.99) for death from any cause, 0.94 (0.93-0.96) for death from vascular causes, 1.04 (1.03-1.06) for death from cancer and 0.92 (0.90-0.94) for death from other causes. Height was negatively associated with death from coronary disease, stroke subtypes, heart failure, stomach and oral cancers, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, mental disorders, liver disease and external causes. In contrast, height was positively associated with death from ruptured aortic aneurysm, pulmonary embolism, melanoma and cancers of the pancreas, endocrine and nervous systems, ovary, breast, prostate, colorectum, blood and lung. HRs per 6.5 cm greater height ranged from 1.26 (1.12-1.42) for risk of melanoma death to 0.84 (0.80-0.89) for risk of death from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. HRs were not appreciably altered after further adjustment for adiposity, blood pressure, lipids, inflammation biomarkers, diabetes mellitus, alcohol consumption or socio-economic indicators.ConclusionAdult height has directionally opposing relationships with risk of death from several different major causes of chronic diseases.
|
|
