4.7 Article

Prediction of type 2 diabetes in women with a history of gestational diabetes using a genetic risk score

期刊

DIABETOLOGIA
卷 56, 期 12, 页码 2556-2563

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00125-013-3059-x

关键词

Genetic risk score; Gestational diabetes; Risk prediction; Type 2 diabetes

资金

  1. National Project for Personalized Genomic Medicine
  2. Korea Healthcare Technology R & D Project, Ministry for Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are at increased risk of future development of type 2 diabetes. Recently, over 65 genetic variants have been confirmed to be associated with diabetes. We investigated whether this genetic information could improve the prediction of future diabetes in women with GDM. This was a prospective cohort study consisting of 395 women with GDM who were followed annually with an OGTT. A weighted genetic risk score (wGRS), consisting of 48 variants, was assessed for improving discrimination (C statistic) and risk reclassification (continuous net reclassification improvement [NRI] index) when added to clinical risk factors. Among the 395 women with GDM, 116 (29.4%) developed diabetes during a median follow-up period of 45 months. Women with GDM who went on to develop diabetes had a significantly higher wGRS than those who did not (9.36 +/- 0.92 vs 8.78 +/- 1.07; p < 1.56 x 10(-7)). In a complex clinical model adjusted for age, prepregnancy BMI, family history of diabetes, blood pressure, fasting glucose and fasting insulin concentration, the C statistic marginally improved from 0.741 without the wGRS to 0.775 with the wGRS (p = 0.015). The addition of the wGRS to the clinical model resulted in a modest improvement in reclassification (continuous NRI 0.430 [95% CI 0.218, 0.642]; p = 7.0 x 10(-5)). In women with GDM, who are at high risk of diabetes, the wGRS was significantly associated with the future development of diabetes. Furthermore, it improved prediction over clinical risk factors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据