Predictive Power for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus using Dynamic Change of Metabolic Syndrome, Dynamic Change of Fasting Plasma Glucose, Metabolic Syndrome and Fasting Plasma Glucose

Tehran University of Medical Sciences Iranian Journal of Public Health 2251-6085 43 4 2014 04 15 Predictive Power for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus using Dynamic Change of Metabolic Syndrome, Dynamic Change of Fasting Plasma Glucose, Metabolic Syndrome and Fasting Plasma Glucose 432 40 Hui Zhou 1. School of Public Health, Medical College of Soochow University , SuZhou, China ; 2. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention of Suzhou Industry Park , SuZhou, China. Chen Yang 3. Center for Disease Control of Xiangcheng District in Suzhou City, Suzhou , Jiangsu, China. Chen Dong 1. School of Public Health, Medical College of Soochow University , SuZhou, China. Zhirong Guo 1. School of Public Health, Medical College of Soochow University , SuZhou, China. Xiaoshu Hu 4. Health Bureau of JiangSu Province , NanJing, China. Yong Xu 1. School of Public Health, Medical College of Soochow University , SuZhou, China. Zhengyuan Zhou 5. Changshu Center for Disease Control and Prevention , ChangShu, China. 2015 10 15 The aim was to compare the predictive power for Type 2 Diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using dynamic change (Difference) of metabolic syndrome (MS), Difference of fasting plasma glucose (FPG), baseline MS and FPG in cohort study.Overall, 3461 subjects were recruited from Prevention of Multiple Metabolic disorders and MS in Jiangsu of China Study with 3.8 years follow-up. Cox proportional-hazards regression and receiver operating characteristic were used to evaluate the predictive power for T2DM using Difference MS, Difference of FPG, baseline MS and FPG.Adjusted relative risk (aRR 5.24, 95% CI 4.28-6.42) of Difference of FPG to T2DM was highest than other. Difference of FPG owns the largest AUC (0.89, P<0.05), the highest sensitivity (96.25%) and specificity (80.49%) demonstrating that Difference of FPG can provide strongest predictive information to T2DM, Difference of MS comes second. Between FPG related tools, sensitivity of Difference of FPG almost was twice than baseline FPG(96.25% vs. 54.38%) suggesting that using baseline FPG would missed found 46% T2DM patients. Among MS related indicators, sensitivity of Difference of MS almost was twice than baseline MS (sensitivity 66.25% vs. 39.38%) suggesting that using baseline would missed found 61% T2DM patients.Dynamic change of FPG had the highest predictive power for T2DM in Chinese than Dynamic Change of MS, baseline MS and FPG. https://ijph.tums.ac.ir/index.php/ijph/article/view/4110 https://ijph.tums.ac.ir/index.php/ijph/article/download/4110/3768