4.5 Article

Stratification of type 2 diabetes based on routine clinical markers

Journal

DIABETES RESEARCH AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
Volume 141, Issue -, Pages 275-283

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2018.05.014

Keywords

Type 2 diabetes; Clusters; Sub-group; Personalized medicine; Heterogeneity

Funding

  1. Innovation Fund Denmark [4135-00028B]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: We hypothesized that patients with dysregulated type 2 diabetes may be stratified based on routine clinical markers. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, diabetes related clinical measures including age at onset, diabetes duration, HbA(1c) , BMI, HOMA2-beta, HOMA2-IR and GAD65 autoantibodies, were used for sub-grouping patients by K-means clustering and for adjusting. Probability of diabetes complications (95% confidence interval), were calculated using logistic regression. Results: Based on baseline data from patients with type 2 diabetes (n = 2290), the cluster analysis suggested up to five sub-groups. These were primarily characterized by autoimmune beta-cell failure (3%), insulin resistance with short disease duration (21%), nonautoimmune beta-cell failure (22%), insulin resistance with long disease duration (32%), and presence of metabolic syndrome (22%), respectively. Retinopathy was more common in the sub-group characterized by non-autoimmune beta-cell failure (52% (47.7-56.8)) compared to other sub-groups (22% (20.1-24.1)), adj. p < 0.001. The prevalence of cardiovascular disease, nephropathy and neuropathy also differed between sub-groups, but significance was lost after adjustment. Conclusions: Patients with type 2 diabetes cluster into clinically relevant sub-groups based on routine clinical markers. The prevalence of diabetes complications seems to be subgroup specific. Our data suggests the need for a tailored strategy for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available