Macrovascular Risk Equations Based on the CANVAS Program

Prognostic models for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To provide a systematic review, critical appraisal, assessment of performance and generalisability of all the reported prognostic models for heart failure (HF) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

We performed a literature search in Medline, Embase, Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Scopus (from inception to July 2022) and grey literature to identify any study developing and/or validating models predicting HF applicable to patients with T2D. We extracted data on study characteristics, modelling methods and measures of performance, and we performed a random-effects meta-analysis to pool discrimination in models with multiple validation studies. We also performed a descriptive synthesis of calibration and we assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence (high, moderate, low).

RESULTS

Fifty-five studies reporting on 58 models were identified: (1) models developed in patients with T2D for HF prediction (n=43), (2) models predicting HF developed in non-diabetic cohorts and externally validated in patients with T2D (n=3), and (3) models originally predicting a different outcome and externally validated for HF (n=12). RECODe (C-statistic=0.75 95% CI (0.72, 0.78), 95% prediction interval (PI) (0.68, 0.81); high certainty), TRS-HFDM (C-statistic=0.75 95% CI (0.69, 0.81), 95% PI (0.58, 0.87); low certainty) and WATCH-DM (C-statistic=0.70 95% CI (0.67, 0.73), 95% PI (0.63, 0.76); moderate certainty) showed the best performance. QDiabetes-HF demonstrated also good discrimination but was externally validated only once and not meta-analysed.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the prognostic models identified, four models showed promising performance and, thus, could be implemented in current clinical practice.

Prediction of complications in health economic models of type 2 diabetes: a review of methods used

AIM

Diabetes health economic (HE) models play important roles in decision making. For most HE models of diabetes 2 diabetes (T2D), the core model concerns the prediction of complications. However, reviews of HE models pay little attention to the incorporation of prediction models. The objective of the current review is to investigate how prediction models have been incorporated into HE models of T2D and to identify challenges and possible solutions.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane were searched from January 1, 1997, to November 15, 2022, to identify published HE models for T2D. All models that participated in The Mount Hood Diabetes Simulation Modeling Database or previous challenges were manually searched. Data extraction was performed by two independent authors. Characteristics of HE models, their underlying prediction models, and methods of incorporating prediction models were investigated.

RESULTS

The scoping review identified 34 HE models, including a continuous-time object-oriented model (n = 1), discrete-time state transition models (n = 18), and discrete-time discrete event simulation models (n = 15). Published prediction models were often applied to simulate complication risks, such as the UKPDS (n = 20), Framingham (n = 7), BRAVO (n = 2), NDR (n = 2), and RECODe (n = 2). Four methods were identified to combine interdependent prediction models for different complications, including random order evaluation (n = 12), simultaneous evaluation (n = 4), the 'sunflower method' (n = 3), and pre-defined order (n = 1). The remaining studies did not consider interdependency or reported unclearly.

CONCLUSIONS

The methodology of integrating prediction models in HE models requires further attention, especially regarding how prediction models are selected, adjusted, and ordered.

Predicting and preventing heart failure in type 2 diabetes

The burden of heart failure among people with type 2 diabetes is increasing globally. People with comorbid type 2 diabetes and heart failure often have worse outcomes than those with only one of these conditions-eg, higher hospitalisation and mortality rates. Therefore, it is essential to implement optimal heart failure prevention strategies for people with type 2 diabetes. A detailed understanding of the pathophysiology underlying the occurrence of heart failure in type 2 diabetes can aid clinicians in identifying relevant risk factors and lead to early interventions that can help prevent heart failure. In this Review, we discuss the pathophysiology and risk factors of heart failure in type 2 diabetes. We also review the risk assessment tools for predicting heart failure incidence in people with type 2 diabetes as well as the data from clinical trials that have assessed the efficacy of lifestyle and pharmacological interventions. Finally, we discuss the potential challenges in implementing new management approaches and offer pragmatic recommendations to help overcome these challenges.

Clinical Prediction Models for Heart Failure Hospitalization in Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background Clinical prediction models have been developed for hospitalization for heart failure in type 2 diabetes. However, a systematic evaluation of these models' performance, applicability, and clinical impact is absent. Methods and Results We searched Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Tufts' clinical prediction registry through February 2021. Studies needed to report the development, validation, clinical impact, or update of a prediction model for hospitalization for heart failure in type 2 diabetes with measures of model performance and sufficient information for clinical use. Model assessment was done with the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool, and meta-analyses of model discrimination were performed. We included 15 model development and 3 external validation studies with data from 999 167 people with type 2 diabetes. Of the 15 models, 6 had undergone external validation and only 1 had low concern for risk of bias and applicability (Risk Equations for Complications of Type 2 Diabetes). Seven models were presented in a clinically useful manner (eg, risk score, online calculator) and 2 models were classified as the most suitable for clinical use based on study design, external validity, and point-of-care usability. These were Risk Equations for Complications of Type 2 Diabetes (meta-analyzed c-statistic, 0.76) and the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction Risk Score for Heart Failure in Diabetes (meta-analyzed c-statistic, 0.78), which was the simplest model with only 5 variables. No studies reported clinical impact. Conclusions Most prediction models for hospitalization for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes have potential concerns with risk of bias or applicability, and uncertain external validity and clinical impact. Future research is needed to address these knowledge gaps.