Is Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Associated with Spinal Degenerative Disorders?: Evidence from Observational and 2-Sample Mendelian Randomization Analyses.

IF 4.4 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume Pub Date : 2024-07-03 DOI:10.2106/JBJS.23.00984
Ming-Xiang Zou, Chao Xia, Peng-Fei Wu, Hai-Hong Hu, Hong-Xia Zhu, Bo-Wen Zheng, Ling-Xiang Jiang, David Escobar, Jing Li, Guo-Hua Lü, Wei Huang, Tao-Lan Zhang, Jiang-Hua Liu
{"title":"Is Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Associated with Spinal Degenerative Disorders?: Evidence from Observational and 2-Sample Mendelian Randomization Analyses.","authors":"Ming-Xiang Zou, Chao Xia, Peng-Fei Wu, Hai-Hong Hu, Hong-Xia Zhu, Bo-Wen Zheng, Ling-Xiang Jiang, David Escobar, Jing Li, Guo-Hua Lü, Wei Huang, Tao-Lan Zhang, Jiang-Hua Liu","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.23.00984","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and spinal degenerative disorders (SDD) are common diseases that frequently coexist. However, both traditional observational studies and recent Mendelian randomization (MR) studies have demonstrated conflicting evidence on the association between T2DM and SDD. This comparative study explored and compared the association between T2DM and SDD using observational and MR analyses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For observational analyses, cross-sectional studies (44,972 participants with T2DM and 403,095 participants without T2DM), case-control studies (38,234 participants with SDD and 409,833 participants without SDD), and prospective studies (35,550 participants with T2DM and 392,046 participants without T2DM with follow-up information until 2022) were performed to test the relationship between T2DM and SDD using individual-level data from the U.K. Biobank from 2006 to 2022. For MR analyses, the associations between single-nucleotide polymorphisms with SDD susceptibility obtained using participant data from the U.K. Biobank, which had 407,938 participants from 2006 to 2022, and the FinnGen Consortium, which had 227,388 participants from 2017 to 2022, and genetic predisposition to T2DM obtained using summary statistics from a pooled genome-wide association study involving 1,407,282 individuals were examined. The onset and severity of T2DM are not available in the databases being used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants with T2DM were more likely to have SDD than their counterparts. Logistic regression analysis identified T2DM as an independent risk factor for SDD, which was confirmed by the Cox proportional hazard model results. However, using single-nucleotide polymorphisms as instruments, the MR analyses demonstrated no causal relationship between T2DM and SDD. The lack of such an association was robust in the sensitivity analysis, and no pleiotropy was seen.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our results suggest that the association between T2DM and SDD may be method-dependent. Researchers and clinicians should be cautious in interpreting the association, especially the causal association, between T2DM and SDD. Our findings provide fresh insights into the association between T2DM and SDD by various analysis methods and guide future research and clinical efforts in the effective prevention and management of T2DM and SDD.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":15273,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.23.00984","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and spinal degenerative disorders (SDD) are common diseases that frequently coexist. However, both traditional observational studies and recent Mendelian randomization (MR) studies have demonstrated conflicting evidence on the association between T2DM and SDD. This comparative study explored and compared the association between T2DM and SDD using observational and MR analyses.

Methods: For observational analyses, cross-sectional studies (44,972 participants with T2DM and 403,095 participants without T2DM), case-control studies (38,234 participants with SDD and 409,833 participants without SDD), and prospective studies (35,550 participants with T2DM and 392,046 participants without T2DM with follow-up information until 2022) were performed to test the relationship between T2DM and SDD using individual-level data from the U.K. Biobank from 2006 to 2022. For MR analyses, the associations between single-nucleotide polymorphisms with SDD susceptibility obtained using participant data from the U.K. Biobank, which had 407,938 participants from 2006 to 2022, and the FinnGen Consortium, which had 227,388 participants from 2017 to 2022, and genetic predisposition to T2DM obtained using summary statistics from a pooled genome-wide association study involving 1,407,282 individuals were examined. The onset and severity of T2DM are not available in the databases being used.

Results: Participants with T2DM were more likely to have SDD than their counterparts. Logistic regression analysis identified T2DM as an independent risk factor for SDD, which was confirmed by the Cox proportional hazard model results. However, using single-nucleotide polymorphisms as instruments, the MR analyses demonstrated no causal relationship between T2DM and SDD. The lack of such an association was robust in the sensitivity analysis, and no pleiotropy was seen.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that the association between T2DM and SDD may be method-dependent. Researchers and clinicians should be cautious in interpreting the association, especially the causal association, between T2DM and SDD. Our findings provide fresh insights into the association between T2DM and SDD by various analysis methods and guide future research and clinical efforts in the effective prevention and management of T2DM and SDD.

Level of evidence: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
2型糖尿病与脊柱退行性病变有关吗?观察性分析和双样本孟德尔随机分析的证据。
背景:2 型糖尿病(T2DM)和脊柱退行性疾病(SDD)是经常并存的常见疾病。然而,传统的观察性研究和最近的孟德尔随机化(MR)研究都显示,T2DM 和 SDD 之间的关联证据相互矛盾。本对比研究通过观察分析和孟德尔随机分析,探讨并比较了 T2DM 和 SDD 之间的关联:在观察性分析中,我们利用英国生物库(U.K. Biobank)2006年至2022年的个人水平数据,进行了横断面研究(44972名T2DM患者和403095名非T2DM患者)、病例对照研究(38234名SDD患者和409833名非SDD患者)和前瞻性研究(35550名T2DM患者和392046名非T2DM患者,随访资料至2022年),以检验T2DM和SDD之间的关系。在MR分析中,利用英国生物库(U.K. Biobank)2006年至2022年的407938名参与者数据和芬兰基因财团(FinnGen Consortium)2017年至2022年的227388名参与者数据,研究了单核苷酸多态性与SDD易感性之间的关联,以及利用涉及1407282人的全基因组关联研究汇总统计数据得出的T2DM遗传易感性。所使用的数据库中没有T2DM的发病情况和严重程度:结果:患有 T2DM 的参与者比其他参与者更有可能患有 SDD。逻辑回归分析确定 T2DM 是 SDD 的独立风险因素,这一点在 Cox 比例危险模型结果中得到了证实。然而,使用单核苷酸多态性作为工具,磁共振分析表明 T2DM 与 SDD 之间没有因果关系。在敏感性分析中,这种关联的缺失是稳健的,也没有发现多态性:我们的研究结果表明,T2DM 和 SDD 之间的关系可能取决于研究方法。研究人员和临床医生在解释 T2DM 与 SDD 之间的关联,尤其是因果关系时应谨慎。我们的研究结果通过不同的分析方法对T2DM与SDD之间的关联提供了新的见解,为今后有效预防和管理T2DM与SDD的研究和临床工作提供了指导:预后III级。有关证据级别的完整描述,请参阅 "作者须知"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
7.50%
发文量
660
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (JBJS) has been the most valued source of information for orthopaedic surgeons and researchers for over 125 years and is the gold standard in peer-reviewed scientific information in the field. A core journal and essential reading for general as well as specialist orthopaedic surgeons worldwide, The Journal publishes evidence-based research to enhance the quality of care for orthopaedic patients. Standards of excellence and high quality are maintained in everything we do, from the science of the content published to the customer service we provide. JBJS is an independent, non-profit journal.
期刊最新文献
Individualized Surgeon Reports in a Statewide Registry: A Pathway to Improved Outcomes. What's Important: Health Literacy in Orthopaedics. What's Important (Arts & Humanities): My Death Education. Patients' Preferences for Bone-Anchored Prostheses After Lower-Extremity Amputation: A 2-Center Discrete Choice Experiment in The Netherlands (PREFER-BAP-1). Long-Term Outcomes of Arthroscopically Verified Focal Cartilage Lesions in the Knee: A 19-Year Multicenter Follow-up with Patient-Reported Outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1