Evidence Hub

Androgens, Irregular Menses, and Risk of Diabetes and Coronary Artery Calcification in the Diabetes Prevention Program

Kim C, Aroda VR, Goldberg RB, Younes N, Edelstein SL, Carrion-Petersen M, Ehrmann DA, Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study Group

The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism, 2018

1,422 participants

Abstract

CONTEXT: It is unclear whether relative elevations in androgens or irregular menses (IM) are associated with greater cardiometabolic risk among women who are already overweight and glucose intolerant.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) and the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS). Participants included women with sex hormone measurements who did not use exogenous estrogen (n = 1422). We examined whether free androgen index (FAI) or IM was associated with diabetes risk during the DPP/DPPOS or with coronary artery calcification (CAC) at DPPOS year 10. Models were adjusted for menopausal status, age, race or ethnicity, randomization arm, body mass index (BMI), and hemoglobin A1c.

RESULTS: Women had an average age of 48.2 ± 9.9 years. Elevations in FAI and IM were associated with greater BMI, waist circumference, and blood pressure and lower adiponectin. FAI was not associated with diabetes risk during the DPP/DPPOS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.93 to 1.02] or increased odds of CAC [odds ratio (OR) 1.06; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.23]. IM was also not associated with diabetes risk during the DPP/DPPOS (HR 1.07; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.31) or increased odds of CAC (OR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.53 to 1.49). Women who had both relative elevations in FAI and IM had similar diabetes risk and odds of CAC as women without these conditions. Differences by treatment arm and menopausal status were not…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 1,422 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free