External validation of three diabetes prediction scores in a Spanish cohort: does adding high risk for depression improve the validation of the FINDRISC score (FINDRISC-MOOD)?

Abstract

ObjectivesTo evaluate the external validity of the FINDRISC, DESIR and ADA risk scores for the prediction of diabetes in a Spanish population aged >45 years and to test the possible improvement of FINDRISC by adding a new variable of high risk of depression when Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) questionnaire score ≥10 (FINDRISC-MOOD).DesignProspective population-based cohort study.Setting10 primary healthcare centres in the north of the city of Madrid (Spain).ParticipantsA total of 1242 participants without a history of diabetes and with 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) plasma glucose <200 mg/dL (<11.1 mmol/L) were followed up for 7.3 years (median) using their electronic health records (EHRs) and telephone contact.Primary and secondary outcome measuresDiabetes risk scores (FINDRISC, DESIR, ADA), PHQ-9 questionnaire and 2-hour-OGTT were measured at baseline. Incident diabetes was defined as treatment for diabetes, fasting plasma glucose ≥126 mg/dL (≥7.0 mmol/L), new EHR diagnosis or self-reported diagnosis. External validation was performed according to optimal cut-off, sensitivity, specificity and Youden Index. Comparison between diabetes risk scores, including FINDRISC-MOOD (original FINDRISC score plus five points if PHQ-9 ≥10), was measured by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).ResultsDuring follow-up, 104 (8.4%; 95% CI, 6.8 to 9.9) participants developed diabetes and 185 had a PHQ-9 score ≥10. The AUROC values were 0.70 (95% CI, 0.67 to 0.72) for FINDRISC-MOOD and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.71) for the original FINDRISC. The AUROCs for DESIR and ADA were 0.66 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.68) and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.69), respectively. There were no significant differences in AUROC between FINDRISC-MOOD and the other scores.ConclusionsThe results of FINDRISC-MOOD were like those of the other risk scores and do not allow it to be recommended for clinical use.