Do nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)-based metabolomics improve the prediction of pregnancy-related disorders? Findings from a UK birth cohort with independent validation.


Journal

BMC medicine
ISSN: 1741-7015
Titre abrégé: BMC Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190723

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
23 11 2020
Historique:
received: 03 07 2020
accepted: 19 10 2020
entrez: 23 11 2020
pubmed: 24 11 2020
medline: 12 2 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Prediction of pregnancy-related disorders is usually done based on established and easily measured risk factors. Recent advances in metabolomics may provide earlier and more accurate prediction of women at risk of pregnancy-related disorders. We used data collected from women in the Born in Bradford (BiB; n = 8212) and UK Pregnancies Better Eating and Activity Trial (UPBEAT; n = 859) studies to create and validate prediction models for pregnancy-related disorders. These were gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP), small for gestational age (SGA), large for gestational age (LGA) and preterm birth (PTB). We used ten-fold cross-validation and penalised regression to create prediction models. We compared the predictive performance of (1) risk factors (maternal age, pregnancy smoking, body mass index (BMI), ethnicity and parity) to (2) nuclear magnetic resonance-derived metabolites (N = 156 quantified metabolites, collected at 24-28 weeks gestation) and (3) combined risk factors and metabolites. The multi-ethnic BiB cohort was used for training and testing the models, with independent validation conducted in UPBEAT, a multi-ethnic study of obese pregnant women. Maternal age, pregnancy smoking, BMI, ethnicity and parity were retained in the combined risk factor and metabolite models for all outcomes apart from PTB, which did not include maternal age. In addition, 147, 33, 96, 51 and 14 of the 156 metabolite traits were retained in the combined risk factor and metabolite model for GDM, HDP, SGA, LGA and PTB, respectively. These include cholesterol and triglycerides in very low-density lipoproteins (VLDL) in the models predicting GDM, HDP, SGA and LGA, and monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA), ratios of MUFA to omega 3 fatty acids and total fatty acids, and a ratio of apolipoprotein B to apolipoprotein A-1 (APOA:APOB1) were retained predictors for GDM and LGA. In BiB, discrimination for GDM, HDP, LGA and SGA was improved in the combined risk factors and metabolites models. Risk factor area under the curve (AUC 95% confidence interval (CI)): GDM (0.69 (0.64, 0.73)), HDP (0.74 (0.70, 0.78)) and LGA (0.71 (0.66, 0.75)), and SGA (0.59 (0.56, 0.63)). Combined risk factor and metabolite models AUC 95% (CI): GDM (0.78 (0.74, 0.81)), HDP (0.76 (0.73, 0.79)) and LGA (0.75 (0.70, 0.79)), and SGA (0.66 (0.63, 0.70)). For GDM, HDP and LGA, but not SGA, calibration was good for a combined risk factor and metabolite model. Prediction of PTB was poor for all models. Independent validation in UPBEAT at 24-28 weeks and 15-18 weeks gestation confirmed similar patterns of results, but AUCs were attenuated. Our results suggest a combined risk factor and metabolite model improves prediction of GDM, HDP and LGA, and SGA, when compared to risk factors alone. They also highlight the difficulty of predicting PTB, with all models performing poorly.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Prediction of pregnancy-related disorders is usually done based on established and easily measured risk factors. Recent advances in metabolomics may provide earlier and more accurate prediction of women at risk of pregnancy-related disorders.
METHODS
We used data collected from women in the Born in Bradford (BiB; n = 8212) and UK Pregnancies Better Eating and Activity Trial (UPBEAT; n = 859) studies to create and validate prediction models for pregnancy-related disorders. These were gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP), small for gestational age (SGA), large for gestational age (LGA) and preterm birth (PTB). We used ten-fold cross-validation and penalised regression to create prediction models. We compared the predictive performance of (1) risk factors (maternal age, pregnancy smoking, body mass index (BMI), ethnicity and parity) to (2) nuclear magnetic resonance-derived metabolites (N = 156 quantified metabolites, collected at 24-28 weeks gestation) and (3) combined risk factors and metabolites. The multi-ethnic BiB cohort was used for training and testing the models, with independent validation conducted in UPBEAT, a multi-ethnic study of obese pregnant women.
RESULTS
Maternal age, pregnancy smoking, BMI, ethnicity and parity were retained in the combined risk factor and metabolite models for all outcomes apart from PTB, which did not include maternal age. In addition, 147, 33, 96, 51 and 14 of the 156 metabolite traits were retained in the combined risk factor and metabolite model for GDM, HDP, SGA, LGA and PTB, respectively. These include cholesterol and triglycerides in very low-density lipoproteins (VLDL) in the models predicting GDM, HDP, SGA and LGA, and monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA), ratios of MUFA to omega 3 fatty acids and total fatty acids, and a ratio of apolipoprotein B to apolipoprotein A-1 (APOA:APOB1) were retained predictors for GDM and LGA. In BiB, discrimination for GDM, HDP, LGA and SGA was improved in the combined risk factors and metabolites models. Risk factor area under the curve (AUC 95% confidence interval (CI)): GDM (0.69 (0.64, 0.73)), HDP (0.74 (0.70, 0.78)) and LGA (0.71 (0.66, 0.75)), and SGA (0.59 (0.56, 0.63)). Combined risk factor and metabolite models AUC 95% (CI): GDM (0.78 (0.74, 0.81)), HDP (0.76 (0.73, 0.79)) and LGA (0.75 (0.70, 0.79)), and SGA (0.66 (0.63, 0.70)). For GDM, HDP and LGA, but not SGA, calibration was good for a combined risk factor and metabolite model. Prediction of PTB was poor for all models. Independent validation in UPBEAT at 24-28 weeks and 15-18 weeks gestation confirmed similar patterns of results, but AUCs were attenuated.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggest a combined risk factor and metabolite model improves prediction of GDM, HDP and LGA, and SGA, when compared to risk factors alone. They also highlight the difficulty of predicting PTB, with all models performing poorly.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33222689
doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01819-z
pii: 10.1186/s12916-020-01819-z
pmc: PMC7681995
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Multicenter Study Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

366

Subventions

Organisme : British Heart Foundation
ID : CS/16/4/32482
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council (GB)
ID : MR/L002477/1
Pays : International
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_00011/6
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/N024397/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : PDF-2014-07-019
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_00011/5
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate
ID : CZB/A/680
Pays : International
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/L002477/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Tommy's Baby Charity
ID : SC039280
Pays : International
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : R01 DK103246
Pays : United States
Organisme : National Institute for Health Research
ID : RP-PG-0407-10452
Pays : International

Références

PLoS One. 2017 Apr 6;12(4):e0175288
pubmed: 28384264
Diabetologia. 2017 Oct;60(10):1903-1912
pubmed: 28766127
Diabetologia. 2014 Dec;57(12):2453-64
pubmed: 25193282
Heart. 2012 May;98(9):691-8
pubmed: 22397946
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013 Nov 29;10(12):6485-99
pubmed: 24351784
Hypertension. 2012 Jun;59(6):1241-8
pubmed: 22526257
Circulation. 2010 Sep 21;122(12):1192-9
pubmed: 20823385
PLoS Med. 2017 Jan 31;14(1):e1002228
pubmed: 28141865
Public Health Rep. 2011 Nov-Dec;126(6):797-805
pubmed: 22043095
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Jan;210(1):54.e1-54.e10
pubmed: 24021995
BMJ Open. 2019 Aug 10;9(8):e031238
pubmed: 31401613
Hypertension. 2018 Feb;71(2):306-316
pubmed: 29229743
BMJ. 2013 Nov 21;347:f6398
pubmed: 24270055
Pregnancy Hypertens. 2019 Apr;16:48-66
pubmed: 31056160
J Stat Softw. 2010;33(1):1-22
pubmed: 20808728
Nat Med. 2020 Mar;26(3):348-353
pubmed: 32161413
Circulation. 2015 Mar 3;131(9):774-85
pubmed: 25573147
Eur J Intern Med. 2011 Feb;22(1):8-12
pubmed: 21238885
Theranostics. 2014 Jul 20;4(9):953-9
pubmed: 25057319
Int J Epidemiol. 2020 Feb 1;49(1):301-311
pubmed: 31098639
Am J Epidemiol. 2017 Nov 1;186(9):1084-1096
pubmed: 29106475
Health Technol Assess. 2016 Nov;20(86):1-348
pubmed: 27917777
Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Mar;131(3):457-463
pubmed: 29420406
Biomed Res Int. 2019 Jan 16;2019:5476350
pubmed: 30775382
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2015 Oct;3(10):767-77
pubmed: 26165396
BMJ. 2016 Apr 19;353:i1753
pubmed: 27094586
Diabetes Care. 2010 Mar;33(3):676-82
pubmed: 20190296
BMC Med. 2017 Nov 3;15(1):194
pubmed: 29096631
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Oct 16;14:116
pubmed: 25323009
Cardiopulm Phys Ther J. 2009 Sep;20(3):23-6
pubmed: 20467520
BJOG. 2012 Jun;119(7):778-87
pubmed: 22433027
Obes Rev. 2009 Mar;10(2):194-203
pubmed: 19055539
J Proteome Res. 2011 Aug 5;10(8):3660-73
pubmed: 21671558
Mass Spectrom Rev. 2007 Jan-Feb;26(1):51-78
pubmed: 16921475
BMC Med. 2016 Dec 13;14(1):205
pubmed: 27955712
Ultrasound. 2018 Feb;26(1):32-41
pubmed: 29456580
Clin Chem. 2015 May;61(5):681-3
pubmed: 25759464
PLoS One. 2016 Dec 8;11(12):e0167846
pubmed: 27930697
Nat Genet. 2012 Jan 29;44(3):269-76
pubmed: 22286219
Sci Rep. 2019 Sep 13;9(1):13199
pubmed: 31520065
BMJ Open. 2017 Jun 24;7(6):e015557
pubmed: 28647726
Syst Rev. 2019 Nov 11;8(1):270
pubmed: 31711547
Int J Epidemiol. 2013 Aug;42(4):978-91
pubmed: 23064411
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Jan;35(1):54-64
pubmed: 20014326
BJOG. 2010 Jan;117(1):69-75
pubmed: 20002371
PLoS Med. 2011 Jan 04;8(1):e1000386
pubmed: 21245905
Metabolites. 2019 May 07;9(5):
pubmed: 31067710
BMJ. 2015 Nov 17;351:h5948
pubmed: 26578347
BMC Med. 2019 Jan 21;17(1):15
pubmed: 30661507
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;53(6):715-723
pubmed: 31169958

Auteurs

Nancy McBride (N)

MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. nancy.mcbride@bristol.ac.uk.
NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. nancy.mcbride@bristol.ac.uk.
Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. nancy.mcbride@bristol.ac.uk.

Paul Yousefi (P)

MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Sara L White (SL)

Department of Women and Children's Health, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.

Lucilla Poston (L)

Department of Women and Children's Health, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.

Diane Farrar (D)

Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK.

Naveed Sattar (N)

NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, British Heart Foundation Glasgow, Cardiovascular Research Centre, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
School of Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

Scott M Nelson (SM)

NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, British Heart Foundation Glasgow, Cardiovascular Research Centre, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
School of Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

John Wright (J)

Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK.

Dan Mason (D)

Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK.

Matthew Suderman (M)

MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Caroline Relton (C)

MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Deborah A Lawlor (DA)

MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH