Background
Type 2 diabetes (T2D) accounts for at least 90 % of all cases of diabetes and is an increasingly prevalent and debilitating disease [
1]. Diabetes is currently ranked the 14th leading cause of global disease burden, and has moved up several places since 1990 [
2]. The International Diabetes Federation estimates that 387 million people worldwide had diabetes in 2014, and by 2035 this figure will rise to 592 million [
1]. Preventing the rising prevalence of T2D in high-income countries like Australia, where healthcare expenditure for diabetes is among the highest in the world [
1], could yield significant health and economic benefits [
3].
It is generally accepted that people with diagnosed T2D have progressed from ‘pre-diabetes’; an intermediate stage of impaired glucose regulation defined by impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and/or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) [
4]. The prevalence of pre-diabetes could be as high as 20 to 30 % in high-income countries [
5,
6]. Progression from pre-diabetes to T2D is likely explained by non-modifiable risk factors including older age, male gender, ethnicity, and urbanisation [
1]; as well as modifiable risk factors including smoking, obesity, unhealthy diet and physical activity behaviours [
6‐
9]. Effective lifestyle programs targeting modifiable risk factors in people with pre-diabetes may delay or prevent the onset of T2D. Indeed, large-scale trials from Finland [
10], China [
11], and the United States [
12] showed that lifestyle intervention can effectively halve the risk of developing T2D in people with pre-diabetes over three to six years.
Effective prevention of T2D requires early identification of high-risk individuals who might benefit from intervention. Screening for T2D risk factors can be cost-effective, especially when followed by lifestyle intervention [
13]. There are at least seven diabetes risk models or scoring systems (often called ‘risk assessment tools’) with potential adaptation for use in routine clinical practice [
14]. However, these tools may need to be updated for novel biomarkers that have emerged since these risk models were published.
Evidence from observational studies suggests that low endogenous testosterone level may be a reversible risk factor for T2D in men. For instance, a recent systematic review with meta-analysis showed that men with testosterone levels >15.5 nmol/L have a 42 % reduced risk of developing T2D compared with men with testosterone levels ≤15.5 nmol/L [
15]. Cross-sectional studies in Australia show that a high proportion of men with T2D have low testosterone level, and that low testosterone level is inversely associated with glycaemia and insulin resistance [
16,
17]. On average, men with T2D and metabolic syndrome (MetS) have a testosterone level that is 2.6 nmol/L lower than controls [
15,
18]. Sex hormones may explain why men are more likely to develop T2D than women, as shown in several T2D risk models [
19‐
21]. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine whether low serum testosterone level adds clinically meaningful information beyond current T2D risk models in men, to inform guidelines and clinical practice.
Results
The incidence rate of T2D was 8.9 % (147/1655) over a median follow-up of 4.95 years (IQR 4.35-5.00). Table
1 shows baseline characteristics of participants in the MAILES Stage 1 cohort by T2D status at follow-up, including crude incidence and corresponding age-adjusted odds ratios. The relative incidence of T2D was significantly highest for older age and (after age-adjustment), lowest income, family history of diabetes, pre-diabetes, IFG, currently taking blood pressure medication, high blood pressure, high triglycerides, low HDL-C, obese, and high-risk waist circumference groups.
Table 1
Baseline characteristics of participants in the MAILES cohort by T2D status at 5 years follow-up, crude incidence and corresponding age-adjusted odds ratios
Age (years) | | | | | |
35–44 | 20 | 377 | | 5.0 | 1 |
45–54 | 34 | 449 | | 7.0 | 1.43 (0.80,2.52) a |
55–64 | 47 | 374 | | 11.2 | 2.37 (1.38,4.08) a |
≥65 | 46 | 308 | <0.001 | 13.0 | 2.82 (1.63,4.86) a |
Missing | 0 (0.0 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | | | |
Ethnicity/Country of birth | | | | | |
Asia, Middle East, North Africa, Southern Europe | 15 | 119 | | 11.1 | 0.83 (0.47,1.47) |
Other (North West Europe, Americas, Oceania/Australia) | 132 | 1387 | 0.329 | 8.7 | 1 |
Missing | 0 (0.0 %) | 2 (0.1 %) | | | |
Income (AUD) | | | | | |
Up to $12,000 | 15 | 72 | | 17.1 | 2.89 (1.30,6.38) |
$12,001 – $20,000 | 23 | 148 | | 13.7 | 2.13 (1.03,4.39) |
$20,001 – $30,000 | 24 | 193 | | 11.5 | 1.82 (0.91,3.64) |
$30,001 – $40,000 | 16 | 181 | | 8.8 | 1.52 (0.74,3.13) |
$40,001 – $50,000 | 13 | 188 | | 6.5 | 1.16 (0.54,2.47) |
$50,001 – $60,000 | 15 | 181 | | 7.6 | 1.41 (0.68,2.92) |
$60,001 – $80,000 | 18 | 225 | | 8.0 | 1.54 (0.77,3.11) |
More than $80,000 | 16 | 294 | 0.003 | 5.2 | 1 |
Missing | 7 (4.8 %) | 26 (1.7 %) | | | |
Family history of diabetes | | | | | |
Yes | 55 | 410 | | 11.9 | 1.80 (1.25,2.58) |
No | 91 | 1095 | 0.007 | 7.7 | 1 |
Missing | 1 (0.6 %) | 3 (0.2 %) | | | |
FPG (mean, mmol/L) | | | | | |
Mean (sd) | 5.32 (0.71) | 4.80 (0.60) | <0.001b | | |
Missing | 0 (0.0 %) | 10 (0.7 %) | | | |
HbA1c (mean, %) | | | | | |
Mean (sd) | 5.87 (0.34) | 5.49 (0.36) | <0.001b | | |
Missing | 0 (0.0 %) | 8 (0.5 %) | | | |
Pre-diabetes (FPG 5.6–6.9 mmol/L or HbA1c 5.7–6.4 %) | | | | | |
Yes | 126 | 562 | | 18.2 | 9.23 (5.72,14.90) |
No | 21 | 936 | <0.001 | 2.2 | 1 |
Missing | 0 (0.0 %) | 10 (0.7 %) | | | |
Impaired fasting glucose (FPG 5.6–6.9 mmol/L) | | | | | |
Yes | 59 | 142 | | 28.7 | 5.63 (3.87,8.19) |
No | 88 | 1356 | <0.001 | 6.1 | 1 |
Missing | 0 (0.0 %) | 10 (0.7 %) | | | |
Currently taking blood pressure medication | | | | | |
Yes | 57 | 294 | | 16.2 | 2.11 (1.43,3.11) |
No | 90 | 1209 | <0.001 | 6.9 | 1 |
Missing | 0 (0.0 %) | 5 (0.3 %) | | | |
High blood pressure (≥140/90 mmHg) | | | | | |
Yes | 88 | 629 | | 12.2 | 1.77 (1.24,2.53) |
No | 59 | 874 | <0.001 | 6.3 | 1 |
Missing | 0 (0.0 %) | 5 (0.3 %) | | | |
Triglycerides (mean, mmol/L) | | | | | |
Mean (sd) | 1.99 (1.36) | 1.70 (1.32) | 0.013b | | |
Missing | 0 (0.0 %) | 7 (0.5 %) | | | |
High triglycerides (>1.7 mmol/L) | | | | | |
Yes | 68 | 505 | | 11.8 | 1.79 (1.27,2.54) |
No | 79 | 996 | 0.002 | 7.3 | 1 |
Missing | 0 (0.0 %) | 7 (0.5 %) | | | |
HDL-C (mean, mmol/L) | | | | | |
Mean (sd) | 1.20 (0.31) | 1.27 (0.30) | 0.011b | | |
Missing | 0 (0.0 %) | 7 (0.5 %) | | | |
Low HDL-C (<1.0 mmol/L) | | | | | |
Yes | 30 | 193 | | 13.4 | 1.84 (1.19,2.84) |
No | 117 | 1308 | 0.011 | 8.2 | 1 |
Missing | 0 (0.0 %) | 7 (0.5 %) | | | |
Diagnosed cardiovascular disease | | | | | |
Yes | 18 | 104 | | 14.7 | 1.41 (0.81,2.44) |
No | 129 | 1402 | 0.018 | 8.4 | 1 |
Missing | 0 (0.0 %) | 2 (0.1 %) | | | |
Total testosterone (mean, nmol/L) | | | | | |
Mean (sd) | 15.0 (5.9) | 17.7 (5.9) | <0.001 b | | |
Missing | 10 (6.8 %) | 146 (9.7 %) | | | |
Currently smoking | | | | | |
Yes | 17 | 248 | | 6.4 | 0.78 (0.46,1.32) |
No | 128 | 1257 | 0.136 | 9.4 | 1 |
Missing | 2 (1.4 %) | 3 (0.2 %) | | | |
Physically inactivity (<540 METs) | | | | | |
<540 METs | 77 | 781 | | 9.2 | 1.14 (0.81,1.61) |
≥540 METs | 62 | 665 | 0.754 | 8.5 | 1 |
missing | 8 (5.4 %) | 62 (4.1 %) | | | |
Body mass index (kg/m2) | | | | | |
Healthy weight 18.50–24.99 | 19 | 341 | | 5.3 | 1 |
Overweight 25.00–29.99 | 69 | 768 | | 8.2 | 1.57 (0.93,2.65) |
Obese ≥30.00 | 59 | 399 | <0.001 | 12.9 | 2.65 (1.54,456) |
Missing | 0 (0.0 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | | | |
Waist circumference category | | | | | |
Low risk | 65 | 925 | | 6.5 | 1 |
Medium risk | 39 | 361 | | 9.7 | 1.42 (0.93,2.15) |
High risk | 42 | 215 | <0.001 | 16.6 | 2.65 (1.74,4.02) |
Missing | 1 (0.7 %) | 7 (0.5 %) | | | |
Table
2 shows the added predictive value of low serum total testosterone compared to current T2D risk models in men over 5 years. Model 1 shows that variables from the AUSDRISK [
19] resulted in good performance for predicting incident T2D. Model 2 shows additional variables from other current T2D risk models improved the AROC statistic of Model 1 (net change in AROC was 0.051 [95 % CI: 0.013,0.089],
P = 0.009). Model 3 shows no evidence (no or very small changes in AROC and HL
χ2 statistics) of improvement to Model 2 after fitting serum testosterone as a continuous variable. However, it remained an independent predictor of incident T2D (OR 0.96 [95 % CI: 0.92,1.00],
P = 0.032) with the Nagelkerke R
2 of 0.25.
Table 2
Performance of risk models for predicting 5 year risk of T2D in men
Risk prediction models: variables |
Model 1: Variables from AUSDRISK a | 147/1655 | 0.76 (0.72,0.80) | 5.29 | 0.726 | 895 | 960 |
Model 2: Model 1 with variables from other risk models b | 147/1655 | 0.82 (0.79,0.86) | 4.84 | 0.775 | 847 | 987 |
Model 3: Model 2 with total testosterone (continuous variable) | 147/1655 | 0.82 (0.79,0.86) | 4.45 | 0.815 | 844 | 990 |
Model 4: Model 2 with total testosterone (<16 vs ≥16 nmol/L) | 147/1655 | 0.83 (0.79,0.86) | 3.97 | 0.860 | 846 | 992 |
Model 5: Backwards selection modelc | 147/1655 | 0.82 (0.78,0.85) | 5.43 | 0.711 | 825 | 885 |
Sensitivity analyses | | | | | | |
Model 6: Model 4 without imputation (15.5 % missing) | 126/1399 | 0.82 (0.78,0.86) | NA | NA | NA | NA |
Model 7: Model 4 for NWAHS cohort | 62/820 | 0.79 (0.74,0.85) | NA | NA | NA | NA |
Model 8: Model 4 for FAMAS cohort | 85/835 | 0.84 (0.79,0.88) | NA | NA | NA | NA |
Table
3 shows that a cut-off point of <16 nmol/L for low serum testosterone, which classified about 43 % of men, returned equal sensitivity (61.3 % [95 % CI: 52.6,69.4]) and specificity (58.3 % [95 % CI: 55.6,60.9) for predicting T2D risk, with a PPV of 12.9 % (95 % CI: 10.4,15.8). Model 4 shows there was little evidence of improvement to Model 2 after fitting low serum testosterone (<16 vs. ≥16 nmol/L) as a categorical variable (OR 1.38 [95 % CI: 0.93,2.07,],
P = 0.114). Model 5 shows similar performance compared to Model 2 for predicting T2D risk for variables retained using backwards selection; including family history of diabetes, blood pressure medication, smoking status, waist circumference from the AUSDRISK; and high blood pressure, low HDL-C, pre-diabetes, high triglycerides and low serum testosterone (4/5 data sets). Finally, sensitivity analyses show similar AROC statistics for Model 4 without imputation (Model 6) and for Models 7 and 8 in the NWAHS and FAMAS cohorts separately.
Table 3
Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values for serum total testosterone cut-off points for predicting 5 year risk of T2D in men
<10 vs ≥10 | 16.1 (10.5,23.5) | 93.4 (91.9,94.6) | 19.6 (13.0,28.4) |
<11 vs ≥11 | 24.1 (17.4,32.3) | 89.0 (87.2,90.6) | 18.0 (12.9,24.5) |
<12 vs ≥12 | 28.5 (21.3,36.9) | 83.8 (81.8,85.7) | 15.1 (11.0,20.1) |
<13 vs ≥13 | 37.2 (29.2,45.9) | 77.9 (75.6,80.1) | 14.4 (11.1,18.7) |
<14 vs ≥14 | 44.5 (36.1,53.2) | 71.4 (68.9,73.8) | 13.6 (10.6,17.1) |
<15 vs ≥15 | 54.7 (46.0,63.2) | 65.6 (63.0,68.1) | 13.8 (11.0,17.0) |
<16 vs ≥16 | 61.3 (52.6,69.4) | 58.3 (55.6,60.9) | 12.9 (10.4,15.8) |
<17 vs ≥17 | 68.6 (60.0,76.1) | 51.2 (48.6,53.9) | 12.4 (10.2,15.0) |
<18 vs ≥18 | 75.9 (67.7,82.6) | 43.5 (40.9,46.2) | 11.9 (9.9,14.3) |
<19 vs ≥19 | 80.3 (72.4,86.4) | 37.2 (34.7,39.9) | 11.4 (9.5,13.6) |
<20 vs ≥20 | 82.5 (74.9,88.2) | 31.3 (28.8,33.8) | 10.8 (9.0,12.8) |
Discussion
The results of this study confirmed that serum testosterone predicts 5 year risk of developing T2D in men (Model 3), independent of all risk factors from T2D risk assessment models or tools applicable for use in routine clinical practice, including the AUSDRISK [
19‐
21,
29‐
32]. We found that an age-adjusted serum testosterone of <16 nmol/L, which was highly prevalent in the MAILES cohort (43 %), was optimal for equalising sensitivity and specificity in predicting incident T2D and has a 12.9 % PPV, which is comparable to the AUSDRISK (12.7 %) [
19] and FINDRISC (13 %) [
30] for optimal risk score cut-off points. This cut-off point for low serum testosterone (<16 nmol/L) is higher than that reported in a previous systematic review of prospective cohort studies on T2D risk in men (7.4–15.5 nmol/L]) [
15], and also higher than that reported for predicting T2D prevalence in men (<11 nmol/L) based on the FAMAS [
17].
While including serum testosterone does not improve the performance of current risk models, it remained a predictor of developing T2D after correction for all of the other predictors (Model 3). This suggests that screening for low serum testosterone would identify a large group of men otherwise not apparent with current T2D risk assessment tools, which might be clinically important for treatment decision making and resulting prognosis. Research on mechanisms suggest that low serum testosterone decreases insulin resistance indirectly by promoting metabolically favourable changes in body composition [
36]; and directly by enhancing catecholamine-induced lipolysis in vitro [
37] and reducing lipoprotein lipase activity and triglyceride uptake in human abdominal adipose tissue in vivo [
38]. Moreover, endogenous testosterone levels correlate positively with mitochondrial indices of increased insulin sensitivity in human skeletal muscle [
39], and has been shown to directly regulate pathways responsible for skeletal muscle glucose metabolism [
40].
Evidence from short-term randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggests that testosterone supplementation therapy may improve glucose control in men with, or at-risk of, low testosterone level. For instance, we meta-analysed the results of relevant studies and found that testosterone therapy improved FPG in 14 RCTs in 777 participants (standardised mean difference was −0.2 [95 % CI: −0.4,-0.1]) [
41‐
54]; and insulin resistance in nine RCTs in 589 participants (standardised mean difference was −0.3 [95 % CI: −0.5,-0.1] for homeostasis assessment model of insulin resistance [
42‐
47,
49,
53,
54] over short and medium terms. A recent and more relevant systematic review of RCTs (placebo-controlled) found that testosterone therapy improved insulin resistance in men with T2D and/or the metabolic syndrome (standardised mean difference was −0.34 [95 % CI: −0.51,-0.16]), over short terms [
55]. In addition, evidence suggests the benefits of testosterone therapy for glucose control may be greatest when combined with lifestyle intervention [
46]. This is an important therapeutic finding because there is international consensus supporting the effectiveness of lifestyle intervention in the prevention and management of T2D [
56].
Conversely, testosterone therapy has been associated with serious adverse events in men. A systematic review of 27 RCTs found that testosterone therapy vs. placebo increased the risk of a cardiovascular-related event in mainly older men (pooled odds ratio was 1.54 [95 % CI: 1.09, 2.18]) [
57]. However, a more recent systematic review of RCTs in mostly older men found there was an increased cardiovascular risk associated with oral testosterone therapy (pooled relative risk was 2.20 [95 % CI: 1.45,3.55]), but not with intramuscular (pooled relative risk was 0.66 [95 % CI: 0.28,1.56) or transdermal (gel or patch) testosterone therapy (pooled relative risk was 1.27 [95 % CI: 0.62,2.62]) [
58]. Further research is needed to establish the safety of specific types of testosterone therapies in specific populations.
Currently, we are undertaking a Phase IIIb multicentre randomized controlled trial (double-blinded and placebo-controlled) to determine whether testosterone therapy (1000 mg testosterone undeconate) combined with lifestyle intervention will reduce the rate of T2D in men with both low testosterone and pre-diabetes or newly diagnosed T2D more than lifestyle intervention alone over two years (
http://www.t4dm.org.au/). Testosterone undecanoate is registered for use in Australia for the treatment of male hypogonadism (Australian Registration Number AUST R 106946). If testosterone undecanoate is shown to be safe and effective pharmacotherapy for preventing T2D in men, then screening for low serum testosterone additional to current T2D risk assessment models (like the AUSDRISK in Australia) would identify a large subgroup of distinct men who might benefit from both targeted pharmacotherapy and lifestyle preventive interventions.
However, screening for low serum testosterone in community-based patients should be applied only to men suggestive of clinical presentations, otherwise additional blood testing would potentially cause a blowout in healthcare costs since serum testosterone level of <16 nmol/L is highly prevalent in men aged 35 years and over [
59]. Furthermore, treatment decisions following confirmed screening positives will need to consider not only the optimal cut-off point for low testosterone, but also on the cost-effectiveness of adjunctive testosterone therapy, which is currently being investigated (
http://www.t4dm.org.au/), as well as treatment availability.
Important quality items of this study include the large regionally representative sample of Australian men, precision of clinical measures, and the sufficient description of dropouts and non-respondents [
22]. Study limitations include the reliance on a small number of self-report measures, respondent compliance, residual confounding, and misclassification of diseases and other factors potentially resulting in bias. While there were only 147 incident cases, the ratio of 100 observations per predictor variable, the relative stability of the AIC and BIC and the fact that the Nagelkerke R
2 is much lower than 1 provide no evidence of over-fitting. Further evidence from prospective cohort studies is needed to confirm the generalizability of these findings and the applicability of screening for low serum testosterone in other male populations and specific healthcare settings.
Abbreviations
AIC, akaike information criteria; ARIC, atherosclerosis risk in communities; AROC, area under the receiver operating characteristic; AUSDRISK, Australian type 2 diabetes risk assessment tool; BIC, bayesian information criteria; BMI, body mass index; CV, coefficient of variation; FAMAS, florey Adelaide male ageing study cohort; FINDRISC, finnish risk model; FPG, fasting plasma glucose; HbA1c, glycated haemoglobin; HDL, high density lipoprotein; HL, hosmer-lemeshow; IFG, impaired fasting glucose; IGT, impaired glucose tolerance; MAILES, Men androgen inflammation lifestyle environment and stress cohort; MET, metabolic equivalent; NWAHS, North West Adelaide health study cohort; PPV, positive predictive values; RCT, randomised controlled trial; T2D, type 2 diabetes.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.