Role of platelet indices as diagnostic and predictive biomarkers for comorbidity of diabetes and metabolic syndrome in southern Ethiopia: A comparative cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND

Metabolic syndromes (MetS) and diabetes mellitus (DM) comorbidity is a growing major global public health problem with huge morbidity and mortality. It is a pro-inflammatory and prothrombotic disorder characterized by alteration of platelet indices and increased platelet activation, however, the tendency to use them in diagnosis is not yet fully evaluated in our context and there is limited evidence on the role of platelet indices in predicting and differentiating DM+MetS comorbidity in Ethiopia. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate platelet indices in HC, DM, and DM+MetS, and to determine their role in the prediction of DM+MetS comorbidity risk and the distinction between DM+MetS and DM or healthy persons in southwest Ethiopia.

METHOD AND MATERIALS

A comparative cross-sectional study was conducted in Wolkite University specialized hospital from March to August 2021. A total of 336 study participants (112 healthy controls (HC), 112 DM, 112 DM+MetS) was included in this study. Anthropmetric data were measured and the venous blood sample was collected to determine platelet indices, lipid profiles, and blood glucose levels. The SPSS version 21 statistical software was used to perform receiver operating curve (ROC), one-way ANOVA, and independent T-test analysis. The p-value for statistical significance was set at <0.05.

RESULT

In the present study, we found a significant difference in the mean value of PLT, MPV, and PDW between DM+MetS, DM, and HC. A statistically significant difference in the mean value of MPV and PDW was observed between HC and DM+MetS as well as DM and DM+MetS (p-value<0.001). At the cutoff value of 9.65fl with a sensitivity of 81.3% and a specificity of 67.9%, MPV differentiates DM+MetS from HC with an AUC of 0.859. MPV can differentiate DM+MetS from DM at a cutoff value of 10.05fl with sensitivity, specificity, and an AUC of 67.9%, 65.2%, and 0.675, respectively. At the cutoff value of 9.65fl with a sensitivity of 69.6% and a specificity of 67.9%, MPV differentiates DM from HC with an AUC of 0.747. The best platelet parameter identified in this study for predicting the presence of DM+MetS comorbidity was MPV (AUC=0.859; 95%CI=0.81-0.90).

CONCLUSION

In this study, a significant difference in the mean value of PLT, MPV, and PDW was found between DM+MetS, DM, and HC. The mean value of platelet indices showed significant increases in DM+MetS patients in comparison to HC and DM. MPV has been identified as a good potential marker to predict DM+MetS comorbidity and to differentiate DM+MetS comorbidity from the HC or DM. Our results show that MPV could be a good hematological marker to differentiate DM+MetS comorbidity from the HC or DM, and may offer supportive information for early diagnosis, prevention, and control. Thus, the findings of this study should be taken into account for the prevention and control of DM+MetS comorbidity.