Background: Many CpGs become hyper or hypo-methylated with age. Multiple methods have been developed by Horvath et al. to estimate DNA methylation (DNAm) age including Pan-tissue, Skin & Blood, PhenoAge, and GrimAge. Pan-tissue and Skin & Blood try to estimate chronological age in the normal population whereas PhenoAge and GrimAge use surrogate markers associated with mortality to estimate biological age and its departure from chronological age. Here, we applied Horvath's four methods to calculate and compare DNAm age in 499 subjects with type 1 diabetes (T1D) from the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) study using DNAm data measured by Illumina EPIC array in the whole blood. Association of the four DNAm ages with development of diabetic complications including cardiovascular diseases (CVD), nephropathy, retinopathy, and neuropathy, and their risk factors were investigated. Results: Pan-tissue and GrimAge were higher whereas Skin & Blood and PhenoAge were lower than chronological age (p < 0.0001). DNAm age was not associated with the risk of CVD or retinopathy over 18-20 years after DNAm measurement. However, higher PhenoAge (β = 0.023, p = 0.007) and GrimAge (β = 0.029, p = 0.002) were associated with higher albumin excretion rate (AER), an indicator of diabetic renal disease, measured over time. GrimAge was also associated with development of both diabetic peripheral neuropathy (OR = 1.07, p = 9.24E−3) and cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (OR = 1.06, p = 0.011). Both HbA1c (β = 0.38, p = 0.026) and T1D duration (β = 0.01, p = 0.043) were associated with higher PhenoAge. Employment (β = − 1.99, p = 0.045) and leisure time (β = − 0.81, p = 0.022) physical activity were associated with lower Pan-tissue and Skin & Blood, respectively. BMI (β = 0.09, p = 0.048) and current smoking (β = 7.13, p = 9.03E−50) were positively associated with Skin & Blood and GrimAge, respectively. Blood pressure, lipid levels, pulse rate, and alcohol consumption were not associated with DNAm age regardless of the method used. Conclusions: Various methods of measuring DNAm age are sub-optimal in detecting people at higher risk of developing diabetic complications although some work better than the others.

Objective To characterize the relationship between hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels and glucose tolerance across pregnancy and postpartum. Design and Participants In a longitudinal study of pregnant women with gestational diabetes risk factors (N = 102), we performed oral glucose tolerance testing (OGTT) and HbA1c measurements at 10–15 weeks of gestation, 24–30 weeks of gestation (N = 73), and 6–24 weeks postpartum (N = 42). Complete blood counts were obtained from clinical records. We calculated HbA1c-estimated average glucose levels and compared them with mean OGTT glucose levels (average of fasting, 1- and 2-hour glucose levels). Linear mixed effects models were used to test for longitudinal changes in measurements. Results Mean OGTT glucose increased between 10–15 and 24–30 weeks of gestation (β = 8.1 mg/dL, P = .001), while HbA1c decreased during the same time period (β = –0.13%, P &lt; .001). At 10–15 weeks of gestation and postpartum the discrepancy between mean OGTT glucose and HbA1c-estimated average glucose was minimal (mean [standard deviation]: 1.2 [20.5] mg/dL and 0.16 [18.1] mg/dL). At 24–30 weeks of gestation, the discrepancy widened (13.2 [17.9] mg/dL, β = 12.7 mg/dL, P &lt; .001, compared to 10–15 weeks of gestation, with mean OGTT glucose being higher than HbA1c-estimated average glucose). Lower hemoglobin at 24–30 weeks of gestation was associated with a greater discrepancy (β = 6.4 mg/dL per 1 g/dL lower hemoglobin, P = .03 in an age- and gestational age-adjusted linear regression model). Conclusions HbA1c accurately reflects glycemia in the 1st trimester, but underestimates glucose intolerance in the late 2nd trimester. Lower hemoglobin level is associated with greater underestimation. Accounting for gestational age and maternal hemoglobin may improve the clinical interpretation of HbA1c levels during pregnancy.

No abstract

No abstract