Advanced

Comparative evaluation of simple insulin sensitivity methods based on the oral glucose tolerance test

Mari, A; Pacini, G; Brazzale, A R and Ahrén, Bo LU (2005) In Diabetologia 48(4). p.748-751
Abstract
Aims/hypothesis: We compared five surrogate insulin sensitivity ( IS) methods against the euglycaemic - hyperinsulinaemic clamp. These methods were the homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) and four methods based on the OGTT (OGIS, MCRest, ISIcomp, SIORAL). Methods: We compared these IS methods against the clamp (0.28 nmol center dot min(-1) center dot m(-2) insulin infusion) M value in 147 women ( 58 - 61 years; BMI 19 - 38 kg/m(2); 116 NGT, 25 IFG/IGT, six type 2 diabetic), by evaluating the correlation coefficient with M. We also tested the ability to reproduce the relationships between IS and typical IS correlates ( BMI, fasting insulin, insulin to glucose OGTT area ratio and fasting, 2 h and mean glucose) by means of the "discrepancy... (More)
Aims/hypothesis: We compared five surrogate insulin sensitivity ( IS) methods against the euglycaemic - hyperinsulinaemic clamp. These methods were the homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) and four methods based on the OGTT (OGIS, MCRest, ISIcomp, SIORAL). Methods: We compared these IS methods against the clamp (0.28 nmol center dot min(-1) center dot m(-2) insulin infusion) M value in 147 women ( 58 - 61 years; BMI 19 - 38 kg/m(2); 116 NGT, 25 IFG/IGT, six type 2 diabetic), by evaluating the correlation coefficient with M. We also tested the ability to reproduce the relationships between IS and typical IS correlates ( BMI, fasting insulin, insulin to glucose OGTT area ratio and fasting, 2 h and mean glucose) by means of the "discrepancy index" D, in which ( 1) D=0 if the correlation between IS and the variable of interest is as with the clamp, ( 2) D is smaller than 0 if the correlation is overestimated, and ( 3) D is greater than 0 if underestimated. Results: All IS methods correlated with M ( r=0.57 - 0.83, p< 0.0001); for MCRest the relationship was markedly curvilinear. All IS measures correlated with the considered variables (r= 0.29 - 0.94, p< 0.0005); however, no method had D approximate to 0 for all variables. The best surrogates of M were OGIS ( one D. 0) and MCRest ( two D. 0); the other methods either under- or overestimated the degree of correlation three or more D. 0), in particular with fasting insulin (HOMA: D=- 57%; ISIcomp: D=- 36%) and BMI ( HOMA: D=- 14%; ISIcomp: D=- 14%; SiORAL: D=- 11%). Conclusions/interpretation: AllIS methods were correlated with M. OGIS and MCRest were preferable to the other methods and in particular to HOMA for reproducing relationships with the independent variables. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
insulin sensitivity, glucose clamp, glucose tolerance, OGTT
in
Diabetologia
volume
48
issue
4
pages
748 - 751
publisher
Springer Verlag
external identifiers
  • pmid:15744532
  • wos:000228515900021
  • scopus:17844407717
ISSN
1432-0428
DOI
10.1007/s00125-005-1683-9
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
0bec706f-91d0-4fba-9b01-b252dc6dc8bb (old id 245820)
date added to LUP
2007-08-07 16:17:12
date last changed
2017-10-29 03:37:16
@article{0bec706f-91d0-4fba-9b01-b252dc6dc8bb,
  abstract     = {Aims/hypothesis: We compared five surrogate insulin sensitivity ( IS) methods against the euglycaemic - hyperinsulinaemic clamp. These methods were the homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) and four methods based on the OGTT (OGIS, MCRest, ISIcomp, SIORAL). Methods: We compared these IS methods against the clamp (0.28 nmol center dot min(-1) center dot m(-2) insulin infusion) M value in 147 women ( 58 - 61 years; BMI 19 - 38 kg/m(2); 116 NGT, 25 IFG/IGT, six type 2 diabetic), by evaluating the correlation coefficient with M. We also tested the ability to reproduce the relationships between IS and typical IS correlates ( BMI, fasting insulin, insulin to glucose OGTT area ratio and fasting, 2 h and mean glucose) by means of the "discrepancy index" D, in which ( 1) D=0 if the correlation between IS and the variable of interest is as with the clamp, ( 2) D is smaller than 0 if the correlation is overestimated, and ( 3) D is greater than 0 if underestimated. Results: All IS methods correlated with M ( r=0.57 - 0.83, p&lt; 0.0001); for MCRest the relationship was markedly curvilinear. All IS measures correlated with the considered variables (r= 0.29 - 0.94, p&lt; 0.0005); however, no method had D approximate to 0 for all variables. The best surrogates of M were OGIS ( one D. 0) and MCRest ( two D. 0); the other methods either under- or overestimated the degree of correlation three or more D. 0), in particular with fasting insulin (HOMA: D=- 57%; ISIcomp: D=- 36%) and BMI ( HOMA: D=- 14%; ISIcomp: D=- 14%; SiORAL: D=- 11%). Conclusions/interpretation: AllIS methods were correlated with M. OGIS and MCRest were preferable to the other methods and in particular to HOMA for reproducing relationships with the independent variables.},
  author       = {Mari, A and Pacini, G and Brazzale, A R and Ahrén, Bo},
  issn         = {1432-0428},
  keyword      = {insulin sensitivity,glucose clamp,glucose tolerance,OGTT},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {4},
  pages        = {748--751},
  publisher    = {Springer Verlag},
  series       = {Diabetologia},
  title        = {Comparative evaluation of simple insulin sensitivity methods based on the oral glucose tolerance test},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00125-005-1683-9},
  volume       = {48},
  year         = {2005},
}