Comparative evaluation of simple indices of insulin resistance

Comparative evaluation of simple indices of insulin resistance Various surrogate methods for the quantification of insulin sensitivity have been proposed. A comparative evaluation is lacking and is relevant for the standardization of investigative methods and comparability of results. The aims of the study were to perform a comparative validation of fasting insulin, homeostasis model assessment (HOMA), Quantitative Insulin Sensitivity Check Index (QUICKI), and revised-QUICKI (R-QUICKI) against minimal model derived estimates of insulin sensitivity (SI MM ) in nondiabetic people and to carry out a comparative evaluation of the ability of these indices as means for the identification of individuals with the metabolic syndrome (MS) on a population basis. We used 2 data sets defined as “validation sample” and “prevalence sample”. Validation sample: a total of 162 healthy men and women aged 30 to 65 years were studied by frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance test (FSIVGTT). SI MM was calculated with the Minmod program. Prevalence sample: a total of 2,731 nondiabetic men and women aged 35 to 65 years were studied. In both samples, anthropometry, blood pressure, fasting glucose, insulin, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and free fatty acid (FFA) were measured. HOMA, QUICKI, and R-QUICKI were calculated. The MS was defined according to the Adult Treatment Panel III. Validation sample: insulin, HOMA, QUICKI, and R-QUICKI significantly correlated with SI MM ( r = −0,53, −0.52, 0.41, 0.33; all P < .001). The finding was confirmed in obese (body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m 2 ), but in the normal weight, the correlation coefficient for QUICKI was significantly smaller than for the other indices. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis performed with SI MM below or above the lowest 25th percentile (ie, insulin resistance yes, no) as the outcome variable and each of the 4 indices as the test variable showed no significant differences in the areas under the curve. Prevalence sample: prevalence of the MS progressively increased across quartiles of insulin resistance as evaluated by any of the 4 indices, with no significant differences between them. The novel indices QUICKI and R-QUICKI do not perform better than HOMA and fasting insulin as surrogate measures of insulin resistance or means for the identification of people with MS in the general population. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Metabolism Elsevier

Loading next page...
 
/lp/elsevier/comparative-evaluation-of-simple-indices-of-insulin-resistance-fDSFsGRqAO
Publisher
Elsevier
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 Elsevier Inc.
ISSN
0026-0495
DOI
10.1016/j.metabol.2004.05.017
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Various surrogate methods for the quantification of insulin sensitivity have been proposed. A comparative evaluation is lacking and is relevant for the standardization of investigative methods and comparability of results. The aims of the study were to perform a comparative validation of fasting insulin, homeostasis model assessment (HOMA), Quantitative Insulin Sensitivity Check Index (QUICKI), and revised-QUICKI (R-QUICKI) against minimal model derived estimates of insulin sensitivity (SI MM ) in nondiabetic people and to carry out a comparative evaluation of the ability of these indices as means for the identification of individuals with the metabolic syndrome (MS) on a population basis. We used 2 data sets defined as “validation sample” and “prevalence sample”. Validation sample: a total of 162 healthy men and women aged 30 to 65 years were studied by frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance test (FSIVGTT). SI MM was calculated with the Minmod program. Prevalence sample: a total of 2,731 nondiabetic men and women aged 35 to 65 years were studied. In both samples, anthropometry, blood pressure, fasting glucose, insulin, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and free fatty acid (FFA) were measured. HOMA, QUICKI, and R-QUICKI were calculated. The MS was defined according to the Adult Treatment Panel III. Validation sample: insulin, HOMA, QUICKI, and R-QUICKI significantly correlated with SI MM ( r = −0,53, −0.52, 0.41, 0.33; all P < .001). The finding was confirmed in obese (body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m 2 ), but in the normal weight, the correlation coefficient for QUICKI was significantly smaller than for the other indices. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis performed with SI MM below or above the lowest 25th percentile (ie, insulin resistance yes, no) as the outcome variable and each of the 4 indices as the test variable showed no significant differences in the areas under the curve. Prevalence sample: prevalence of the MS progressively increased across quartiles of insulin resistance as evaluated by any of the 4 indices, with no significant differences between them. The novel indices QUICKI and R-QUICKI do not perform better than HOMA and fasting insulin as surrogate measures of insulin resistance or means for the identification of people with MS in the general population.

Journal

MetabolismElsevier

Published: Dec 1, 2004

References

  • Evaluation of the quantitative insulin sensitivity check index as an estimate of insulin sensitivity in humans
    Abbasi, F.; Reaven, G.M.
  • QUICKI is a useful index of insulin sensitivity in subjects with hypertension
    Chen, H.; Sullivan, G.; Youe, L.Q.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off