OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) is a reliable surrogate measure of in vivo insulin sensitivity in humans. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In the present study, we compared insulin sensitivity as assessed by a 4-h euglycemic (approximately 5 mmol/l) hyperinsulinemic (approximately 300 pmol/l) clamp with HOMA in 115 subjects with various degrees of glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity. RESULTS: We found a strong correlation between clamp-measured total glucose disposal and HOMA-estimated insulin sensitivity (r = -0.820, P<0.0001), with no substantial differences between men (r = -0.800) and women (r = -0.796), younger (aged <50 years, r = -0.832) and older (r = -0.800) subjects, nonobese (BMI <27 kg/m2, r = -0.800) and obese (r = -0.765) subjects, nondiabetic (r = -0.754) and diabetic (r = -0.695) subjects, and normotensive ( r = -0.786) and hypertensive (r = -0.762) subjects. Also, we found good agreement between the two methods in the categorization of subjects according to insulin sensitivity (weighted k = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the HOMA can be reliably used in large-scale or epidemiological studies in which only a fasting blood sample is available to assess insulin sensitivity
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) is a reliable surrogate measure of in vivo insulin sensitivity in humans. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In the present study, we compared insulin sensitivity as assessed by a 4-h euglycemic (approximately 5 mmol/l) hyperinsulinemic (approximately 300 pmol/l) clamp with HOMA in 115 subjects with various degrees of glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity. RESULTS: We found a strong correlation between clamp-measured total glucose disposal and HOMA-estimated insulin sensitivity (r = -0.820, P<0.0001), with no substantial differences between men (r = -0.800) and women (r = -0.796), younger (aged <50 years, r = -0.832) and older (r = -0.800) subjects, nonobese (BMI <27 kg/m2, r = -0.800) and obese (r = -0.765) subjects, nondiabetic (r = -0.754) and diabetic (r = -0.695) subjects, and normotensive ( r = -0.786) and hypertensive (r = -0.762) subjects. Also, we found good agreement between the two methods in the categorization of subjects according to insulin sensitivity (weighted k = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the HOMA can be reliably used in large-scale or epidemiological studies in which only a fasting blood sample is available to assess insulin sensitivity
Authors: Katarina B Greer; Cheryl L Thompson; Lacie Brenner; Beth Bednarchik; Dawn Dawson; Joseph Willis; William M Grady; Gary W Falk; Gregory S Cooper; Li Li; Amitabh Chak Journal: Gut Date: 2011-09-19 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Micah L Olson; Naim M Maalouf; Jon D Oden; Perrin C White; Michele R Hutchison Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2011-11-09 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Kylie Kavanagh; Ashley T Wylie; Tara J Chavanne; Matthew J Jorgensen; V Saroja Voruganti; Anthony G Comuzzie; Jay R Kaplan; Charles E McCall; Stephen B Kritchevsky Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Zhiying Zhang; Elaine Lanza; Penny M Kris-Etherton; Nancy H Colburn; Deborah Bagshaw; Michael J Rovine; Jan S Ulbrecht; Gerd Bobe; Robert S Chapkin; Terryl J Hartman Journal: Lipids Date: 2010-08-24 Impact factor: 1.880
Authors: Thomas E Fuller-Rowell; Lydia K Homandberg; David S Curtis; Vera K Tsenkova; David R Williams; Carol D Ryff Journal: Psychoneuroendocrinology Date: 2019-04-29 Impact factor: 4.905
Authors: Mindy Dopler Nelson; Lana M Widman; Richard Ted Abresch; Kimber Stanhope; Peter J Havel; Dennis M Styne; Craig M McDonald Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2007 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Sandra Lucinei Balbo; Sabrina Grassiolli; Rosane Aparecida Ribeiro; Maria Lúcia Bonfleur; Clarice Gravena; Marcia do Nascimento Brito; Ana Eliza Andreazzi; Paulo Cezar de Freitas Mathias; Rosana Torrezan Journal: Endocrine Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 3.633