OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of adiposity in the relationship between specific and surrogate estimates of insulin-mediated glucose uptake (IMGU) in a large nondiabetic population. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Healthy volunteers were classified by BMI into normal weight (<25.0 kg/m(2), n = 208), overweight (25.0-29.9 kg/m(2), n = 168), and obese (>or=30.0 kg/m(2), n = 109) groups. We then assessed how differences in BMI affect the correlation between steady-state plasma glucose (SSPG) concentration at the end of a 180-min infusion of octreotide, glucose, and insulin (a specific measure of IMGU) and five surrogate estimates: fasting plasma glucose, fasting plasma insulin, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (QUICKI), and area under the curve for insulin in response to oral glucose (I-AUC). RESULTS: Correlation coefficients (r values) between SSPG and surrogate measures of IMGU were all significant (P < 0.05), but the magnitude varied between BMI groups: normal weight: fasting plasma glucose 0.20, fasting plasma insulin 0.33, HOMA-IR 0.36, QUICKI -0.33, and I-AUC 0.69; overweight: fasting plasma glucose 0.19, fasting plasma insulin 0.55, HOMA-IR 0.55, QUICKI -0.54, and I-AUC 0.72; and obese: fasting plasma glucose 0.40, fasting plasma insulin 0.56, HOMA-IR 0.60, QUICKI -0.61, and I-AUC 0.69. CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between direct and surrogate estimates of IMGU varies with BMI, with the weakest correlations seen in the normal-weight group and the strongest in the obese group. In general, I-AUC is the most useful surrogate estimate of IMGU in all weight groups. Fasting plasma insulin, HOMA-IR, and QUICKI provide comparable information about IMGU. Surrogate estimates of IMGU based on fasting insulin and glucose account for no more than 13% of the variability in insulin action in the normal-weight group, 30% in the overweight group, and 37% in the obese group.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of adiposity in the relationship between specific and surrogate estimates of insulin-mediated glucose uptake (IMGU) in a large nondiabetic population. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Healthy volunteers were classified by BMI into normal weight (<25.0 kg/m(2), n = 208), overweight (25.0-29.9 kg/m(2), n = 168), and obese (>or=30.0 kg/m(2), n = 109) groups. We then assessed how differences in BMI affect the correlation between steady-state plasma glucose (SSPG) concentration at the end of a 180-min infusion of octreotide, glucose, and insulin (a specific measure of IMGU) and five surrogate estimates: fasting plasma glucose, fasting plasma insulin, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (QUICKI), and area under the curve for insulin in response to oral glucose (I-AUC). RESULTS: Correlation coefficients (r values) between SSPG and surrogate measures of IMGU were all significant (P < 0.05), but the magnitude varied between BMI groups: normal weight: fasting plasma glucose 0.20, fasting plasma insulin 0.33, HOMA-IR 0.36, QUICKI -0.33, and I-AUC 0.69; overweight: fasting plasma glucose 0.19, fasting plasma insulin 0.55, HOMA-IR 0.55, QUICKI -0.54, and I-AUC 0.72; and obese: fasting plasma glucose 0.40, fasting plasma insulin 0.56, HOMA-IR 0.60, QUICKI -0.61, and I-AUC 0.69. CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between direct and surrogate estimates of IMGU varies with BMI, with the weakest correlations seen in the normal-weight group and the strongest in the obese group. In general, I-AUC is the most useful surrogate estimate of IMGU in all weight groups. Fasting plasma insulin, HOMA-IR, and QUICKI provide comparable information about IMGU. Surrogate estimates of IMGU based on fasting insulin and glucose account for no more than 13% of the variability in insulin action in the normal-weight group, 30% in the overweight group, and 37% in the obese group.
Authors: Jennifer L Bayer-Carter; Pattie S Green; Thomas J Montine; Brian VanFossen; Laura D Baker; G Stennis Watson; Laura M Bonner; Maureen Callaghan; James B Leverenz; Brooke K Walter; Elaine Tsai; Stephen R Plymate; Nadia Postupna; Charles W Wilkinson; Jing Zhang; Johanna Lampe; Steven E Kahn; Suzanne Craft Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2011-06
Authors: Yong Zhang; Jie Sun; Feng Li; Tristan R Grogan; Jose L Vergara; QingXian Luan; Moon-Soo Park; David Chia; David Elashoff; Kaumudi J Joshipura; David T W Wong Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 5.602
Authors: Khoa D Lam; Peter Bacchetti; Fahim Abbasi; Claudia E Ayala; Samuel M Loeb; Vidhi Shah; Michael J Wen; Gerald M Reaven; Jacquelyn J Maher; Mandana Khalili Journal: Hepatology Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Sun H Kim; Lilla Nikolics; Fahim Abbasi; Cindy Lamendola; James Link; Gerald M Reaven; Steven Lindley Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2009-12-03 Impact factor: 4.791