A Mari1, G Pacini, A R Brazzale, B Ahrén. 1. Metabolic Modelling Unit, Institute of Biomedical Engineering, National Research Council, Padova, Italy. andrea.mari@isib.cnr.it
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.min(-1).m(-2) insulin infusion) M value in 147 women (58-61 years; BMI 19-38 kg/m2; 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 approximately 0 for all variables. The best surrogates of M were OGIS (one D not =0) and MCRest (two D not =0); the other methods either under- or overestimated the degree of correlation (three or more D not =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: All IS 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.
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.min(-1).m(-2) insulin infusion) M value in 147 women (58-61 years; BMI 19-38 kg/m2; 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 approximately 0 for all variables. The best surrogates of M were OGIS (one D not =0) and MCRest (two D not =0); the other methods either under- or overestimated the degree of correlation (three or more D not =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: All IS 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.
Authors: M Stumvoll; A Mitrakou; W Pimenta; T Jenssen; H Yki-Järvinen; T Van Haeften; W Renn; J Gerich Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: S E Kahn; R L Prigeon; D K McCulloch; E J Boyko; R N Bergman; M W Schwartz; J L Neifing; W K Ward; J C Beard; J P Palmer Journal: Diabetes Date: 1993-11 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Andrea Tura; Gaetano Chemello; Julia Szendroedi; Christian Göbl; Kristine Færch; Jana Vrbíková; Giovanni Pacini; Ele Ferrannini; Michael Roden Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2018-02-26 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: M Wallander; M Bartnik; S Efendic; A Hamsten; K Malmberg; J Ohrvik; L Rydén; A Silveira; A Norhammar Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2005-09-06 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Aureo Ludovico De Paula; Alessandro R Stival; Alfredo Halpern; Carolina C L DePaula; Andrea Mari; Elza Muscelli; Sergio Vencio; Ele Ferrannini Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2011-05-10 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Latife Bozkurt; Christian S Göbl; Lisa Pfligl; Karoline Leitner; Dagmar Bancher-Todesca; Anton Luger; Sabina Baumgartner-Parzer; Giovanni Pacini; Alexandra Kautzky-Willer Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2015-01-09 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Adam G Tabák; Markus Jokela; Tasnime N Akbaraly; Eric J Brunner; Mika Kivimäki; Daniel R Witte Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-06-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Thomas Prikoszovich; Christine Winzer; Albrecht Ingo Schmid; Julia Szendroedi; Marek Chmelik; Giovanni Pacini; Martin Krssák; Ewald Moser; Tohru Funahashi; Werner Waldhäusl; Alexandra Kautzky-Willer; Michael Roden Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2010-10-26 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: A M C Simonis-Bik; D I Boomsma; J M Dekker; M Diamant; E J C de Geus; L M 't Hart; R J Heine; M H H Kramer; J A Maassen; A Mari; A Tura; G Willemsen; E M W Eekhoff Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2011-02-11 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Gertrud Kacerovsky-Bielesz; Michaela Kacerovsky; Marek Chmelik; Michaela Farukuoye; Charlotte Ling; Rochus Pokan; Harald Tschan; Julia Szendroedi; Albrecht Ingo Schmid; Stephan Gruber; Christian Herder; Michael Wolzt; Ewald Moser; Giovanni Pacini; Gerhard Smekal; Leif Groop; Michael Roden Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-12-21 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Veeradej Pisprasert; Katherine H Ingram; Maria F Lopez-Davila; A Julian Munoz; W Timothy Garvey Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 19.112