BACKGROUND: Impaired insulin secretion (IS) and insulin resistance (IR) play an essential role in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Several simplifying indices were developed that calculate IS and/or IR from venous insulin and glucose concentrations. The aim of the present study was to compare these indices with each other and with regard to their efficiency to differentiate between non-diseased and diabetic glucose tolerance states. METHODS: Oral glucose tolerance tests were performed in 301 subjects. The study group was divided into five groups according to WHO/American Diabetes Association (ADA) cut-off values: apparently normotolerant, diabetic, isolated 2-h post-challenge hyperglycemic, isolated fasting hyperglycemic and intermediate groups. The minimal error rate (diagnostic non-efficiency) indicating a misclassification of a diabetic tolerance state was determined for 12 indices. RESULTS: The error rate was lower than 15% for the index of Cederholm and Wibell and for the indices of Stumvoll et al. The misclassification rates for the other indices (index of Matsuda and de Fronzo, index of Myllynen et al., HOMA IR, HOMA beta-cell, FIRI, QUICKI, index of McAuley and insulinogenic index) were 20-27%; however, the diagnostic sensitivity was close to a 1:1 chance of a correct decision. The hypothesis that isolated post-prandial hyperglycemia (IPH) and isolated fasting hyperglycemia (IFH) differ in their insulin sensitivity and insulin response could not be supported by the present results. CONCLUSIONS: The indices of Cederholm and Wibell and of Stumvoll et al. were found to be appropriate as diagnostic indicators of the pathogenesis of diabetic glucose tolerance and were more closely related to the glucose tolerance state than the other indices.
BACKGROUND:Impaired insulin secretion (IS) and insulin resistance (IR) play an essential role in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Several simplifying indices were developed that calculate IS and/or IR from venous insulin and glucose concentrations. The aim of the present study was to compare these indices with each other and with regard to their efficiency to differentiate between non-diseased and diabetic glucose tolerance states. METHODS: Oral glucose tolerance tests were performed in 301 subjects. The study group was divided into five groups according to WHO/American Diabetes Association (ADA) cut-off values: apparently normotolerant, diabetic, isolated 2-h post-challenge hyperglycemic, isolated fasting hyperglycemic and intermediate groups. The minimal error rate (diagnostic non-efficiency) indicating a misclassification of a diabetic tolerance state was determined for 12 indices. RESULTS: The error rate was lower than 15% for the index of Cederholm and Wibell and for the indices of Stumvoll et al. The misclassification rates for the other indices (index of Matsuda and de Fronzo, index of Myllynen et al., HOMA IR, HOMA beta-cell, FIRI, QUICKI, index of McAuley and insulinogenic index) were 20-27%; however, the diagnostic sensitivity was close to a 1:1 chance of a correct decision. The hypothesis that isolated post-prandial hyperglycemia (IPH) and isolated fasting hyperglycemia (IFH) differ in their insulin sensitivity and insulin response could not be supported by the present results. CONCLUSIONS: The indices of Cederholm and Wibell and of Stumvoll et al. were found to be appropriate as diagnostic indicators of the pathogenesis of diabetic glucose tolerance and were more closely related to the glucose tolerance state than the other indices.
Authors: Michael A Trakhtenbroit; Joshua G Leichman; Mohamed F Algahim; Charles C Miller; Frank G Moody; Thomas R Lux; Heinrich Taegtmeyer Journal: Am J Med Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Juris J Meier; Bjoern A Menge; Thomas G K Breuer; Christophe A Müller; Andrea Tannapfel; Waldemar Uhl; Wolfgang E Schmidt; Henning Schrader Journal: Diabetes Date: 2009-06-09 Impact factor: 9.461