BACKGROUND: The performance characteristics of surrogate insulin resistance (IR) measures, commonly defined as the top 25% of the measure's distribution, used to predict incident type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) have not been critically assessed in community samples. METHODS AND RESULTS: Baseline IR was assessed among 2720 Framingham Offspring Study subjects by use of fasting insulin, the homeostasis model assessment of IR (HOMA-IR), and the reciprocal of the Gutt insulin sensitivity index, with 7- to 11-year follow-up for incident DM (130 cases) or CVD (235). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood ratio were estimated at 12 diagnostic thresholds (quantiles) of IR measures. Positive likelihood ratios for DM or CVD increased in relation to IR quantiles; risk gradients were greater for DM than for CVD, with no 9th to 10th quantile (76th centile) threshold effects. IR had better discrimination for incident DM than for CVD (HOMA-IR area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: DM 0.80 versus CVD 0.63). The HOMA-IR > or = 76th centile threshold was associated with these test-performance values: sensitivity (DM 68%, CVD 40%), specificity (DM 77%, CVD 76%), and positive likelihood ratio (DM 3.0, CVD 1.7). The HOMA-IR threshold that yielded > 90% sensitivity was the 6th quantile for DM prediction and the 3rd quantile for CVD. Compared with the > or = 76th centile threshold, these alternative thresholds yielded lower specificity (DM 43%, CVD 17%) and positive likelihood ratios (DM 1.6, CVD 1.1). CONCLUSIONS: Surrogate IR measures have modest performance at the 76th centile, with no threshold effects. Different centile thresholds might be selected to optimize sensitivity versus specificity for DM versus CVD prediction if surrogate IR measures are used for risk prediction.
BACKGROUND: The performance characteristics of surrogate insulin resistance (IR) measures, commonly defined as the top 25% of the measure's distribution, used to predict incident type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) have not been critically assessed in community samples. METHODS AND RESULTS: Baseline IR was assessed among 2720 Framingham Offspring Study subjects by use of fasting insulin, the homeostasis model assessment of IR (HOMA-IR), and the reciprocal of the Gutt insulin sensitivity index, with 7- to 11-year follow-up for incident DM (130 cases) or CVD (235). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood ratio were estimated at 12 diagnostic thresholds (quantiles) of IR measures. Positive likelihood ratios for DM or CVD increased in relation to IR quantiles; risk gradients were greater for DM than for CVD, with no 9th to 10th quantile (76th centile) threshold effects. IR had better discrimination for incident DM than for CVD (HOMA-IR area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: DM 0.80 versus CVD 0.63). The HOMA-IR > or = 76th centile threshold was associated with these test-performance values: sensitivity (DM 68%, CVD 40%), specificity (DM 77%, CVD 76%), and positive likelihood ratio (DM 3.0, CVD 1.7). The HOMA-IR threshold that yielded > 90% sensitivity was the 6th quantile for DM prediction and the 3rd quantile for CVD. Compared with the > or = 76th centile threshold, these alternative thresholds yielded lower specificity (DM 43%, CVD 17%) and positive likelihood ratios (DM 1.6, CVD 1.1). CONCLUSIONS: Surrogate IR measures have modest performance at the 76th centile, with no threshold effects. Different centile thresholds might be selected to optimize sensitivity versus specificity for DM versus CVD prediction if surrogate IR measures are used for risk prediction.
Authors: M Gutt; C L Davis; S B Spitzer; M M Llabre; M Kumar; E M Czarnecki; N Schneiderman; J S Skyler; J B Marks Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 5.602
Authors: E Bonora; G Targher; M Alberiche; R C Bonadonna; F Saggiani; M B Zenere; T Monauni; M Muggeo Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Sander J Robins; Hanna Bloomfield Rubins; Fred H Faas; Ernst J Schaefer; Marshall B Elam; James W Anderson; Dorothea Collins Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Anthony J G Hanley; Ken Williams; Clicerio Gonzalez; Ralph B D'Agostino; Lynne E Wagenknecht; Michael P Stern; Steven M Haffner Journal: Diabetes Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Peter Manu; Constantin Ionescu-Tirgoviste; James Tsang; Barbara A Napolitano; Martin L Lesser; Christoph U Correll Journal: Obes Res Clin Pract Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 2.288
Authors: Francesca M Trovato; Daniela Catalano; Angela Ragusa; G Fabio Martines; Clara Pirri; Maria Antonietta Buccheri; Concetta Di Nora; Guglielmo M Trovato Journal: World J Nephrol Date: 2015-02-06
Authors: David B Sacks; Mark Arnold; George L Bakris; David E Bruns; Andrea Rita Horvath; M Sue Kirkman; Ake Lernmark; Boyd E Metzger; David M Nathan Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Daniela Catalano; Guglielmo M Trovato; Giuseppe Fabio Martines; Clara Pirri; Francesca M Trovato Journal: Hepatol Int Date: 2011-01-28 Impact factor: 6.047
Authors: Raghava S Velagaleti; Philimon Gona; Michael L Chuang; Carol J Salton; Caroline S Fox; Susan J Blease; Susan B Yeon; Warren J Manning; Christopher J O'Donnell Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-03-05 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Angela K Green; Paul F Jacques; Gail Rogers; Caroline S Fox; James B Meigs; Nicola M McKeown Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2014-03-08 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Marie-France Hivert; Lisa M Sullivan; Caroline S Fox; David M Nathan; Ralph B D'Agostino; Peter W F Wilson; James B Meigs Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2008-05-20 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Tatjana Rundek; Hannah Gardener; Qiang Xu; Ronald B Goldberg; Clinton B Wright; Bernadette Boden-Albala; Norbelina Disla; Myunghee C Paik; Mitchell S V Elkind; Ralph L Sacco Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2010-10
Authors: Karla I Galaviz; Michael F Schneider; Phyllis C Tien; Keri N Althoff; Mohammed K Ali; Igho Ofotokun; Todd T Brown Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2021-04-12 Impact factor: 2.205