AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Minimal model analysis for insulin sensitivity has been validated against the glucose clamp and is an accepted method for estimating insulin sensitivity from IVGTT. However minimal model analysis requires a 3 h test and relevant expertise to run the mathematical model. The aim of this study was to suggest a simple predictor of minimal model analysis index using only 1 h IVGTT. METHODS: We studied participants with different clinical characteristics who underwent 3 h regular (n = 336) or insulin-modified (n = 160) IVGTT, or 1 h IVGTT and euglycaemic-hyperinsulinaemic clamp (n = 247). Measures of insulin sensitivity were insulin sensitivity index estimated by minimal model analysis (S(I)) and the mean glucose infusion rate (clamp) (M). A calculated S(I) (CS(I)) predictor, CS(I) = Alpha X K(G)/(DeltaAUC(INS)/T), was suggested, based on the calculation of the rate of glucose disappearance K(G) and the suprabasal AUC of insulin concentration DeltaAUC(INS) over T = 40 min. For all the participants, alpha was assumed equal to the regression line slope between K(G)/(DeltaAUC(INS)/T) and S(I) in control participants. RESULTS: CS(I) and S(I) showed high correlation (R(2) = 0.68-0.96) and regression line slopes of approximately one in the majority of groups. CS(I) tended to overestimate S(I) in type 2 diabetic participants, but results were more reliable when CS(I) was computed with insulin-modified rather than regular IVGTT. CS(I) showed behaviours similar to S(I) as regards relationships with BMI, acute insulin response and sex. CS(I) showed good correlation with M (R(2) = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: A short test can achieve a good approximation of minimal model analysis and clamp insulin sensitivity. The importance of a method such as CS(I) is that it allows analysis of IVGTT datasets with samples limited to 1 h.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Minimal model analysis for insulin sensitivity has been validated against the glucose clamp and is an accepted method for estimating insulin sensitivity from IVGTT. However minimal model analysis requires a 3 h test and relevant expertise to run the mathematical model. The aim of this study was to suggest a simple predictor of minimal model analysis index using only 1 h IVGTT. METHODS: We studied participants with different clinical characteristics who underwent 3 h regular (n = 336) or insulin-modified (n = 160) IVGTT, or 1 h IVGTT and euglycaemic-hyperinsulinaemic clamp (n = 247). Measures of insulin sensitivity were insulin sensitivity index estimated by minimal model analysis (S(I)) and the mean glucose infusion rate (clamp) (M). A calculated S(I) (CS(I)) predictor, CS(I) = Alpha X K(G)/(DeltaAUC(INS)/T), was suggested, based on the calculation of the rate of glucose disappearance K(G) and the suprabasal AUC of insulin concentration DeltaAUC(INS) over T = 40 min. For all the participants, alpha was assumed equal to the regression line slope between K(G)/(DeltaAUC(INS)/T) and S(I) in control participants. RESULTS:CS(I) and S(I) showed high correlation (R(2) = 0.68-0.96) and regression line slopes of approximately one in the majority of groups. CS(I) tended to overestimate S(I) in type 2 diabeticparticipants, but results were more reliable when CS(I) was computed with insulin-modified rather than regular IVGTT. CS(I) showed behaviours similar to S(I) as regards relationships with BMI, acute insulin response and sex. CS(I) showed good correlation with M (R(2) = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: A short test can achieve a good approximation of minimal model analysis and clamp insulin sensitivity. The importance of a method such as CS(I) is that it allows analysis of IVGTT datasets with samples limited to 1 h.
Authors: P Galvin; G Ward; J Walters; R Pestell; M Koschmann; A Vaag; I Martin; J D Best; F Alford Journal: Diabet Med Date: 1992-12 Impact factor: 4.359
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: J O Clausen; K Borch-Johnsen; H Ibsen; R N Bergman; P Hougaard; K Winther; O Pedersen Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 1996-09-01 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Angelo Avogaro; Richard M Watanabe; Alessandra Dall'Arche; Saula Vigili De Kreutzenberg; Antonio Tiengo; Giovanni Pacini Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 19.112
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: Sabine Kahl; Bettina Nowotny; Simon Piepel; Peter J Nowotny; Klaus Strassburger; Christian Herder; Giovanni Pacini; Michael Roden Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: B B Heinisch; G Vila; M Resl; M Riedl; B Dieplinger; T Mueller; A Luger; G Pacini; M Clodi Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2011-12-13 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Faidon Magkos; Aoife Brennan; Laura Sweeney; Eun Seok Kang; John Doweiko; Adolf W Karchmer; Christos S Mantzoros Journal: Metabolism Date: 2010-11-16 Impact factor: 8.694
Authors: José L Santos; Luis R Cataldo; Cristián Cortés-Rivera; Carolina Bravo; Luis Díaz-Casanova; J Alfredo Martínez; Fermín I Milagro; José Galgani Journal: J Physiol Biochem Date: 2019-03-13 Impact factor: 4.158
Authors: Deborah M Mitchell; Benjamin Z Leder; Enrico Cagliero; Natalia Mendoza; Maria P Henao; Douglas L Hayden; Joel S Finkelstein; Sherri-Ann M Burnett-Bowie Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2015-07-08 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Michael Weiss; Andrea Tura; Alexandra Kautzky-Willer; Giovanni Pacini; David Z D'Argenio Journal: Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol Date: 2015-11-25 Impact factor: 3.619
Authors: J L Santos; I Yévenes; L R Cataldo; M Morales; J Galgani; C Arancibia; J Vega; P Olmos; M Flores; J P Valderas; F Pollak Journal: J Physiol Biochem Date: 2015-12-11 Impact factor: 4.158
Authors: J F Ortega; F Morales-Palomo; M Ramirez-Jimenez; A Moreno-Cabañas; R Mora-Rodríguez Journal: Acta Diabetol Date: 2020-02-04 Impact factor: 4.280