Nima Motamed1, Seyed Javad Haji Miresmail2, Behnam Rabiee3, Hossein Keyvani4, Behzad Farahani3, Mansooreh Maadi3, Farhad Zamani5. 1. Department of Social Medicine, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Gavazang Road, Zanjan, Iran. 2. Department of Cardiology, Hazrat Rasoul Hospital, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Niayesh St. Satarkhan Ave., 1445613131, Tehran, Iran. 3. Gastroenterology and Liver Disease Research Center, Firoozgar Hospital, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Beh Afarin St., Karim Khan Zand Ave., 15900, Tehran, Iran. 4. Department of Virology, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Poursina St, 16 Azar Ave, Keshavarz BLVD, Tehran, Iran. 5. Gastroenterology and Liver Disease Research Center, Firoozgar Hospital, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Beh Afarin St., Karim Khan Zand Ave., 15900, Tehran, Iran. Electronic address: Zamani.Farhad@gmail.com.
Abstract
AIMS: The present study was carried out to determine the optimal cutoff points for homeostatic model assessment (HOMA-IR) and quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (QUICKI) in the diagnosis of metabolic syndrome (MetS) and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). METHODS: The baseline data of 5511 subjects aged ≥18years of a cohort study in northern Iran were utilized to analyze. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted to determine the discriminatory capability of HOMA-IR and QUICKI in the diagnosis of MetS and NAFLD. Youden index was utilized to determine the optimal cutoff points of HOMA-IR and QUICKI in the diagnosis of MetS and NAFLD. RESULTS: The optimal cutoff points for HOMA-IR in the diagnosis of MetS and NAFLD were 2.0 [sensitivity=64.4%, specificity=66.8%] and 1.79 [sensitivity=66.2%, specificity=62.2%] in men and were 2.5 [sensitivity=57.6%, specificity=67.9%] and 1.95 [sensitivity=65.1%, specificity=54.7%] in women respectively. Furthermore, the optimal cutoff points for QUICKI in the diagnosis of MetS and NAFLD were 0.343 [sensitivity=63.7%, specificity=67.8%] and 0.347 [sensitivity=62.9%, specificity=65.0%] in men and were 0.331 [sensitivity=55.7%, specificity=70.7%] and 0.333 [sensitivity=53.2%, specificity=67.7%] in women respectively. CONCLUSION: Not only the optimal cutoff points of HOMA-IR and QUICKI were different for MetS and NAFLD, but also different cutoff points were obtained for men and women for each of these two conditions.
AIMS: The present study was carried out to determine the optimal cutoff points for homeostatic model assessment (HOMA-IR) and quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (QUICKI) in the diagnosis of metabolic syndrome (MetS) and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). METHODS: The baseline data of 5511 subjects aged ≥18years of a cohort study in northern Iran were utilized to analyze. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted to determine the discriminatory capability of HOMA-IR and QUICKI in the diagnosis of MetS and NAFLD. Youden index was utilized to determine the optimal cutoff points of HOMA-IR and QUICKI in the diagnosis of MetS and NAFLD. RESULTS: The optimal cutoff points for HOMA-IR in the diagnosis of MetS and NAFLD were 2.0 [sensitivity=64.4%, specificity=66.8%] and 1.79 [sensitivity=66.2%, specificity=62.2%] in men and were 2.5 [sensitivity=57.6%, specificity=67.9%] and 1.95 [sensitivity=65.1%, specificity=54.7%] in women respectively. Furthermore, the optimal cutoff points for QUICKI in the diagnosis of MetS and NAFLD were 0.343 [sensitivity=63.7%, specificity=67.8%] and 0.347 [sensitivity=62.9%, specificity=65.0%] in men and were 0.331 [sensitivity=55.7%, specificity=70.7%] and 0.333 [sensitivity=53.2%, specificity=67.7%] in women respectively. CONCLUSION: Not only the optimal cutoff points of HOMA-IR and QUICKI were different for MetS and NAFLD, but also different cutoff points were obtained for men and women for each of these two conditions.
Authors: Elizabeth M Scott; Joanne S Carpenter; Frank Iorfino; Shane P M Cross; Daniel F Hermens; Jeanne Gehue; Chloe Wilson; Django White; Sharon L Naismith; Adam J Guastella; Ian B Hickie Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-05-27 Impact factor: 2.692