BACKGROUND: Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) is associated with elevated risk for developing diabetes and cardiovascular disease. A key component of MetS is the development of insulin resistance (IR). The homeostatic model assessment (HOMA) model can determine IR by using insulin or C-peptide concentrations; however, the efficiency of insulin and C-peptide to determine MetS has not been compared. The aim of the study was to compare the efficiency of C-peptide and insulin to determine MetS in Mexicans. METHODS: Anthropometrics, glucose, insulin, C-peptide, triglycerides, and high-density lipoproteins were determined in 156 nonpregnant females and 114 males. Subjects were separated into normal or positive for MetS. IR was determined by the HOMA2 calculator using insulin or C-peptide. Correlations were calculated using the Spearman correlation coefficient (ρ). Differences between correlations were determined by calculating Steiger's Z. The sensitivity was determined by the area under receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) analysis. RESULTS: Independent of the MetS definition [Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III), International Diabetes Federation (IDF), or World Health Organization (WHO)], C-peptide and insulin were significantly higher in MetS subjects (P < 0.05). C-peptide and insulin correlated with all components of MetS; however, for waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, and fasting plasma glucose, C-peptide correlated better than insulin (P < 0.05). Moreover, C-peptide (AUC = 0.72-0.78) was a better marker than insulin (AUC = 0.62-0.72) for MetS (P < 0.05). Finally, HOMA2-IR calculated with C-peptide (AUC = 0.80-0.84) was more accurate than HOMA2-IR calculated with insulin (AUC = 0.68-0.75, P < 0.05) at determining MetS. CONCLUSION: C-peptide is a strong indicator of MetS. Since C-peptide has recently emerged as a biomolecule with significant importance for inflammatory diseases, monitoring C-peptide levels will aid clinicians in preventing MetS.
BACKGROUND:Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) is associated with elevated risk for developing diabetes and cardiovascular disease. A key component of MetS is the development of insulin resistance (IR). The homeostatic model assessment (HOMA) model can determine IR by using insulin or C-peptide concentrations; however, the efficiency of insulin and C-peptide to determine MetS has not been compared. The aim of the study was to compare the efficiency of C-peptide and insulin to determine MetS in Mexicans. METHODS: Anthropometrics, glucose, insulin, C-peptide, triglycerides, and high-density lipoproteins were determined in 156 nonpregnant females and 114 males. Subjects were separated into normal or positive for MetS. IR was determined by the HOMA2 calculator using insulin or C-peptide. Correlations were calculated using the Spearman correlation coefficient (ρ). Differences between correlations were determined by calculating Steiger's Z. The sensitivity was determined by the area under receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) analysis. RESULTS: Independent of the MetS definition [Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III), International Diabetes Federation (IDF), or World Health Organization (WHO)], C-peptide and insulin were significantly higher in MetS subjects (P < 0.05). C-peptide and insulin correlated with all components of MetS; however, for waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, and fasting plasma glucose, C-peptide correlated better than insulin (P < 0.05). Moreover, C-peptide (AUC = 0.72-0.78) was a better marker than insulin (AUC = 0.62-0.72) for MetS (P < 0.05). Finally, HOMA2-IR calculated with C-peptide (AUC = 0.80-0.84) was more accurate than HOMA2-IR calculated with insulin (AUC = 0.68-0.75, P < 0.05) at determining MetS. CONCLUSION: C-peptide is a strong indicator of MetS. Since C-peptide has recently emerged as a biomolecule with significant importance for inflammatory diseases, monitoring C-peptide levels will aid clinicians in preventing MetS.