| Literature DB >> 27699688 |
Ce Tan1, Yutaka Sasagawa2, Ken-Ichi Kamo3, Takehiro Kukitsu4, Sayaka Noda4, Kazuma Ishikawa4, Natsumi Yamauchi4, Takashi Saikawa1, Takanori Noro1, Hajime Nakamura4, Fumihiko Takahashi5, Fumihiro Sata6,7, Mitsuhiro Tada6,8, Yasuo Kokai6,9.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To prevent the onset of lifestyle-related diseases associated with metabolic syndrome (MetS) in Japan, research into the development of a useful screening method is strongly desired. We developed a new screening questionnaire (JAMRISC) utilizing a logistic regression model and evaluated its ability to predict the development of MetS, type 2 diabetes and other lifestyle-related diseases in Japanese populace.Entities:
Keywords: Insulin resistance; JAMRISC; Logistic regression model; Postprandial hyperglycemia; Questionnaire
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27699688 PMCID: PMC5112197 DOI: 10.1007/s12199-016-0568-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Health Prev Med ISSN: 1342-078X Impact factor: 3.674
Fig. 1JAMRISC questionnaire
Evaluation of the clinical relevance of the JAMRISC question items and creation of the calculation formula of the JAMRISC total risk score
| Coefficients for the question items | |
|---|---|
| Gender | 1.3369 |
| Abdominal circumference | 0.1897 |
| History of hypertension | 1.3738 |
| History of hyperglycemia or history of urinary sugar | |
| 1.5084 | |
| Exercises (yes or no) (less than 2h = 1, 2h or more = 0) | 0.8768 |
Calculation formula of total risk score with the JAMRISC questionnaire = (1.3369 × gender ) + (0.1897 × abdominal circumference cm) + (1.3738 × history of hypertension) + (1.5084 × history of hyperglycemia / urinary sugar) + (0.8768 × exercises yes/no)
Fig. 2ROC curve for the detection of MetS using the JAMRISC
Comparison of risk detection rate between JAMRISC and FINDRISC questionnaires
| Pathologies | FINDRISC | JAMRISC | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | Specificity | Sensitivity | Specificity | |
| MetS (18/83) | 44.4 % (8/18) | 100.0 % (65/65) | 100.0 % (18/18) | 72.3 % (47/65) |
| Pre-MetS (10/83) | 0.0 % (0/10) | 89.0 % (65/73) | 90.0 % (9/10) | 63.0 % (46/73) |
| Type2 diabetes (6/83) | 66.7 % (4/6) | 94.8 % (73/77) | 83.3 % (5/6) | 59.7 % (46/77) |
| Pre-diabetes (13/83) | 23.1 % (3/13) | 92.8 % (65/70) | 92.3 % (12/13) | 65.7 % (46/64) |
| Overall risk for above four pathologiesa (29/83) | 27.6 % (8/29) | 100.0 % (54/54) | 93.1 % (27/29) | 83.3 % (45/54) |
A sample of 83 subjects (aged 40–60 years) definitively diagnosed as healthy or with MetS, pre-MetS, type 2 diabetes, or pre-diabetes according to the results of regular health checkups completed both JAMRISC and FINDRISC questionnaires simultaneously
aJAMRISC could detect individuals with any risks related to type 2 diabetes and MetS with a sensitivity of 93.1 % and a specificity of 83.3 %, whereas FINDRISC offered high specificity (100.0 %), but markedly low sensitivity (27.6 %)
Timetable of JAMRISC questionnaire utilized to direct disease development risk in Rumoi residents aged 55–64 years
Validation of the risk detection rate by the JAMRISC questionnaire for MetS, pre-MetS, type 2 diabetes, and pre-diabetes in 396 subjects that underwent blood testing
aAmong the 396 subjects who underwent blood testing, 52 subjects (equivalent to 13.1 %) were diagnosed with MetS, among whom 49 (94.2 %) exhibited the risk scores of ≥20
bHigh detection rates were also shown for pre-MetS, type 2 diabetes and pre-diabetes
Correlation between the risk score calculated with JAMRISC and the degree of insulin resistance
aThe results of blood testing revealed that the mean HOMA-IR was 1.15 for subjects with a questionnaire score of <20 (males, 32.7 %), 1.67 for subjects with a score of 20–49 (males, 71.4 %), 1.66 for subjects with a score of 50–89 (males, 83.8 %), and 2.25 for subjects with a score of 90–100 (males, 80.6 %), indicating strong insulin resistance. Accordingly, insulin resistance tended to increase as the risk score increased
bInsulin resistance intensity was set at three levels: HOMA-IR ≥1.4, HOMA-IR ≥2.0, HOMA-IR ≥3.0, and insulin resistance detection rates were investigated for each risk score. The results indicated that 87.1% of subjects with a risk score of ≥20 were HOMA-R ≧1.4, 91.2 % were HOMA-IR ≧2.0, and 92.3 % were HOMA-IR ≧3.0
Correlation between the rates of subjects with postprandial hyperglycemia with insulin resistance and the risk score calculated with JAMRISC
Although data were not shown in this study, the OGTT analysis results of 629 individuals who underwent the test at Rumoi Municipal hospital revealed that 82.1% of individuals with FPG <110mg/dl, HOMA-β ≥55 were equivalent to IGT
In addition, recent epidemiological data in Japan show that subjects with FPG values of 100 to 109mg/dl, which are in the normal range, develop type 2 diabetes at a higher rate than subjects with FPG values <100mg/dl
Moreover, FPG values of 100 mg/dl are seem to be corresponding to 2-hr values of 140 mg/dl in 75 g OGTT approximately (J. Japan Diab. Soc. 51(3): 281-283, 2008). With those reports as a background, we hypothesized that IGT having insulin resistance was diagnosed when HOMA-IR ≥ 1.4, FPG values of 100-109mg/dl and HOMA-β ≥ 55
For the purpose of target all subjects exhibited “postprandial hyperglycemia with insulin resistance” within IGT, IFG/IGT and type 2 diabetes, we decided to describe FPG values of ≥100 mg/dl
Therefore, we hypothesized that individuals who met the criteria of HOMA-IR ≥ 1.4, FPG ≥100 mg/dl, HOMA-β ≥ 55 had postprandial hyperglycemia with insulin resistance