Prediction of clamp-derived insulin sensitivity from the oral glucose insulin sensitivity index

Aims/hypothesis The euglycaemic–hyperinsulinaemic clamp is the gold-standard method for measuring insulin sensitivity, but is less suitable for large clinical trials. Thus, several indices have been developed for evaluating insulin sensitivity from the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). However, mo...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Diabetologia 2018-05, Vol.61 (5), p.1135-1141
Hauptverfasser: Tura, Andrea, Chemello, Gaetano, Szendroedi, Julia, Göbl, Christian, Færch, Kristine, Vrbíková, Jana, Pacini, Giovanni, Ferrannini, Ele, Roden, Michael
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Aims/hypothesis The euglycaemic–hyperinsulinaemic clamp is the gold-standard method for measuring insulin sensitivity, but is less suitable for large clinical trials. Thus, several indices have been developed for evaluating insulin sensitivity from the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). However, most of them yield values different from those obtained by the clamp method. The aim of this study was to develop a new index to predict clamp-derived insulin sensitivity ( M value) from the OGTT-derived oral glucose insulin sensitivity index (OGIS). Methods We analysed datasets of people that underwent both a clamp and an OGTT or meal test, thereby allowing calculation of both the M value and OGIS. The population was divided into a training and a validation cohort ( n  = 359 and n  = 154, respectively). After a stepwise selection approach, the best model for M value prediction was applied to the validation cohort. This cohort was also divided into subgroups according to glucose tolerance, obesity category and age. Results The new index, called PREDIcted M (PREDIM), was based on OGIS, BMI, 2 h glucose during OGTT and fasting insulin. Bland–Altman analysis revealed a good relationship between the M value and PREDIM in the validation dataset (only 9 of 154 observations outside limits of agreement). Also, no significant differences were found between the M value and PREDIM (equivalence test: p  
ISSN:0012-186X
1432-0428
DOI:10.1007/s00125-018-4568-4