High triglyceride-glucose index and HOMA-IR are associated with different cardiometabolic profile in adults from the ELSA-Brasil study

•TyG and HOMA-IR displayed poor agreement;•TyG is weak to moderately correlated with HOMA-IR and other glycemic markers;•TyG is better than HOMA-IR for metabolic syndrome prediction.•Individuals with discordant TyG and HOMA-IR have different cardiometabolic profile. Insulin resistance (IR) is a risk...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical biochemistry 2024-10, Vol.131-132, p.110793, Article 110793
Hauptverfasser: Lelis, Deborah F., Baldo, Thais de O.F., Andrade, João M.O., Griep, Rosane H., Bensenor, Isabela, Lotufo, Paulo A., Mill, José G., Baldo, Marcelo P.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:•TyG and HOMA-IR displayed poor agreement;•TyG is weak to moderately correlated with HOMA-IR and other glycemic markers;•TyG is better than HOMA-IR for metabolic syndrome prediction.•Individuals with discordant TyG and HOMA-IR have different cardiometabolic profile. Insulin resistance (IR) is a risk factor for several cardiometabolic disorders; however, there is conflicting evidence about the reliability of certain IR markers. In this context, the triglyceride-glucose index (TyG) has been proposed as a surrogate marker for IR. This study aimed to compare the TyG index and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). A cross-sectional analysis was conducted using baseline data from 11,314 adults (aged 35–74 years) from the ELSA-Brasil study. The correlation between TyG and HOMA-IR, their interrater reliability, and their predictive value in identifying metabolic syndrome (MetS) were assessed. The mean TyG and HOMA-IR in our sample were 8.81 ± 0.52 and 2.78 ± 1.58 for men, and 8.53 ± 0.48 and 2.49 ± 1.38 for women, respectively. TyG and HOMA-IR showed a weak to moderate correlation with each other (Pearson’s r for men: 0.395 and 0.409 for women, p-value
ISSN:0009-9120
1873-2933
1873-2933
DOI:10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2024.110793