Obesity Surgery

, Volume 22, Issue 12, pp 1803–1809 | Cite as

Correlations of HOMA2-IR and HbA1c with Algorithms Derived from Bioimpedance and Spectrophotometric Devices

  • Chaim Elinton AdamiEmail author
  • Renata Cristina Gobato
  • Martinho Antonio Gestic
  • Everton Cazzo
  • Murilo Utrini Pimentel
  • Marcelo de Carvalho Ramos
Clinical Research



Homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA2-IR) and HbA1c, markers of metabolic syndrome and glycemic control, were compared with Electro Sensor (ES) Complex software algorithms. ES complex software integrates data from Electro Sensor Oxi (ESO; spectrophotometry) and Electro Sensor-Body Composition (ES-BC; bioimpedance).


One hundred forty-eight Brazilian obese candidates for bariatric surgery underwent complete physical examinations, laboratory tests (fasting plasma glucose, fasting plasma insulin, and HbA1c) and ES complex assessments. HOMA2-IR was calculated from fasting plasma glucose and fasting plasma insulin using free software provided by The University of Oxford Diabetes Trial Unit. ES complex–insulin resistance (ESC-IR) and ES complex–blood glucose control (ESC-BCG) were calculated from ESO and ES-BC data using ES complex software. Correlations between HOMA2-IR and ESC-IR and between ESC-BGC and HbA1c were determined.


ESC-BGC was correlated with HbA1c (r = 0.85). ESC-BCG values >3 were predictive of HbA1c > 6.5 % (φ = 0.94; unweighted κ = 0.9383). ESC-IR was correlated with HOMA2-IR (r = 0.84). Patients with ESC-IR score >2.5 or >3 were more likely to have metabolic syndrome or insulin resistance, respectively, compared with HOMA2-IR value >1.4 and >1.8, respectively. ESC-IR performance was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic curves. The areas under the curve for metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance were 0.9413 and 0.9022, respectively.


The results of this study in Brazilian subjects with obesity suggest that ES complex algorithms will be useful in large-scale screening studies to predict insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and HbA1c >6.5 %. Additional studies are needed to confirm these correlations in non-obese subjects and in other ethnic groups.


Obesity Insulin resistance Metabolic syndrome Electro Sensor Complex software HOMA2-IR HbA1c 



We thank LD Technology for providing the system used in this study.

Conflict of Interest

This study was not sponsored. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.


  1. 1.
    Wallace TM, Levy JC, Matthews DR. Use and abuse of HOMA modeling. Diabetes Care. 2004;27:1487–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Levy JC, Matthews DR, Hermans MP. Correct homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) evaluation uses the computer program. Diabetes Care. 1998;21:2191–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Matthews DR, Hosker JP, Rudenski AS, et al. Homeostasis model assessment: insulin resistance and B-cell function from fasting plasma glucose and insulin concentrations in man. Diabetol. 1985;28:412–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergman RN, Prager R, Volund A, et al. Equivalence of the insulin sensitivity index in man derived by the minimal model method and the euglycemic glucose clamp. J Clin Invest. 1987;79:790–800.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caumo A, Perseghin G, Lattuada G, et al. Comparing the original (HOMA1) and the updated (HOMA2) method: evidence that HOMA2 is more reliable than HOMA. American Diabetes Association 67th Scientific Sessions 2007, June 22–26, 2007. Chicago, IL. Abstract: 1595-P.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Geloneze B. Junqueira Vasques AC, Stabe CFC, et al. HOMA1-IR and HOMA2-IR indexes in identifying insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome. Brazilian Metabolic Syndrome Study (BRAMS). Arq Bras. Endocrinol Metab. 2009;53:281–7.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    American Diabaetes Association. Executive summary: standards of medical care in diabetes—2010. Diabetes Care. 2010;33 suppl 1:S4–S10.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lewis JE, Melillo AB, Tannenbaum S, et al. Comparing the accuracy of ES-BC, EIS and ES Oxi on body composition, autonomic nervous system activity and cardiac output results versus the recognized standardized assessment. Med Device (Auckl). 2011;4:169–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Millasseaua SC, Rittera JM, Takazawab K, et al. Contour analysis of the photoplethysmographic pulse measured at the finger. J Hypertens. 2006;24:1449–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology. Heart rate variability. Standards of measurement, physiological interpretation, and clinical use. Eur Heart J. 1996;17:354–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National diabetes fact sheet: national estimates and general information on diabetes and prediabetes in the United States, 2011. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011. Available at:
  12. 12.
    Sicree R, Shaw J, Zimmet P. Diabetes impaired glucose tolerance—prevalence and projections. In: Gan D, editor. Diabetes atlas. 3rd ed. Brussels: International Diabetes Federation; 2006. p. 15–103.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Diabetes Prevention Research Group. Reduction in the evidence of type 2 diabetes with life-style intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:393–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    World Health Organization. Definition, diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus and its complications, in: Report of a WHO Consultation. Part I: Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Geneva: WHO; 1999. WHO/NCD/NCS/99.2.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Salomaa V, Riley W, Kark JD, et al. Non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and fasting glucose and insulin concentrations are associated with arterial stiffness indexes. Circ. 1995;91:1432–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schroeder EB, Chambless LE, Liao D, et al. Diabetes, glucose, insulin, and heart rate variability. Diabetes Care. 2005;28:668–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Von Känel R, Carney RM, Zhao S, et al. Heart rate variability and biomarkers of systemic inflammation in patients with stable coronary heart disease: findings from the heart and soul study. Clin Res Cardiol. 2011;100:241–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ferrannini E, Camastra S, Gastaldelli A, et al. Beta-cell function in obesity: effects of weight loss. Diabetes. 2004;53 Suppl 3:S26–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chaim Elinton Adami
    • 1
    Email author
  • Renata Cristina Gobato
    • 1
  • Martinho Antonio Gestic
    • 1
  • Everton Cazzo
    • 1
  • Murilo Utrini Pimentel
    • 1
  • Marcelo de Carvalho Ramos
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medical Sciences (FCM/UNICAMP)Campinas University, Cidade Universitária Zeferino VazCampinasBrazil

Personalised recommendations