Abstract
We investigated whether two alternative HOMA-IR thresholds recently proposed identify similar phenotype and have the same impact on gluco-metabolic risk. The two IR cutoffs, IR1 and IR2 (IR1: HOMA-IR >5.9 and IR2: HOMA-IR between 2.8 and 5.9 with HDL-C <51 mg/dl), were applied to a database of 2,360 outpatients, and their association with phenotypes, glucose tolerance, lipids and metabolic syndrome (MetS) was examined. IR1 group showed 5.5 % of overweight versus 27.8 % of IR2 subjects, and obesity was present in 92.3 versus 68.4 %, respectively. We observed the major prevalence of pathological waist in IR1 compared to IR2 subjects: 96.0 versus 80.5 % (p < 0.001). After OGTT, IR1 patients presented higher prevalence of impaired glucose tolerance (IGT: 25.8 vs. 20.2 %, p < 0.001) and DM2 was diagnosed in 39.7 % of IR1 versus 11.3 % of IR2 patients (p < 0.001) with odds ratio (OR) 8.3 (95 % CI 6.1–11.6) versus 0.8 (0.6–1.2), respectively. IR1 versus IR2 cutpoint showed higher significant (mean ± SEM) total cholesterol (224.8 ± 2.6 vs. 213.1 ± 1.7 mg/dl, p < 0.001) and triglyceride (208.1 ± 12.3 vs. 177.4 ± 4.8 mg/dl, p < 0.001) levels. MetS prevalence was significantly higher in IR1 than IR2 (89.0 vs. 78.3 %, p < 0.001). The IR1 cutpoint was associated with a higher OR of MetS 7.3 (5.3–10.2) versus 5.2 (2.8–9.5) of IR2. In summary, the two alternative HOMA-IR cutoffs identify subjects with different distribution of phenotypes and gluco-metabolic risk. The IR1 patients are characterized by higher prevalence of obesity, pathological waist, MetS, dyslipidemia and IGT/DM2.
References
Abbasi F, Okeke Q, Reaven GM (2013) Evaluation of fasting plasma insulin concentration as an estimate of insulin action in nondiabetic individuals: comparison with the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). Acta Diabetol 2013 Feb 19 [Epub ahead of print]
Tam CS, Xie W, Johnson WD, Cefalu WT, Redman LM, Ravussin E (2012) Defining insulin resistance from hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamps. Diabetes Care 35:1605–1610
Bardini G, Dicembrini I, Rotella CM, Giannini S (2013) Correlation between HDL cholesterol levels and beta-cell function in subjects with various degree of glucose tolerance. Acta Diabetol 50:277–281
Færch K, Vistisen D (2013) Comment on: Tam et al. defining insulin resistance from hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamps. Diabetes Care 2012; 35:1605–1610. Diabetes Care 36:e9
Davidson MB (2013) Comment on: Tam et al. defining insulin resistance from hyperinsulinemic–euglycemic clamps. Diabetes Care 2012; 35: 1605–1610. Diabetes Care 36:e10
Primeau V, Coderre L, Karelis AD, Brochu M, Lavoie ME, Messier V, Sladek R, Rabasa-Lhoret R (2011) Characterizing the profile of obese patients who are metabolically healthy. Int J Obes (Lond) 35:971–981
Chang SA, Kim HS, Yoon KH, Ko SH, Kwon HS, Kim SR, Lee WC, Yoo SJ, Son HS, Cha BY, Lee KW, Son HY, Kang SK (2004) Body mass index is the most important determining factor for the degree of insulin resistance in non-obese type 2 diabetic patients in Korea. Metabolism 53:142–146
Marsden PJ, Murdoch A, Taylor R (1994) Severe impairment of insulin action in adipocytes from amenorrheic subjects with polycystic ovary syndrome. Metabolism 43:1536–1542
Giannini S, Bardini G, Dicembrini I, Monami M, Rotella CM, Mannucci E (2012) Lipid levels in obese and nonobese subjects as predictors of fasting and postload glucose metabolism. J Clin Lipidol 6:132–138
Acknowledgments
This study was supported in part by an unconditioned grant from Pfizer Italy and Abiogen Pharma, Pisa, Italy.
Conflict of interest
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Massimo Federici.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bardini, G., Barbaro, V., Romano, D. et al. Different distribution of phenotypes and glucose tolerance categories associated with two alternative proposed cutoffs of insulin resistance. Acta Diabetol 51, 321–324 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-013-0495-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-013-0495-5