Comparison of oral glucose insulin sensitivity with other insulin sensitivity surrogates from oral glucose tolerance tests in Chinese

Chung Ze Wu, Dee Pei, Ching Chieh Su, Fone Ching Hsiao, Yi Min Chu, Li Hsiu Lee, Kun Wang, An Tsz Hsieh, Juinn Diann Lin, Te Lin Hsia

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: There is no single method of measuring insulin resistance that is both accurate and can be easily performed by general researchers. We validate the accuracy of oral glucose insulin sensitivity (OGIS) in the Chinese by comparing the OGIS120 and OGIS180, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (OUICKI) with steady-state plasma glucose (SSPG) in different glucose tolerance subjects. Materials and Methods: We enrolled 515 subjects, aged between 20 and 75 years old, during routine health evaluations. All subjects were divided into normal, obese, impaired fasting glucose (IFG), impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) groups. Participants had a 3-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and SSPG with an insulin suppression test. The relationships between SSPG and OGIS120, OGIS180, HOMA-IR, and QUICKI were evaluated. Results: The normal group had the highest OGIS120, OGIS180 and lowest SSPG as compared with the other 4 groups. OGIS180, HOMA-IR and QUICKI in all 5 groups were significantly related to SSPG (r = 0.397-0.621, all P 120 in all 5 groups was not significantly related to SSPG (r = 0.003-0.226). Additionally, the r value of OGIS180 against SSPG was not higher than the other 2 insulin sensitivity surrogates from OGTT. Conclusions: Although OGIS180 was more accurate in estimating insulin sensitivity than OGIS120 in the Chinese, it was not superior to the traditional surrogates such as HOMA-IR or QUICKI.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)4-8
Number of pages5
JournalAnnals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore
Volume39
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2010

Fingerprint

Glucose Tolerance Test
Insulin Resistance
Glucose
Homeostasis
Glucose Intolerance
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Fasting
Research Personnel
Insulin
Health

Keywords

  • Homeostasis model assessment
  • Insulin resistance
  • Quantitative insulin sensitivity check index

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Comparison of oral glucose insulin sensitivity with other insulin sensitivity surrogates from oral glucose tolerance tests in Chinese. / Wu, Chung Ze; Pei, Dee; Su, Ching Chieh; Hsiao, Fone Ching; Chu, Yi Min; Lee, Li Hsiu; Wang, Kun; Hsieh, An Tsz; Lin, Juinn Diann; Hsia, Te Lin.

In: Annals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore, Vol. 39, No. 1, 01.2010, p. 4-8.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wu, Chung Ze ; Pei, Dee ; Su, Ching Chieh ; Hsiao, Fone Ching ; Chu, Yi Min ; Lee, Li Hsiu ; Wang, Kun ; Hsieh, An Tsz ; Lin, Juinn Diann ; Hsia, Te Lin. / Comparison of oral glucose insulin sensitivity with other insulin sensitivity surrogates from oral glucose tolerance tests in Chinese. In: Annals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore. 2010 ; Vol. 39, No. 1. pp. 4-8.
@article{29c73596641d4194be285cc0860cdaea,
title = "Comparison of oral glucose insulin sensitivity with other insulin sensitivity surrogates from oral glucose tolerance tests in Chinese",
abstract = "Introduction: There is no single method of measuring insulin resistance that is both accurate and can be easily performed by general researchers. We validate the accuracy of oral glucose insulin sensitivity (OGIS) in the Chinese by comparing the OGIS120 and OGIS180, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (OUICKI) with steady-state plasma glucose (SSPG) in different glucose tolerance subjects. Materials and Methods: We enrolled 515 subjects, aged between 20 and 75 years old, during routine health evaluations. All subjects were divided into normal, obese, impaired fasting glucose (IFG), impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) groups. Participants had a 3-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and SSPG with an insulin suppression test. The relationships between SSPG and OGIS120, OGIS180, HOMA-IR, and QUICKI were evaluated. Results: The normal group had the highest OGIS120, OGIS180 and lowest SSPG as compared with the other 4 groups. OGIS180, HOMA-IR and QUICKI in all 5 groups were significantly related to SSPG (r = 0.397-0.621, all P 120 in all 5 groups was not significantly related to SSPG (r = 0.003-0.226). Additionally, the r value of OGIS180 against SSPG was not higher than the other 2 insulin sensitivity surrogates from OGTT. Conclusions: Although OGIS180 was more accurate in estimating insulin sensitivity than OGIS120 in the Chinese, it was not superior to the traditional surrogates such as HOMA-IR or QUICKI.",
keywords = "Homeostasis model assessment, Insulin resistance, Quantitative insulin sensitivity check index",
author = "Wu, {Chung Ze} and Dee Pei and Su, {Ching Chieh} and Hsiao, {Fone Ching} and Chu, {Yi Min} and Lee, {Li Hsiu} and Kun Wang and Hsieh, {An Tsz} and Lin, {Juinn Diann} and Hsia, {Te Lin}",
year = "2010",
month = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "39",
pages = "4--8",
journal = "Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore",
issn = "0304-4602",
publisher = "Academy of Medicine Singapore",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of oral glucose insulin sensitivity with other insulin sensitivity surrogates from oral glucose tolerance tests in Chinese

AU - Wu, Chung Ze

AU - Pei, Dee

AU - Su, Ching Chieh

AU - Hsiao, Fone Ching

AU - Chu, Yi Min

AU - Lee, Li Hsiu

AU - Wang, Kun

AU - Hsieh, An Tsz

AU - Lin, Juinn Diann

AU - Hsia, Te Lin

PY - 2010/1

Y1 - 2010/1

N2 - Introduction: There is no single method of measuring insulin resistance that is both accurate and can be easily performed by general researchers. We validate the accuracy of oral glucose insulin sensitivity (OGIS) in the Chinese by comparing the OGIS120 and OGIS180, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (OUICKI) with steady-state plasma glucose (SSPG) in different glucose tolerance subjects. Materials and Methods: We enrolled 515 subjects, aged between 20 and 75 years old, during routine health evaluations. All subjects were divided into normal, obese, impaired fasting glucose (IFG), impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) groups. Participants had a 3-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and SSPG with an insulin suppression test. The relationships between SSPG and OGIS120, OGIS180, HOMA-IR, and QUICKI were evaluated. Results: The normal group had the highest OGIS120, OGIS180 and lowest SSPG as compared with the other 4 groups. OGIS180, HOMA-IR and QUICKI in all 5 groups were significantly related to SSPG (r = 0.397-0.621, all P 120 in all 5 groups was not significantly related to SSPG (r = 0.003-0.226). Additionally, the r value of OGIS180 against SSPG was not higher than the other 2 insulin sensitivity surrogates from OGTT. Conclusions: Although OGIS180 was more accurate in estimating insulin sensitivity than OGIS120 in the Chinese, it was not superior to the traditional surrogates such as HOMA-IR or QUICKI.

AB - Introduction: There is no single method of measuring insulin resistance that is both accurate and can be easily performed by general researchers. We validate the accuracy of oral glucose insulin sensitivity (OGIS) in the Chinese by comparing the OGIS120 and OGIS180, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (OUICKI) with steady-state plasma glucose (SSPG) in different glucose tolerance subjects. Materials and Methods: We enrolled 515 subjects, aged between 20 and 75 years old, during routine health evaluations. All subjects were divided into normal, obese, impaired fasting glucose (IFG), impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) groups. Participants had a 3-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and SSPG with an insulin suppression test. The relationships between SSPG and OGIS120, OGIS180, HOMA-IR, and QUICKI were evaluated. Results: The normal group had the highest OGIS120, OGIS180 and lowest SSPG as compared with the other 4 groups. OGIS180, HOMA-IR and QUICKI in all 5 groups were significantly related to SSPG (r = 0.397-0.621, all P 120 in all 5 groups was not significantly related to SSPG (r = 0.003-0.226). Additionally, the r value of OGIS180 against SSPG was not higher than the other 2 insulin sensitivity surrogates from OGTT. Conclusions: Although OGIS180 was more accurate in estimating insulin sensitivity than OGIS120 in the Chinese, it was not superior to the traditional surrogates such as HOMA-IR or QUICKI.

KW - Homeostasis model assessment

KW - Insulin resistance

KW - Quantitative insulin sensitivity check index

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=75749093433&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=75749093433&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 20126806

AN - SCOPUS:75749093433

VL - 39

SP - 4

EP - 8

JO - Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore

JF - Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore

SN - 0304-4602

IS - 1

ER -