Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Circulation
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
« Previous Article | Table of Contents | Next Article »
Circulation. 2008;117:1003-1009
Published online before print February 4, 2008, doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.727727
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
117/8/1003    most recent
CIRCULATIONAHA.107.727727v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rutter, M. K.
Right arrow Articles by Meigs, J. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rutter, M. K.
Right arrow Articles by Meigs, J. B.
Related Collections
Right arrow Cerebrovascular disease/stroke
Right arrow Risk Factors
Right arrow Type 2 diabetes
Right arrow Acute myocardial infarction
Right arrow Epidemiology
Right arrowRelated Article

(Circulation. 2008;117:1003-1009.)
© 2008 American Heart Association, Inc.

Epidemiology

Use of Alternative Thresholds Defining Insulin Resistance to Predict Incident Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Cardiovascular Disease

Martin K. Rutter, MD; Peter W.F. Wilson, MD; Lisa M. Sullivan, PhD; Caroline S. Fox, MD, MPH; Ralph B. D’Agostino, Sr, PhD; James B. Meigs, MD, MPH

From The Cardiovascular Research Group, Division of Cardiovascular and Endocrine Sciences, University of Manchester, and The Manchester Diabetes Centre, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, United Kingdom (M.K.R.); Emory University School of Medicine (P.W.F.W.), Atlanta, Ga; Department of Biostatistics (L.M.S.), Department of Mathematics and Statistics/Consulting Unit (R.B.D.), Boston University, Boston, Mass; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Framingham (Mass) Heart Study (C.S.F.), Harvard Medical School and the Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Mass (C.S.F); and Harvard Medical School and the General Medicine Division, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (J.B.M.).

Correspondence to James B. Meigs, MD, MPH, General Medicine Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, 50 Staniford St, 9th Floor, Boston, MA 02114. E-mail jmeigs{at}partners.org

Received July 13, 2007; accepted November 27, 2007.

Background— The performance characteristics of surrogate insulin resistance (IR) measures, commonly defined as the top 25% of the measure’s distribution, used to predict incident type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) have not been critically assessed in community samples.

Methods and Results— Baseline IR was assessed among 2720 Framingham Offspring Study subjects by use of fasting insulin, the homeostasis model assessment of IR (HOMA-IR), and the reciprocal of the Gutt insulin sensitivity index, with 7- to 11-year follow-up for incident DM (130 cases) or CVD (235). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood ratio were estimated at 12 diagnostic thresholds (quantiles) of IR measures. Positive likelihood ratios for DM or CVD increased in relation to IR quantiles; risk gradients were greater for DM than for CVD, with no 9th to 10th quantile (76th centile) threshold effects. IR had better discrimination for incident DM than for CVD (HOMA-IR area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: DM 0.80 versus CVD 0.63). The HOMA-IR ≥76th centile threshold was associated with these test-performance values: sensitivity (DM 68%, CVD 40%), specificity (DM 77%, CVD 76%), and positive likelihood ratio (DM 3.0, CVD 1.7). The HOMA-IR threshold that yielded >90% sensitivity was the 6th quantile for DM prediction and the 3rd quantile for CVD. Compared with the ≥76th centile threshold, these alternative thresholds yielded lower specificity (DM 43%, CVD 17%) and positive likelihood ratios (DM 1.6, CVD 1.1).

Conclusions— Surrogate IR measures have modest performance at the 76th centile, with no threshold effects. Different centile thresholds might be selected to optimize sensitivity versus specificity for DM versus CVD prediction if surrogate IR measures are used for risk prediction.

 

CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE


Related Article:

Clinical Summaries
Circulation 2008 117: 987-989. [Extract] [Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 CirculationHome page
D. S.H. Bell and J. H. O'Keefe
Letter by Bell and O'Keefe Regarding Article, "Use of Alternative Thresholds Defining Insulin Resistance to Predict Incident Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Cardiovascular Disease"
Circulation, September 9, 2008; 118(11): e156 - e156.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CirculationHome page
M. K. Rutter, P. W.F. Wilson, L. M. Sullivan, C. S. Fox, R. B. D'Agostino Sr, and J. B. Meigs
Response to Letter Regarding Article, "Use of Alternative Thresholds Defining Insulin Resistance to Predict Incident Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Cardiovascular Disease"
Circulation, September 9, 2008; 118(11): e157 - e157.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.Home page
M.-F. Hivert, L. M. Sullivan, C. S. Fox, D. M. Nathan, R. B. D'Agostino Sr., P. W. F. Wilson, and J. B. Meigs
Associations of Adiponectin, Resistin, and Tumor Necrosis Factor-{alpha} with Insulin Resistance
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., August 1, 2008; 93(8): 3165 - 3172.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Circulation Home | Subscriptions | Archives | Feedback | Authors | Help | AHA Journals Home | Search
Copyright © 2008 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited.