Hermans M P, Levy J C, Morris R J, Turner R C
Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford University, UK.
Diabetes. 1999 Sep;48(9):1779-86. doi: 10.2337/diabetes.48.9.1779.
Adequate comparisons of the relative performance of different tests of beta-cell function are not available. We compared discrimination of commonly used in vivo tests of beta-cell function across a range of glucose tolerance in seven subjects with normal glucose tolerance (NGT), eight subjects with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and nine subjects with type 2 diabetes. In random order, each subject underwent two of each of the following tests: 1) frequently sampled 0.3-g/kg intravenous glucose tolerance test (FSIVGTT) with MinMod analysis; 2) homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) from three samples at 5-min intervals with a model incorporating immunoreactive or specific insulin measurements; and 3) continuous infusion of 180 mg x min(-1) x m(-2) glucose with model assessment (CIGMA) of three samples at 50, 55, and 60 min (1-h CIGMA) and at 110, 115, and 120 min (2-h CIGMA). The discrimination of each test was assessed by the ratio of the within-subject SD to the underlying between-subject SD, the discriminant ratio (DR). The degree to which tests measured the same physiological variable was assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficient adjusted for attenuation due to test imprecision. An unbiased line of equivalence, taking into account the imprecision of both tests, was used to compare results. Beta-cell function assessed from HOMA and beta-cell function assessed from CIGMA (CIGMA%beta) (using immunoreactive insulin) had higher DRs than first-phase intravenous glucose tolerance test-derived incremental insulin peak, area, insulin-to-glucose index, and acute insulin response to glucose from FSIVGTT-MinMod. CIGMA%beta (immunoreactive insulin) had the highest DR. FSIVGTT-derived first-phase insulin response tests correlated only moderately with HOMA and CIGMA. Using specific rather than immunoreactive insulin for HOMA and CIGMA did not improve discriminatory power. Simple tests such as HOMA and CIGMA, using immunoreactive insulin, offer better beta-cell function discrimination across subjects with NGT, IGT, and type 2 diabetes than measurements derived from FSIVGTT first-phase insulin response.
目前尚无对不同β细胞功能测试的相对性能进行充分比较的研究。我们比较了七种糖耐量正常(NGT)受试者、八种糖耐量受损(IGT)受试者和九种2型糖尿病受试者在一系列糖耐量情况下常用的体内β细胞功能测试的辨别能力。按照随机顺序,每位受试者接受以下每种测试中的两种:1)采用MinMod分析的0.3 g/kg静脉葡萄糖耐量频繁采样测试(FSIVGTT);2)通过每5分钟采集三个样本并结合免疫反应性或特异性胰岛素测量的模型进行稳态模型评估(HOMA);3)以180 mg·min⁻¹·m⁻²的速率持续输注葡萄糖,并在50、55和60分钟(1小时CIGMA)以及110、115和120分钟(2小时CIGMA)对三个样本进行模型评估(CIGMA)。通过受试者内标准差与潜在的受试者间标准差之比(判别比,DR)来评估每种测试的辨别能力。使用针对测试不精确性进行衰减校正的Pearson相关系数来评估测试测量相同生理变量的程度。考虑到两种测试的不精确性,使用无偏等效线来比较结果。与FSIVGTT - MinMod得出的第一阶段静脉葡萄糖耐量测试衍生的胰岛素峰值增量、面积、胰岛素与葡萄糖指数以及对葡萄糖的急性胰岛素反应相比,HOMA评估的β细胞功能和CIGMA评估的β细胞功能(CIGMA%β)(使用免疫反应性胰岛素)具有更高的DR。CIGMA%β(免疫反应性胰岛素)的DR最高。FSIVGTT衍生的第一阶段胰岛素反应测试与HOMA和CIGMA仅具有中等程度的相关性。在HOMA和CIGMA中使用特异性胰岛素而非免疫反应性胰岛素并不能提高辨别能力。使用免疫反应性胰岛素的简单测试如HOMA和CIGMA,在NGT、IGT和2型糖尿病受试者中比FSIVGTT第一阶段胰岛素反应测量提供了更好的β细胞功能辨别能力。