Suppr超能文献

正常、肥胖及非胰岛素依赖型糖尿病男性胰岛素作用的评估:胰岛素与葡萄糖输注试验、CIGMA、最小模型及葡萄糖钳夹技术的比较

Estimates of insulin action in normal, obese and NIDDM man: comparison of insulin and glucose infusion test, CIGMA, minimal model and glucose clamp techniques.

作者信息

Davis S N, Monti L, Piatti P M, Moller N, Ng L, Coppack S, May M, Brown M D, Orskov H, Alberti K G

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Medical School, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

出版信息

Diabetes Res. 1993;23(1):1-18.

PMID:7924144
Abstract

Many methods of varying complexity are available for the measurement of insulin resistance (action) in man. No study has previously compared several of these in the same subjects to establish which is the most appropriate for routine use. We have, therefore, compared six methods: the hyperinsulinemic eu(iso)-glycaemic clamp (Eu), insulin glucose infusion test (IGI), hyperglycaemic clamp (Hy), continuous infusion of glucose with model assessment (CIGMA), minimal model (Min) and modified minimal model (Mod). Nineteen subjects with varying degrees of glucose tolerance were studied. Eight normal (BMI 22.5 +/- 1.5 kg/m2), six obese (BMI 38 +/- 5 kg/m2) and five NIDDM subjects (BMI 27 +/- 3 kg/m2) were investigated, in a randomized fashion, on separate days. The ratio of metabolic clearance rate of glucose (MCRG) and Insulin (I) was used as the measure of insulin action during Eu, Hy and IGI. Si was calculated as the index of insulin sensitivity from (Min) and (Mod) and CIGMA was obtained as previously described. MCRG was converted to Si to allow for direct comparison with (Min). Methods requiring incremental endogenous insulin secretion (which was highly variable) to calculate an index of insulin action (Si Min, Si Hy and CIGMA) failed to find an overall difference between groups. Only Si Eu (p = 0.007) and Si IGI (p = 0.001) demonstrated a significant overall group difference when Si was used. When MCRG/I was used, Eu, IGI and Hy were able to distinguish a significant overall group difference. With the exception of CIGMA and SiHy all other methods found a significant difference in insulin action between normals and NIDDM subjects. Only Eu and IGI could distinguish obese from normal, while only Si Min, could distinguish obese from NIDDM subjects. Eu and IGI were the only methods to be significantly correlated: normals Rs = 0.75, p < 0.05, obese Rs = 0.9, p < 0.05, and NIDDM Rs = 1.0, p < 0.05. In conclusion we have demonstrated that: 1) The insulin-glucose infusion test and the eu(iso)glycaemic clamp were significantly correlated in normals, obese and NIDDM subjects. 2) Only the eu(iso)glycaemic clamp and insulin glucose infusion test could significantly separate obese from normal subjects. 3) the IGI appears to be a practical, simple and precise method for measuring in vivo insulin action in man and gives results closely similar to those found with the hyperinsulinemic eu(iso)glycaemic clamp.

摘要

有许多复杂度各异的方法可用于测量人体的胰岛素抵抗(作用)。此前尚无研究在同一受试者中对其中几种方法进行比较,以确定哪种方法最适合常规使用。因此,我们比较了六种方法:高胰岛素正常(等)血糖钳夹法(Eu)、胰岛素葡萄糖输注试验(IGI)、高血糖钳夹法(Hy)、葡萄糖持续输注并进行模型评估(CIGMA)、最小模型法(Min)和改良最小模型法(Mod)。对19名糖耐量程度不同的受试者进行了研究。以随机方式在不同日期对8名正常受试者(体重指数22.5±1.5kg/m²)、6名肥胖受试者(体重指数38±5kg/m²)和5名非胰岛素依赖型糖尿病受试者(体重指数27±3kg/m²)进行了调查。在Eu、Hy和IGI期间,葡萄糖代谢清除率(MCRG)与胰岛素(I)的比值被用作胰岛素作用的衡量指标。Si作为胰岛素敏感性指数由(Min)和(Mod)计算得出,CIGMA如前所述获得。MCRG被转换为Si以便与(Min)进行直接比较。需要内源性胰岛素分泌增加(其变化很大)来计算胰岛素作用指数(Si Min、Si Hy和CIGMA)的方法未能发现各组之间的总体差异。当使用Si时,只有Si Eu(p = 0.007)和Si IGI(p = 0.001)显示出显著的总体组间差异。当使用MCRG/I时,Eu、IGI和Hy能够区分出显著的总体组间差异。除CIGMA和SiHy外,所有其他方法均发现正常人与非胰岛素依赖型糖尿病受试者之间的胰岛素作用存在显著差异。只有Eu和IGI能够区分肥胖者与正常人,而只有Si Min能够区分肥胖者与非胰岛素依赖型糖尿病受试者。Eu和IGI是唯一显著相关的方法:正常受试者Rs = 0.75,p < 0.05;肥胖受试者Rs = 0.9,p < 0.05;非胰岛素依赖型糖尿病受试者Rs = 1.0,p < (此处原文有误,根据前文推测应为p < 0.05)0.05。总之,我们证明了:1)胰岛素葡萄糖输注试验与正常(等)血糖钳夹法在正常、肥胖和非胰岛素依赖型糖尿病受试者中显著相关。2)只有正常(等)血糖钳夹法和胰岛素葡萄糖输注试验能够显著区分肥胖者与正常受试者。3)IGI似乎是一种用于测量人体体内胰岛素作用的实用、简单且精确的方法,其结果与高胰岛素正常(等)血糖钳夹法得到结果非常相似。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验