C. Crofts, G. Schofield, Mark C. Wheldon, C. Zinn, J. Kraft
{"title":"确定高胰岛素血症的诊断算法","authors":"C. Crofts, G. Schofield, Mark C. Wheldon, C. Zinn, J. Kraft","doi":"10.4102/JIR.V4I1.49","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Ascertaining Kraft dynamic insulin response patterns following a 3-h 100 g oral glucose tolerance test seems to be the most reliable method for diagnosing hyperinsulinaemia. However, this test may be too resource-intensive for standard clinical use. Aim: This study aims to see if Kraft patterns can be accurately predicted using fewer blood samples with sensitivity and specificity analyses. Setting: St Joseph Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, United States and Human Potential Centre, Auckland University of technology, Auckland, New Zealand. Method: We analysed the results of 4185 men and women with a normal glucose tolerance, who had a 100 g oral glucose tolerance test with Kraft pattern analysis. Participants were dichotomised into normal–low insulin tolerance (Kraft I or V patterns) or hyperinsulinaemia (Kraft IIA–IV patterns). Sensitivity and specificity analysis was applied to available variables (including age, body mass index, fasting insulin or glucose) both individually and in combination. Results: Out of a maximal combined sensitivity and specificity score of 2.0, 2-h insulin level > 45 µU/mL attained the highest score (1.80). Two-hour insulin also attained the highest sensitivity (> 30 µU/mL, 0.98) and the highest specificity (> 50 µU/mL, 0.99) scores. Combining the 2-h insulin with other variables reduced the sensitivity and/or specificity. Dynamic measures had a better combined sensitivity and specificity compared to fasting or anthropological measures. Conclusion: People with a 2-h plasma insulin level 30 µU/mL following a 100 g oral glucose tolerance test be used to identify the hyperinsulinaemic individual.","PeriodicalId":32155,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Insulin Resistance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Determining a diagnostic algorithm for hyperinsulinaemia\",\"authors\":\"C. Crofts, G. Schofield, Mark C. Wheldon, C. Zinn, J. Kraft\",\"doi\":\"10.4102/JIR.V4I1.49\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Ascertaining Kraft dynamic insulin response patterns following a 3-h 100 g oral glucose tolerance test seems to be the most reliable method for diagnosing hyperinsulinaemia. However, this test may be too resource-intensive for standard clinical use. Aim: This study aims to see if Kraft patterns can be accurately predicted using fewer blood samples with sensitivity and specificity analyses. Setting: St Joseph Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, United States and Human Potential Centre, Auckland University of technology, Auckland, New Zealand. Method: We analysed the results of 4185 men and women with a normal glucose tolerance, who had a 100 g oral glucose tolerance test with Kraft pattern analysis. Participants were dichotomised into normal–low insulin tolerance (Kraft I or V patterns) or hyperinsulinaemia (Kraft IIA–IV patterns). Sensitivity and specificity analysis was applied to available variables (including age, body mass index, fasting insulin or glucose) both individually and in combination. Results: Out of a maximal combined sensitivity and specificity score of 2.0, 2-h insulin level > 45 µU/mL attained the highest score (1.80). Two-hour insulin also attained the highest sensitivity (> 30 µU/mL, 0.98) and the highest specificity (> 50 µU/mL, 0.99) scores. Combining the 2-h insulin with other variables reduced the sensitivity and/or specificity. Dynamic measures had a better combined sensitivity and specificity compared to fasting or anthropological measures. Conclusion: People with a 2-h plasma insulin level 30 µU/mL following a 100 g oral glucose tolerance test be used to identify the hyperinsulinaemic individual.\",\"PeriodicalId\":32155,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Insulin Resistance\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Insulin Resistance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4102/JIR.V4I1.49\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Insulin Resistance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/JIR.V4I1.49","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Determining a diagnostic algorithm for hyperinsulinaemia
Background: Ascertaining Kraft dynamic insulin response patterns following a 3-h 100 g oral glucose tolerance test seems to be the most reliable method for diagnosing hyperinsulinaemia. However, this test may be too resource-intensive for standard clinical use. Aim: This study aims to see if Kraft patterns can be accurately predicted using fewer blood samples with sensitivity and specificity analyses. Setting: St Joseph Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, United States and Human Potential Centre, Auckland University of technology, Auckland, New Zealand. Method: We analysed the results of 4185 men and women with a normal glucose tolerance, who had a 100 g oral glucose tolerance test with Kraft pattern analysis. Participants were dichotomised into normal–low insulin tolerance (Kraft I or V patterns) or hyperinsulinaemia (Kraft IIA–IV patterns). Sensitivity and specificity analysis was applied to available variables (including age, body mass index, fasting insulin or glucose) both individually and in combination. Results: Out of a maximal combined sensitivity and specificity score of 2.0, 2-h insulin level > 45 µU/mL attained the highest score (1.80). Two-hour insulin also attained the highest sensitivity (> 30 µU/mL, 0.98) and the highest specificity (> 50 µU/mL, 0.99) scores. Combining the 2-h insulin with other variables reduced the sensitivity and/or specificity. Dynamic measures had a better combined sensitivity and specificity compared to fasting or anthropological measures. Conclusion: People with a 2-h plasma insulin level 30 µU/mL following a 100 g oral glucose tolerance test be used to identify the hyperinsulinaemic individual.