AJP - Endo Fuel your research with LabChart
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 270: E532-E540, 1996;
0193-1849/96 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Avogaro, A.
Right arrow Articles by Cobelli, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Avogaro, A.
Right arrow Articles by Cobelli, C.

AJP - Endocrinology and Metabolism, Vol 270, Issue 3 E532-E540, Copyright © 1996 by American Physiological Society


ARTICLES

The hot but not the cold minimal model allows precise assessment of insulin sensitivity in NIDDM subjects

A. Avogaro, P. Vicini, A. Valerio, A. Caumo and C. Cobelli
Department of Metabolic Diseases, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.

Assessment of insulin sensitivity in subjects with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) is of paramount importance but intrinsically difficult. The standard (hereafter cold) minimal model, in conjunction with an insulin-modified protocol, has been recently proposed, but the estimates of insulin sensitivity showed poor precision (Saad et al. Diabetes 43: 1114-1121, 1994). We propose the tracer (hereafter hot) minimal model as a highly reliable method to estimate insulin sensitivity (SI*) and fractional glucose clearance (SG*), reflecting glucose disposal only, in NIDDM subjects. A [6,6- 2H2] glucose-labeled insulin-modified intravenous glucose tolerance test was performed in seven NIDDM subjects. In particular, SI* was 1.07 +/- 0.34 x10(-4)min(-1).microU-1.ml estimated with an average precision (mean coefficient of variation of 12%, range 4-22%), whereas the cold minimal model SI was 0.96 +/- 0.26 x 10(-4) min-1. microU-1.ml (mean coefficient of variation of 105%, range 3-353%). Another advantage of the hot indexes with respect to the cold indexes is their ability to reflect glucose and insulin effect on glucose disposal only, and not also on hepatic glucose production. Finally, we also studied by simulation the effect of glucose urinary loss on cold and hot minimal model indexes; only cold glucose effectiveness (SG) was significantly affected, resulting in a mean approximately 40% lower. The hot minimal model appears therefore more reliable than the cold model for assessing glucose tolerance in NIDDM subjects. In particular its ability to dissect disposal from production processes, coupled with the very good precision of the estimated metabolic indexes, supports the clinical use of this method in NIDDM subjects.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online