Preanalytical, analytical, and computational factors affect homeostasis model assessment estimates
Preanalytical, analytical, and computational factors affect homeostasis model assessment estimates
Objective: we investigated how β-cell function and insulin sensitivity or resistance are affected by the type of blood sample collected or choice of insulin assay and homeostatis model assessment (HOMA) calculator (http://www.dtu.ox.ac.uk)
Research design and methods: insulin was measured using 11 different assays in serum and 1 assay in heparinized plasma. Fasting subjects with normoglycemia (n = 12), pre-diabetes, i.e., impaired fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance (n = 18), or type 2 diabetes (n = 67) were recruited. Patients treated with insulin or those who were insulin antibody-positive were excluded. HOMA estimates were calculated using specific insulin (SI) or radioimmunoassay (RIA) calculators (version 2.2). RESULTS-All glucose values were within model (HOMA) limits but not all insulin results, as 4.3% were <20 pmol/l and 1% were > 300 pmol/l. (β-Cell function derived from different insulin assays ranged from 67 to 122% (median) for those with normoglycemia (P = 0.026), from 89 to 138% for those with pre-diabetes (P = 0.990), and from 50 to 81% for those with type 2 diabetes (P < 0.0001). Furthermore, insulin resistance ranged from 0.8 to 2.0 (P = 0.0007), from 1.9 to 3.2 (P = 0.842), and from 1.5 to 2.9 (P < 0.0001), respectively. This twofold variation in HOMA estimates from the various insulin assays studied in serum may be significant metabolically. Insulin was 15% lower in heparinized plasma (used in the original HOMA study) compared with serum, which is now more commonly used. J-Cell function differed by 11% and insulin resistance by 15% when estimates derived from specific insulin were calculated using the RIA rather than the SI calculator.
Conclusions: to enable comparison of HOMA estimates among individuals and different research studies, preanalytical factors and calculator selection should be standardized with insulin assays traceable to an insulin reference method procedure.
1877-1883
Manley, Susan E.
46bacfff-cf40-4894-86d8-4aa07e302e70
Luzio, Stephen D.
256a34ad-9e73-40df-93b3-e50bf5f6699e
Stratton, Irene M.
772f25b9-23c0-4240-a3f6-1e76b03b172f
Wallace, Tara M.
5172b0ce-9317-446e-8bb8-f453e88445ce
Clark, Penelope M.S.
a923a901-43f3-4835-8c06-ab85e6ee1408
September 2008
Manley, Susan E.
46bacfff-cf40-4894-86d8-4aa07e302e70
Luzio, Stephen D.
256a34ad-9e73-40df-93b3-e50bf5f6699e
Stratton, Irene M.
772f25b9-23c0-4240-a3f6-1e76b03b172f
Wallace, Tara M.
5172b0ce-9317-446e-8bb8-f453e88445ce
Clark, Penelope M.S.
a923a901-43f3-4835-8c06-ab85e6ee1408
Manley, Susan E., Luzio, Stephen D., Stratton, Irene M., Wallace, Tara M. and Clark, Penelope M.S.
(2008)
Preanalytical, analytical, and computational factors affect homeostasis model assessment estimates.
Diabetes Care, 31 (9), .
(doi:10.2337/dc08-0097).
Abstract
Objective: we investigated how β-cell function and insulin sensitivity or resistance are affected by the type of blood sample collected or choice of insulin assay and homeostatis model assessment (HOMA) calculator (http://www.dtu.ox.ac.uk)
Research design and methods: insulin was measured using 11 different assays in serum and 1 assay in heparinized plasma. Fasting subjects with normoglycemia (n = 12), pre-diabetes, i.e., impaired fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance (n = 18), or type 2 diabetes (n = 67) were recruited. Patients treated with insulin or those who were insulin antibody-positive were excluded. HOMA estimates were calculated using specific insulin (SI) or radioimmunoassay (RIA) calculators (version 2.2). RESULTS-All glucose values were within model (HOMA) limits but not all insulin results, as 4.3% were <20 pmol/l and 1% were > 300 pmol/l. (β-Cell function derived from different insulin assays ranged from 67 to 122% (median) for those with normoglycemia (P = 0.026), from 89 to 138% for those with pre-diabetes (P = 0.990), and from 50 to 81% for those with type 2 diabetes (P < 0.0001). Furthermore, insulin resistance ranged from 0.8 to 2.0 (P = 0.0007), from 1.9 to 3.2 (P = 0.842), and from 1.5 to 2.9 (P < 0.0001), respectively. This twofold variation in HOMA estimates from the various insulin assays studied in serum may be significant metabolically. Insulin was 15% lower in heparinized plasma (used in the original HOMA study) compared with serum, which is now more commonly used. J-Cell function differed by 11% and insulin resistance by 15% when estimates derived from specific insulin were calculated using the RIA rather than the SI calculator.
Conclusions: to enable comparison of HOMA estimates among individuals and different research studies, preanalytical factors and calculator selection should be standardized with insulin assays traceable to an insulin reference method procedure.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 28 May 2008
Published date: September 2008
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 487045
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/487045
ISSN: 0149-5992
PURE UUID: e5d201bf-8804-47aa-a083-c7ffb65f3990
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 09 Feb 2024 18:03
Last modified: 18 Mar 2024 04:01
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Susan E. Manley
Author:
Stephen D. Luzio
Author:
Irene M. Stratton
Author:
Tara M. Wallace
Author:
Penelope M.S. Clark
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics