[Correlation between the various measurements of obesity and the degree of resistance to insulin]. / Correlación entre las diferentes medidas de obesidad y el grado de resistencia a la insulina.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the correlation between certain obesity measurements and insulin resistance (measured by HOMA). DESIGN: Descriptive cross-sectional study. SETTING: Urban health centre with elderly population. PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of 70 people was chosen from among an adult population with risk factors for DM2 or already diagnosed. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Parameters of obesity were collected (weight, BMI, body perimeters, waist/hip index, and cutaneous folds), as were clinical parameters (blood pressure and cardiovascular risk), and analyses (glycaemia and insulinaemia--both basal and after 2 hours of oral overload of glucose--, HOMA, lipid profile, and microalbuminuria study). Resistance to insulin (IR) was defined as a HOMA > or =3.8. RESULTS: Individuals with IR had significantly higher values of weight (85.5 vs 75.5 kg), BMI (35.1 vs 29.4 kg/m2), waist perimeter (108 vs 100.3 cm) than those without IR. In neither group were any significant differences as to the waist/hip index found. The BMI and/or waist perimeter values that were more likely to suffer IR were established. In men, the values were waist >107 cm (sensitivity, 43%; specificity, 62%) and BMI>29 (sensitivity, 57%; specificity, 50%). In women, they were a waist >102 cm (sensitivity, 64%; specificity, 89%) and BMI>34 (sensitivity, 91%; specificity, 89%). CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice the BMI and the diameter of the waist are very good predictors of IR, whilst the waist/hip index and cutaneous folds do not provide any information of value.

Correlación entre las diferentes medidas de obesidad y el grado de resistencia a la insulina / Correlation between the various measurements of obesity and the degree of resistance to insulin

Objetivo. Determinar la correlación de algunas medidas de obesidad con la resistencia a la insulina (medida por HOMA). Diseño. Estudio transversal, descriptivo. Emplazamiento. Centro de salud urbano con una población envejecida. Participantes. Se seleccionó una muestra aleatoria de 70 individuos de entre una población adulta con factores de riesgo o diagnóstico de diabetes mellitus tipo 2. Mediciones principales. Se recogieron parámetros de obesidad (peso, índice de masa corporal [IMC], perímetros corporales, índice cintura/cadera y pliegues cutáneos), clínicos (presión arterial y cálculo del riesgo cardiovascular) y analíticos (glucemia e insulinemia basales y tras 2 h de una sobrecarga oral de glucosa, HOMA, perfil lipídico y estudio de microalbuminuria). Se define como resistencia a la insulina un HOMA >= 3,8. Resultados. Entre los individuos con resistencia a la insulina se objetivaron valores significativamente superiores de peso (85,5 frente a 75,5 kg), IMC (35,1 frente a 29,4 kg/m2), perímetro de cintura (108 frente a 100,3 cm) respecto a los que no la tenían. No se evidenciaron diferencias significativas en cuanto al índice cintura/cadera de ambos grupos. Se establecen los valores de IMC y/o perímetro de cintura a partir de los cuales hay mayor riesgo de presentar resistencia a la insulina. En varones son la cintura > 107 cm (sensibilidad del 43%, especificidad del 62%) y el IMC > 29 (sensibilidad del 57%, especificidad del 50%). En mujeres, una cintura > 102 cm (sensibilidad del 64%, especificidad del 89%) y el IMC > 34 (sensibilidad del 91%, especificidad del 89%). Conclusiones. En la práctica clínica, el IMC y el diámetro de la cintura son muy buenos predictores de la resistencia a la insulina, mientras que el índice cintura/cadera y los pliegues cutáneos no aportan información de valor

Objective. To determine the correlation between certain obesity measurements and insulin resistance (measured by HOMA). Design: Descriptive cross-sectional study. Setting: Urban health centre with elderly population. Participants: A random sample of 70 people was chosen from among an adult population with risk factors for DM2 or already diagnosed. Main measurements: Parameters of obesity were collected (weight, BMI, body perimeters, waist/hip index, and cutaneous folds), as were clinical parameters (blood pressure and cardiovascular risk), and analyses (glycaemia and insulinaemia--both basal and after 2 hours of oral overload of glucose--, HOMA, lipid profile, and microalbuminuria study). Resistance to insulin (IR) was defined as a HOMA >=3.8. Results. Individuals with IR had significantly higher values of weight (85.5 vs 75.5 kg), BMI (35.1 vs 29.4 kg/m2), waist perimeter (108 vs 100.3 cm) than those without IR. In neither group were any significant differences as to the waist/hip index found. The BMI and/or waist perimeter values that were more likely to suffer IR were established. In men, the values were waist >107 cm (sensitivity, 43%; specificity, 62%) and BMI>29 (sensitivity, 57%; specificity, 50%). In women, they were a waist >102 cm (sensitivity, 64%; specificity, 89%) and BMI>34 (sensitivity, 91%; specificity, 89%). Conclusions. In clinical practice the BMI and the diameter of the waist are very good predictors of IR, whilst the waist/hip index and cutaneous folds do not provide any information of value

[Variability in the calculation of coronary risk in type-2 diabetes mellitus]. / Variabilidad en la estimación del riesgo coronario en la diabetes mellitus tipo 2.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the concordance and predictive capacity of various methods for calculating coronary risk in diabetic patients. DESIGN: Prospective study of cohorts, with a 10-year follow-up. SETTING: Urban health centre in a socially depressed area, with high prevalence of DM2. PARTICIPANTS: Population diagnosed with type-2 diabetes mellitus in 1991-93 (112 individuals, with an average age of 66.7+/-11.6 years, 59% of whom were male). MAIN MEASUREMENTS: At the moment of diagnosis, the parameters normally used to calculate coronary risk were determined. The tables of the Framingham scale '91 and '98, of the United Kingdom Prospective Study (UKPDS) (based on an exclusively diabetic population) and of the REgistre GIroni del COr (REGICOR-Girona Heart Register) (based on a Mediterranean population) were each used to calculate individually coronary risk at 10 years. The coronary events suffered in the 10 years following DM2 diagnosis were recorded. The Kappa indices for concordance of the tables and their predictive capacity were calculated. RESULTS: 18.2% of men and 15.2% of women suffered some coronary event. The coronary risk calculations were, for men and women, 30%-20% (Framingham '91), 36%-21% (Framingham '98), 38%-23% (UKPDS), and 15%-10% (REGICOR). CONCLUSIONS: The various methods for calculating coronary risk in diabetics suffer large variability. We should highlight their low diagnostic value in individual cases, with sensitivities of 25%-75% and low specificity (mainly in men) regarding real risk of coronary disease.

Variabilidad en la estimación del riesgo coronario en la diabetes mellitus tipo 2 / Variability in the calculation of the coronary risk of type-2 diabetes mellitus

Objetivo. Determinar la concordancia y capacidad predictiva de distintos métodos de cálculo de riesgo coronario en pacientes diabéticos. Diseño. Estudio de cohortes prospectivo con un seguimiento de 10 años. Emplazamiento. Centro de salud urbano de un área sociodeprimida con una elevada prevalencia de diabetes mellitus tipo 2 (DM2) . Participantes. Población diagnosticada de DM2 entre los años 1991 y 1993 (112 individuos; edad media, 66,7 ± 11,6 años; 59%, varones). Mediciones principales. En el momento del diagnóstico se determinan los parámetros de uso habitual para el cálculo del riesgo coronario. Se utilizan las tablas de Framingham 91 y 98, del United Kingdom Prospective Study (UKPDS) (basadas en la población exclusivamente diabética) y del REgistre GIroní del COR (REGICOR), (basadas en la población mediterránea) y se calcula individualmente el riesgo coronario en 10 años según cada una de ellas. Se registran los eventos coronarios aparecidos en los primeros 10 años tras el diagnóstico de DM2. Se calculan los índices kappa de concordancia entre ellas y su capacidad predictiva. Resultados. Un 18,2% de los varones y un 15,2% de las mujeres presentaron algún evento coronario. Las estimaciones de riesgo coronario fueron para varones-mujeres del 30-20% (Framingham’91), 36-21% (Framingham’98), 38-23% (UKPDS) y 15-10% (REGICOR). Conclusiones. Hay una gran variabilidad entre las distintas estimaciones de riesgo coronario en diabéticos. Cabe destacar el discreto valor diagnóstico individual de todas ellas, con sensibilidades del 25-75% y una baja especificidad (principalmente en varones) con respecto al riesgo real de coronariopatía

Objective. To determine the concordance and predictive capacity of various methods for calculating coronary risk in diabetic patients. Design. Prospective study of cohorts, with a 10-year follow-up. Setting. Urban health centre in a socially depressed area, with high prevalence of DM2. Participants. Population diagnosed with type- 2 diabetes mellitus in 1991-93 (112 individuals, with an average age of 66.7±11.6 years, 59% of whom were male). Main measurements. At the moment of diagnosis, the parameters normally used to calculate coronary risk were determined. The tables of the Framingham scale ‘91 and ‘98, of the United Kingdom Prospective Study (UKPDS) (based on an exclusively diabetic population) and of the REgistre GIroni del COr (REGICOR–Girona Heart Register) (based on a Mediterranean population) were each used to calculate individually coronary risk at 10 years. The coronary events suffered in the 10 years following DM2 diagnosis were recorded. The Kappa indices for concordance of the tables and their predictive capacity were calculated. Results. 18.2% of men and 15.2% of women suffered some coronary event. The coronary risk calculations were, for men and women, 30%-20% (Framingham ‘91), 36%-21% (Framingham ‘98), 38%-23% (UKPDS), and 15%-10% (REGICOR). Conclusions. The various methods for calculating coronary risk in diabetics suffer large variability.We should highlight their low diagnostic value in individual cases, with sensitivities of 25%-75% and low specificity (mainly in men) regarding real risk of coronary disease

[Diagnosing type 2 diabetes mellitus: in primary care, fasting plasma glucose and glycosylated haemoglobin do the job]. / Diagnosticando la diabetes mellitus tipo 2: en atención primaria, con la glucemia basal y la hemoglobina glucosilada es suficiente.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) values as a method to diagnose type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) in a population at risk seen in primary care. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analytical study. SETTING: Data were obtained for the Raval Sud study population (epidemiologic study of alterations in glucose metabolism in a population at risk). PARTICIPANTS: 454 subjects from this population (mean age, 65 +/- 3 years; 52% male) at high risk for DM2, seen at a primary care center, were included in the study. MAIN MEASURES: We recorded demographic data and laboratory values for fasting plasma glucose (FPG), oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), and HbA1c. The diagnostic criteria used for DM2 were those published by the WHO in 1999. Values for HbA1c were expressed as the number of standard deviations (SD) above the mean. RESULTS: Levels of HbA1c correlated with FPG (r=0.72) and glucose levels 2 h after oral glucose overload (r=0.43). Thirty percent of the patients with FPG between 110 and 125 mg/dL had HbA1c values higher than the reference limits. A combined technique based on FPG>125 mg/dL or FPG 110-125 mg/dL with HbA1c > or = 3 SD (5.94%) showed a sensitivity of 92% and a specificity of 95%. CONCLUSIONS: When FPG is inconclusive (110-125 mg/dL), an HbA1c value more than 3 standard deviations above the mean (>5.94%) is useful in suggesting a likely diagnosis of diabetes and identifying patients who require treatment.