Differences between the tolbutamide-boosted and the insulin-modified minimal model protocols.

The insulin-modified frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance test (FSIGTT) with minimal model analysis (MINMOD) was compared with the tolbutamide protocol and the glucose clamp in 35 nondiabetic subjects (age 38 +/- 2 years [mean +/- SE], BMI 27.2 +/- 0.9 kg/m2). Each subject underwent two FSIGTTs, one with tolbutamide (300 mg) and the other with insulin (0.03 U/kg) and a euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp (40 mU x m(-2) x min(-1)). Insulin sensitivity was determined from each FSIGTT with MINMOD and from the clamp. Insulin sensitivity indexes (S(I)) from the two FSIGTTs were significantly correlated (r = 0.77, P < 0.001), but S(I(insulin)) was 29 +/- 4% lower than S(I(tolbutamide)). Both S(I(insulin)) and S(I(tolbutamide)) correlated significantly with S(I(clamp)) (r = 0.70 and 0.71, P < 0.001 for each). Expressed in the same units (dl/min per pU/ml), S(I(tolbutamide)) was on average 13 +/- 6% lower than S(I(clamp)) (4.51 +/- 0.40 vs. 5.36 +/- 0.36 x 10(-2), P = 0.009), whereas S(I(insulin)) was 44 +/- 4% lower. S(G(tolbutamide)) and S(G(insulin)) were not different (1.88 +/- 0.10 vs. 2.01 +/- 0.09 x 10(-2) min(-1), P = 0.167) and were significantly correlated (r = 0.50, P = 0.002). Thus, insulin sensitivity estimates from both protocols correlate significantly with each other and with the clamp. They are quantitatively discrepant, however, possibly due to differences in the route of insulin delivery, saturation of insulin action, and/or tolbutamide-induced proinsulin release. Data obtained from these two MINMOD protocols are not directly comparable, and the same protocol must be used in any single cross-sectional or longitudinal study.

Exploration of simple insulin sensitivity measures derived from frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance (FSIGT) tests. The Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study.

Both abnormal insulin levels and low insulin sensitivity have been implicated as risk factors for Type II diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease. While insulin level is relatively simple to assess, direct measurement of insulin sensitivity is much more invasive, costly, and time-consuming. The authors considered eight previously described measures or indices of indices of insulin sensitivity derived from the frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance test (FSIGT). Each one was evaluated by strength and consistency of association with insulin sensitivity computed from glucose clamp (SI(clamp)), across three glucose tolerance groups, including participants with normal glucose tolerance (n = 11), impaired glucose tolerance (n = 20), and non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (n = 24). Minimal model analysis (MINMOD SI(22)), based on the 22-sample FSIGT, performed best based on statistical criteria of strong and consistent association with SI(clamp). An insulin sensitivity measure similar to that of Galvin et al. (Diabetic Medicine 1990;9:921-8), defined as glucose disappearance (10-50 minutes) divided by insulin area under the curve above baseline from 0-50 minutes, performed best based on statistical criteria and time-savings. Galvin insulin sensitivity is simple to calculate, requires only a 50-minute FSIGT, and is significantly (p < 0.001) and not inconsistently (p = 0.12 for inconsistent association) associated with SI(clamp) over a wide range of glucose tolerance.

A comparison between the minimal model and the glucose clamp in the assessment of insulin sensitivity across the spectrum of glucose tolerance. Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study.

An insulin-modified frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance test (FSIGTT) with minimal model analysis was compared with the glucose clamp in 11 subjects with normal glucose tolerance (NGT), 20 with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and 24 with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM). The insulin sensitivity index (SI) was calculated from FSIGTT using 22- and 12-sample protocols (SI(22) and SI(12), respectively). Insulin sensitivity from the clamp was expressed as SI(clamp) and SIP(clamp). Minimal model parameters were similar when calculated with SI(22) and SI(12). SI could not be distinguished from 0 in approximately 50% of diabetic patients with either protocol. SI(22) correlated significantly with SI(clamp) in the whole group (r = 0.62), and in the NGT (r = 0.53), IGT (r = 0.48), and NIDDM (r = 0.41) groups (P < 0.05 for each). SI(12) correlated significantly with SI(clamp) in the whole group (r = 0.55, P < 0.001) and in the NGT (r = 0.53, P = 0.046) and IGT (r = 0.58, P = 0.008) but not NIDDM (r = 0.30, P = 0.085) groups. When SI(22), SI(clamp), and SIP(clamp) were expressed in the same units, SI(22) was 66 +/- 5% (mean +/- SE) and 50 +/- 8% lower than SI(clamp) and SIP(clamp), respectively. Thus, minimal model analysis of the insulin-modified FSIGTT provides estimates of insulin sensitivity that correlate significantly with those from the glucose clamp. The correlation was weaker, however, in NIDDM. The insulin-modified FSIGTT can be used as a simple test for assessment of insulin sensitivity in population studies involving nondiabetic subjects. Additional studies are needed before using this test routinely in patients with NIDDM.