Search

Background: We sought to identify the distribution and cut-off value of the ‘homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance’ (HOMA-IR) according to gender and menopausal status for metabolic syndrome in Koreans. Methods: Data were from the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 2008–2010. The subjects included adults aged 20 years or older. We excluded participants who had diabetes or fasting serum glucose ≥ 7 mmol/L. Finally, 11,121 subjects (4,911 men, 3,597 premenopausal women, 2,613 postmenopausal women) were enrolled. The modified Adult Treatment Panel III criteria were used to define metabolic syndrome. Results: The mean HOMA-IR was 2.11 (2.07–2.15) for men, 2.0 (1.97–2.04) for premenopausal women, and 2.14 (2.2–2.19) for postmenopausal women. The first cut-off values in men, premenopausal women, and postmenopausal women were 2.23 (sensitivity 70.6%, specificity 66.9%), 2.39 (sensitivity 72.3%, specificity 76.4%), and 2.48 (sensitivity 51.9%, specificity 80.2%), respectively. Based on the first HOMA-IR cut-off value, the prevalence of metabolic syndrome was 22.9% in men, 13.7% in premenopausal women, and 51.6% in postmenopausal women. The second cut-off value was around 3.2 in all three groups. Based on the second HOMA-IR cut-off value, the prevalence of metabolic syndrome was 50.8% in men, 42.5% in premenopausal women, and 71.6% in postmenopausal women. Conclusion: In conclusion, the first cut-off values for HOMA-IR were 2.2–2.5 and the second cut-off value was 3.2 in Korea. The distribution of HOMA-IR showed differences according to gender and menopausal status. When we apply HOMA-IR, we should consider gender, menopausal status, and the prevalence of metabolic syndrome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To test the hypothesis that acute myocardial infarction (AMI) might accelerate development of new onset diabetes in patients with coronary artery disease independent of known risk factors. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study within COACT (CathOlic medical center percutAneous Coronary inTervention) registry. From a total of 9,127 subjects, 2,036 subjects were diabetes naïve and followed up for at least one year with both index and follow-up laboratory data about diabetes. Cox proportional hazard model was used to derive hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for new onset diabetes associated with AMI in univariate and multivariate analysis after adjusting several covariates. Results: The overall hazard for diabetes was higher in AMI compared to non-AMI patients (p by log rank <0.01) with HR of 1.78 and 95% CI of 1.37–2.32 in univariate analysis. This association remained significant after adjusting covariates (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.14–2.07; p<0.01). AMI was an independent predictor for higher quartile of WBC count in multivariate ordinal logistic regression analysis (OR, 6.75; 95% CI, 5.53–8.22, p<0.01). In subgroup analysis, the diabetogenic effect of AMI was more prominent in the subgroup without MetS compared to MetS patients (p for interaction<0.05). Compared to the reference group of non-AMI+nonMetS, the group of AMI+non-MetS (HR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.58–3.76), non-AMI+MetS (HR, 3.42; 95% CI, 2.34–4.98) and AMI+MetS (HR, 4.12; 95% CI, 2.67–6.36) showed higher HR after adjusting covariates. However, the hazard was not different between the non-AMI+MetS and AMI+non-MetS groups. Conclusions: AMI patients have a greater risk of new-onset diabetes when compared to non AMI patients, especially those with mild metabolic abnormalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]