Rojas-Jiménez JA, Mota-Sanhua V, Martínez-Castañeda D, Covarrubias-Cortés A, Flores-García G, López-Ríos S, Jácome-Mondragón JA, Velázquez-Hernández B

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 177-183
PDF size: 340.46 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Quantose^TM-Insulin resistance (Quantose^TM-IR) is a new metabolomic assay consisting of a single blood sample to assess insulin resistance. Objective: to analyze the reliability of Quantose^TM-Insulin resistance for the diagnosis of prediabetes in patients at primary care and to compare it with Homeostatic Model Assessment-Insulin Resistance, glycosylated hemoglobin and fasting glucose. Material and methods: observational, analytical cross-sectional study, in Clínicas de Salud Incluyente y Educación, Centro Médico ABC at Mexico. A total of 135 patients were studied, with a mean age of 46 years, 77% women, mean body mass index of 30.7, all diagnosed with prediabetes according to the American Diabetes Association criteria. Quantose^TM-IR, Homeostatic Model Assessment-Insulin Resistance, glycosylated hemoglobin and fasting glucose determinations were compared to assess realiability. Results: Quantose^TM-IR reliably identified more patients with insulin resistance (71%) than Homeostatic Model Assessment-Insulin Resistance (52.6%); fasting glucose (40.7%) and glycosylated hemoglobin (30.4%), a statistically significant result (Intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.512: 95% CI 0.363-0.634). Conclusion: The analysis of insulin resistance and prediabetic status by Quantose^TM-IR is reliable. The combination of different tests optimizes the diagnosis of prediabetes. Our study suggests that Quantose^TM-IR is more effective in identifying patients with insulin resistance than other routine tests of a single blood sample.

REFERENCES

1. Tripathi K, Saboo B. Sadikot's international textbook of diabetes. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers; 2019.

2. Guerrero-Romero F, Rodríguez-Morán M, Pérez-Fuentes R, Sánchez-Guillén MC, González-Ortiz M, Martínez-Abundis E et al. Prediabetes and its relationship with obesity in Mexican adults: the mexican diabetes prevention (MEXDIAB) study. Metab Syndr Relat Disord. 2008; 6 (1): 15-23.

3. Abdul-Ghani MA, Tripathy D, DeFronzo RA. Contributions of β-cell dysfunction and insulin resistance to the pathogenesis of impaired glucose tolerance and impaired fasting glucose. Diabetes Care. 2006; 29 (5): 1130-1139.

4. Shamah-Levy T, Romero-Martínez M, Barrientos-Gutiérrez T, Cuevas-Nasu L, Bautista-Arredondo S, Colchero MA et al. Encuesta Nacional de Salud y Nutrición 2020 sobre Covid-19. Resultados nacionales. Cuernavaca, México: Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, 2021.

5. Guo F, Moellering DR, Garvey WT. Use of HbA1c for diagnoses of diabetes and prediabetes: comparison with diagnoses based on fasting and 2-hr glucose values and effects of gender, race, and age. Metab Syndr Relat Disord. 2014; 12 (5): 258-268.

6. González T. Pruebas de tamizaje y diagnósticas. [Internet]. Chile: Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Medicina; 2016. Disponible en: https://sintesis.med.uchile.cl/index.php/profesionales/informacion-para-profesionales/medicina/condiciones-clinicas2/otorrinolaringologia/1167-7-01-3-028

7. Cobb J, Gall W, Adam KP, Nakhle P, Button E, Hathorn J et al. A novel fasting blood test for insulin resistance and prediabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013; 7 (1): 100-110.

8. Hernández B, Rojas JA, Soriano S. Análisis del tejido adiposo visceral por bioimpedancia en pacientes con sobrepeso y su relación con otros índices de resistencia a la insulina. An Med Asoc Med Hosp ABC. 2009; 54 (4): 193-196.

9. Mota V, Rojas JA, Martinez D, Covarrubias-Cortés A, Flores G, López S et al. Prediabetic patients evaluated with QuantoseMR-RI and their relationship with anthropometric measurements through bioelectrical impedance analysis. Proceedings of Scientific Research Universidad Anahuac. 2022; 2 (3): 5-10.

10. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. 2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022. Diabetes Care. 2022; 45 (Suppl 1): S17-S38.

11. Quantose RI [Internet]. México: Patia; 2022. [Citado 2022 May 10]. Disponible en: https://www.patiadiabetes.com/mx/patia/productos/quantose-ri/

12. Glucosa hexoquinasa [Internet]. Diagnostics Systems; 2020 Nov 16. [Cited 2022 May 10]. Available in: https://www.diasys-diagnostics.com

13. Wallace TM, Levy JC, Mathews DR. Use and abuse of HOMA modeling. Diabetes Care. 2004; 27: 1487-1495.

14. Insulina [Internet]. (Citado 2022 Mayo 15). Disponible en: http://www.med-informatica.com/lab-clinico/analisis/f_z/insulina.html

15. Tavares-Rodríguez EJ, Ávila-Chávez A, Vallín-Orozco CE, Rosas-Cabral A, Rojas-Terán JF, Bermúdez-Gómez H et al. Sensitivity, specificity and cut-off values for HOMA formula; insulin resistance diagnostic tool in Aguascalientes. Lux Médica. 2015; 10 (31): 73-85.

16. HBA1c. [Internet]. Biolabo; 2021. (Cited 2022 May 15). Available in: http://www.biolabo.fr/biolabo/pdfs/noticesSP/immunoSP/ES-22010.pdf

17. Prieto L, Lamarca R, Casado A. La evaluación de la fiabilidad en las observaciones clínicas: el coeficiente de correlación intraclase. Med Clin (Barc). 1998; 110: 142-145. Disponible en: https://www.mvclinic.es/wp-content/uploads/Prieto-Coeficiente-correlaci%C3%B3n-intraclase.pdf

18. Martínez BA, Maldonado HJ, López AM. Métodos diagnósticos de la resistencia a la insulina en la población pediátrica. Bol Med Hosp Infant Mex. 2011; 68 (5): 397-404. Disponible en: http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1665-11462011000500010&lng=es

19. Schwartz SS, Rachfal AW, Corkey BE. The time is now for new, lower diabetes diagnostic thresholds. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2022; 33 (1): 4-7. doi: 10.1016/j.tem.2021.10.007.

20. Rojas J, Romero E, Domínguez A, Levin G, Albarrán S, Mota V et al. Prevalence of clinical manifestations in hispanic prediabetic patients and their relationship with A1C. 71st Scientific Sessions. American Diabetes Association. San Diego, California. U.S.A.

EVIDENCE LEVEL

III