3.8 Article

Comparison of different criteria for the definition of insulin resistance and its relationship to metabolic risk in children and adolescents

Journal

ANNALS OF PEDIATRIC ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Volume 25, Issue 4, Pages 227-233

Publisher

KOREAN SOC PEDIATRIC ENDOCRINOLOGY
DOI: 10.6065/apem.2040002.001

Keywords

Obesity; Insulin resistance; Metabolic syndrome; Child; Adolescents

Funding

  1. Korean Health Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [HI14C1062]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Childhood obesity frequently persists into adulthood and is associated with insulin resistance (IR) and increased long-term morbidity and mortality. We compared IR criteria concerning 'age-specific cutoff point' (ACOP) and 'fixed cutoff point' (FCOP) for the identification of IR and investigated their correlation with metabolic syndrome (MS). Methods: Data were acquired from the 5th Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2010-2011). Participants ranged from 10 to 17 years of age and underwent fasting plasma glucose, insulin concentration, and lipid panel measurements. High fasting plasma insulin levels or increased homeostatic model assessment insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) were defined as IR. We analyzed MS and IR frequencies according to FCOP or ACOP. Results: Among 719 participants, 165 (22.9%) were overweight or obese based on their body mass index. We found no prevalence of MS in underweight/normal weight participants and 12.7% prevalence rate in overweight or obese participants. IR according to ACOP was more closely associated with MS than IR according to FCOP. No differences were found in predicting the frequency of MS using FCOP or ACOP in both fasting plasma insulin and HOMA-IR. Conclusion: The frequency of MS in participants with IR defined using ACOP and FCOP was similar. However, IR using ACOP was more closely associated with MS than IR using FCOP.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available