4.5 Article

Cutoff values for HOMA-IR associated with metabolic syndrome in the Study of Cardiovascular Risk in Adolescents (ERICA Study)

期刊

NUTRITION
卷 71, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2019.110608

关键词

insulin resistance; representative sample; adolescents; sex; Brazil

资金

  1. Brazilian Ministry of Health (Department of Science and Technology)
  2. Brazilian Ministry of Science and Technology (Funding Authority for Studies and Projects FINEP) [FINEP: 01090421]
  3. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development - CNPq [565037/2010-2, 405009/2012-7, 457050/2013-6]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the distribution of homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) values and define its cutoff associated with metabolic syndrome (MetS) in the participants of the Study of Cardiovascular Risk in Adolescents (Estudo de Risco Cardiovascular em Adolescentes). Methods: MetS was defined according to the International Diabetes Federation criteria. HOMA-IR values were calculated and tabulated by corresponding percentiles for age and sex. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed to identify the optimal cutoff values of HOMA-IR associated with MetS in the total population and by sex. Results: We evaluated 37 815 adolescents ages 12 to 17 y. The highest HOMA-IR medians were found among girls and boys ages 12 and 14 y, respectively. Thereafter, values tended to decrease with age. The optimal cutoff values of the HOMA-IR associated with MetS in the total population, in female adolescents, and in male adolescents were 2.80, 232, and 2.87, respectively. Insulin resistance was prevalent in 19.1% (95% confidence interval, 17.7-20.7) of the total population, and the prevalence was higher among girls and overweight Brazilian adolescents. Conclusions: These findings may serve as new reference points for detecting insulin resistance in Brazilian adolescents. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据