Identification of Subjects with Insulin Resistance and β-Cell Dysfunction Using Alternative Definitions of the Metabolic Syndrome

Abstract

Recently, the metabolic syndrome (MetS) has attracted much attention as a risk cluster for cardiovascular disease. Although it is believed that individuals with the MetS have insulin resistance (IR), there are few data using direct measures of IR such as glucose clamps or frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance tests (FSIGTTs). We examined associations of MetS with FSIGTT-derived measures of insulin sensitivity and secretion among nondiabetic subjects in the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study. Two sets of MetS criteria were evaluated: those from the 1999 World Health Organization (WHO) and the 2001 National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP). Both WHO and NCEP MetS definitions were significantly associated with risk of being in the lowest quartile of directly measured insulin sensitivity (P < 0.0001 for all subjects as well as within ethnic subgroups). However, the associations with WHO-MetS were stronger for all subjects combined (WHO: odds ratio [OR] = 10.2; 95% CI 7.5–13.9; NCEP: OR = 4.6; 3.4–6.2) and in separate analyses of non-Hispanic whites, blacks, and Hispanics. WHO and NCEP MetS definitions were also significantly associated with risk of being in the lowest quartile of insulin sensitivity–adjusted acute insulin response (AIR) and disposition index (DI; all P < 0.01), although the associations were generally weaker than those for insulin sensitivity and there was no difference between the two definitions in all subjects combined (low AIR, WHO: OR = 1.7, 1.2–2.4; NCEP: OR = 1.7, 1.2–2.5). There were, however, a number of ethnic differences, including a stronger association of NCEP-MetS with low AIR among blacks. WHO-MetS was significantly more sensitive than NCEP-MetS in detecting low insulin sensitivity (65.4 vs. 45.6%, respectively; P < 0.0001), with no significant differences in specificity between the definitions (84.4 vs. 84.6%; P = 0.91), although WHO-MetS had a larger area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (75% vs. 65%; P < 0.0001). In conclusion, although both the WHO and NCEP MetS criteria identify nondiabetic individuals with low insulin sensitivity, the associations were notably stronger using the WHO definition. The definitions are generally less useful for identifying those with low AIR or DI, although NCEP-MetS seems to differentiate black subjects with insulin secretion defects.