Comparison of the Usefulness of the Updated Homeostasis Model Assessment (HOMA2) with the Original HOMA1 in the Prediction of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Koreans.
10.4093/dmj.2016.40.4.318
- Author:
Young Seok SONG
1
;
You Cheol HWANG
;
Hong Yup AHN
;
Cheol Young PARK
Author Information
1. Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. cydoctor@chol.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Homeostasis model assessment 1;
Homeostasis model assessment 2;
Insulin resistance;
Insulin secretion
- MeSH:
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2*;
Fasting;
Follow-Up Studies;
Glucose;
Hemoglobin A, Glycosylated;
Homeostasis*;
Insulin Resistance;
Kaplan-Meier Estimate;
Prevalence;
Proportional Hazards Models;
Risk Factors
- From:Diabetes & Metabolism Journal
2016;40(4):318-325
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: The original homeostasis model assessment (HOMA1) and the updated HOMA model (HOMA2) have been used to evaluate insulin resistance (IR) and β-cell function, but little is known about the usefulness of HOMA2 for the prediction of diabetes in Koreans. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the usefulness of HOMA2 as a predictor of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Koreans without diabetes. METHODS: The study population consisted of 104,694 Koreans enrolled at a health checkup program and followed up from 2001 to 2012. Participants were divided into a normal glucose tolerance (NGT) group and a pre-diabetes group according to fasting glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin levels. Anthropometric and laboratory data were measured at the baseline checkup, and HOMA values were calculated at the baseline and follow-up checkups. The hazard ratios (HRs) of the HOMA1 and HOMA2 values and the prevalence of diabetes at follow-up were evaluated using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model and Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: After adjusting for several diabetes risk factors, all of the HOMA values except 1/HOMA1-β and 1/HOMA2-β in the NGT group were significant predictors of the progression to diabetes. In the NGT group, there was no significant difference in HOMA1-IR (HR, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04 to 1.14) and HOMA2-IR (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.19). However, in the pre-diabetes group, 1/HOMA2-β was a more powerful marker (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.26 to 1.31) than HOMA1-IR (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.28) or 1/HOMA1-β (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.16). In the non-diabetic group (NGT+pre-diabetes), 1/HOMA2-β was also a stronger predictor of diabetes (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.25 to 1.29) than HOMA1-IR (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.15) or 1/HOMA1-β (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.14). CONCLUSION: HOMA2 is more predictive than HOMA1 for the progression to diabetes in pre-diabetes or non-diabetic Koreans.
