Insulin resistance and risk of incident cardiovascular events in adults without diabetes: meta-analysis

Karin B Gast, Nathanja Tjeerdema, Theo Stijnen, Johannes W A Smit, Olaf M Dekkers, Karin B Gast, Nathanja Tjeerdema, Theo Stijnen, Johannes W A Smit, Olaf M Dekkers

Abstract

Background: Glucose, insulin and Homeostasis Model Assessment Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) are markers of insulin resistance. The objective of this study is to compare fasting glucose, fasting insulin concentrations and HOMA-IR in strength of association with incident cardiovascular disease.

Methods: We searched the PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, ScienceDirect and Cochrane Library databases from inception to March, 2011, and screened reference lists. Cohort studies or nested case-control studies that investigated the association between fasting glucose, fasting insulin or HOMA-IR and incident cardiovascular disease, were eligible. Two investigators independently performed the article selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Cardiovascular endpoints were coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke or combined cardiovascular disease. We used fixed and random-effect meta-analyses to calculate the pooled relative risk for CHD, stroke and combined cardiovascular disease, comparing high to low concentrations of glucose, insulin or HOMA-IR. Study heterogeneity was calculated with the I(2) statistic. To enable a comparison between cardiovascular disease risks for glucose, insulin and HOMA-IR, we calculated pooled relative risks per increase of one standard deviation.

Results: We included 65 studies (involving 516,325 participants) in this meta-analysis. In a random-effect meta-analysis the pooled relative risk of CHD (95% CI; I(2)) comparing high to low concentrations was 1.52 (1.31, 1.76; 62.4%) for glucose, 1.12 (0.92, 1.37; 41.0%) for insulin and 1.64 (1.35, 2.00; 0%) for HOMA-IR. The pooled relative risk of CHD per one standard deviation increase was 1.21 (1.13, 1.30; 64.9%) for glucose, 1.04 (0.96, 1.12; 43.0%) for insulin and 1.46 (1.26, 1.69; 0.0%) for HOMA-IR.

Conclusions: The relative risk of cardiovascular disease was higher for an increase of one standard deviation in HOMA-IR compared to an increase of one standard deviation in fasting glucose or fasting insulin concentration. It may be useful to add HOMA-IR to a cardiovascular risk prediction model.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1. Summary of search results.
Figure 1. Summary of search results.
aOne publication consisted of two studies. HOMA-IR, Homeostasis Model Assessment insulin resistance.
Figure 2. Random-effect meta-analyses of coronary heart…
Figure 2. Random-effect meta-analyses of coronary heart disease risk for the highest category of glucose, insulin or HOMA-IR compared to the lowest category.
aOr known diabetes was used to define the highest category. bParis Prospective Study. cHelsinki Policemen Study. dMen. eWomen. fGlomerular Filtration Rate ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2. gGlomerular Filtration Rate <60 ml/min/1.73 m2. References are listed in References S1. 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; vs, versus; I-squared, measure of heterogeneity; HOMA-IR, Homeostasis Model Assessment Insulin Resistance.
Figure 3. Results of random-effect meta-analyses comparing…
Figure 3. Results of random-effect meta-analyses comparing cardiovascular disease risk for an increase of one standard deviation.
a1 study did not specify sex-specific numbers. SD, standard deviation; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; I2, measure of heterogeneity; CHD, coronary heart disease and is defined as fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction or angina pectoris; CVD, cardiovascular disease and is defined as myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic stroke, arrhythmias, congestive heart failure or sudden cardiac death; HOMA-IR, Homeostasis Model Assessment Insulin Resistance.

References

    1. World Health Organization website. Available: . Accessed 2012 Dec 3.
    1. Almdal T, Scharling H, Jensen JS, Vestergaard H (2004) The independent effect of type 2 diabetes mellitus on ischemic heart disease, stroke, and death: a population-based study of 13,000 men and women with 20 years of follow-up. Arch Intern Med 164: 1422–1426.
    1. Sarwar N, Gao P, Seshasai SR, Gobin R, Kaptoge S, et al. (2010) Diabetes mellitus, fasting blood glucose concentration, and risk of vascular disease: a collaborative meta-analysis of 102 prospective studies. Lancet 375: 2215–2222.
    1. Faerch K, Vaag A, Holst JJ, Hansen T, Jorgensen T, et al. (2009) Natural history of insulin sensitivity and insulin secretion in the progression from normal glucose tolerance to impaired fasting glycemia and impaired glucose tolerance: the Inter99 study. Diabetes Care 32: 439–444.
    1. Kim SH, Reaven GM (2008) Isolated impaired fasting glucose and peripheral insulin sensitivity: not a simple relationship. Diabetes Care 31: 347–352.
    1. Sarwar N, Sattar N, Gudnason V, Danesh J (2007) Circulating concentrations of insulin markers and coronary heart disease: a quantitative review of 19 Western prospective studies. Eur Heart J 28: 2491–2497.
    1. Giacco F, Brownlee M (2010) Oxidative stress and diabetic complications. Circ Res 107: 1058–1070.
    1. Yu Q, Gao F, Ma XL (2011) Insulin says NO to cardiovascular disease. Cardiovasc Res 89: 516–524.
    1. Bornfeldt KE, Tabas I (2011) Insulin resistance, hyperglycemia, and atherosclerosis. Cell Metab 14: 575–585.
    1. Nybo M, Grinsted P, Jorgensen PE (2005) Blood sampling: is fasting properly defined? Clin Chem 51: 1563–1564.
    1. The University of North Carolina website. Available: . Accessed 2012 Dec 3.
    1. Wallace TM, Levy JC, Matthews DR (2004) Use and abuse of HOMA modeling. Diabetes Care 27: 1487–1495.
    1. Whiting DR, Guariguata L, Weil C, Shaw J (2011) IDF Diabetes Atlas: Global estimates of the prevalence of diabetes for 2011 and 2030. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 94: 311–321.
    1. Burns EM, Rigby E, Mamidanna R, Bottle A, Aylin P, et al. (2012) Systematic review of discharge coding accuracy. J Public Health (Oxf) 34: 138–148.
    1. Tunstall-Pedoe H, Kuulasmaa K, Amouyel P, Arveiler D, Rajakangas AM, et al. (1994) Myocardial infarction and coronary deaths in the World Health Organization MONICA Project. Registration procedures, event rates, and case-fatality rates in 38 populations from 21 countries in four continents. Circulation 90: 583–612.
    1. Ammar KA, Kors JA, Yawn BP, Rodeheffer RJ (2004) Defining unrecognized myocardial infarction: a call for standardized electrocardiographic diagnostic criteria. Am Heart J 148: 277–284.
    1. Egger M, Davey SG, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315: 629–634.
    1. Hartemink N, Boshuizen HC, Nagelkerke NJ, Jacobs MA, van Houwelingen HC (2006) Combining risk estimates from observational studies with different exposure cutpoints: a meta-analysis on body mass index and diabetes type 2. Am J Epidemiol 163: 1042–1052.
    1. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL (2008) Modern Epidemiology. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 112 p.
    1. Levitan EB, Song Y, Ford ES, Liu S (2004) Is nondiabetic hyperglycemia a risk factor for cardiovascular disease? A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Arch Intern Med 164: 2147–2155.
    1. Ford ES, Zhao G, Li C (2010) Pre-diabetes and the risk for cardiovascular disease: a systematic review of the evidence. J Am Coll Cardiol 55: 1310–1317.
    1. Hu G, Qiao Q, Tuomilehto J, Eliasson M, Feskens EJ, et al. (2004) DECODE Insulin Study Group Plasma insulin and cardiovascular mortality in non-diabetic European men and women: a meta-analysis of data from eleven prospective studies. Diabetologia 47: 1245–1256.
    1. Wilhelmsen L, Koster M, Harmsen P, Lappas G (2005) Differences between coronary disease and stroke in incidence, case fatality, and risk factors, but few differences in risk factors for fatal and non-fatal events. Eur Heart J 26: 1916–1922.
    1. Kanaya AM, Grady D, Barrett-Connor E (2002) Explaining the sex difference in coronary heart disease mortality among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med 162: 1737–1745.
    1. Huxley R, Barzi F, Woodward M (2006) Excess risk of fatal coronary heart disease associated with diabetes in men and women: meta-analysis of 37 prospective cohort studies. BMJ 332: 73–78.
    1. Blaak E (2008) Sex differences in the control of glucose homeostasis. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 11: 500–504.
    1. Wannamethee SG, Papacosta O, Lawlor DA, Whincup PH, Lowe GD, et al. (2012) Do women exhibit greater differences in established and novel risk factors between diabetes and non-diabetes than men? The British Regional Heart Study and British Women’s Heart Health Study. Diabetologia 55: 80–87.
    1. Mendis S, Thygesen K, Kuulasmaa K, Giampaoli S, Mahonen M, et al. (2011) World Health Organization definition of myocardial infarction: 2008–09 revision. Int J Epidemiol 40: 139–146.
    1. Hutcheon JA, Chiolero A, Hanley JA (2010) Random measurement error and regression dilution bias. BMJ 340: c2289.
    1. Cordoba G, Schwartz L, Woloshin S, Bae H, Gotzsche PC (2010) Definition, reporting, and interpretation of composite outcomes in clinical trials: systematic review. BMJ 341: c3920.
    1. Harmsen P, Rosengren A, Tsipogianni A, Wilhelmsen L (1990) Risk factors for stroke in middle-aged men in Goteborg, Sweden. Stroke 21: 223–229.
    1. Prospective studies collaboration (1995) Cholesterol, diastolic blood pressure, and stroke: 13,000 strokes in 450,000 people in 45 prospective cohorts. Lancet 346: 1647–1653.
    1. Avendano M, Mackenbach JP (2006) Blood glucose levels: facing a global crisis. Lancet 368: 1631–1632.
    1. Brunner EJ, Shipley MJ, Marmot MG, Kivimaki M, Witte DR (2010) Do the Joint British Society (JBS2) guidelines on prevention of cardiovascular disease with respect to plasma glucose improve risk stratification in the general population? Prospective cohort study. Diabet Med 27: 550–555.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnere