Body adiposity markers and insulin resistance in patients with type 1 diabetes

• Autor(a) principal: Marques, Camila Lemos
• Data de Publicação: 2023
• Outros Autores: Beretta, Mileni Vanti, Prates, Raquel Eccel, Almeida, Jussara Carnevale de, Rodrigues, Ticiana da Costa
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UFRGS
• Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10183/257108
• topic: Diabetes mellitus tipo 1; Biomarcadores; Fatores de risco; Resistência à insulina; Gordura intra-abdominal; Insulin resistance; Type 1 diabetes; Intra-abdominal fat; Body adiposity

Objectives: Body composition changes are associated with adverse effects such as increased insulin resistance (IR) in individuals with diabetes mellitus. This study aims to evaluate the association between different body adiposity markers and IR in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Subjects and methods: The cross-sectional study included outpatient adults with T1D from a university public hospital in southern Brazil. The body adiposity markers studied were waist circumference (WC), waist-height ratio (WHtR), body mass index (BMI), conicity index (CI), lipid accumulation product (LAP) and body adiposity index (BAI). IR was calculated using an Estimated Glucose Disposal Rate (EGDR) equation (analyzed in tertiles), considering an inverse relation between EGDR and IR. Poisson regression models were used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% CIs of association of adiposity markers with IR. Results: A total of 128 patients were enrolled (51% women), with a median EGDR of 7.2 (4.4-8.7) mg.kg-1.min-1. EGDR was negatively correlated with WC (r = -0.36, p < 0.01), WHtR (r = -0.39, p < 0.01), CI (r = -0.44, p < 0.01), LAP (r = -0.41, p < 0.01) and BMI (r = -0.24, p < 0.01). After regression analyses, WC (OR = 2.07; CIs: 1.12-3.337; p = 0.003), WHtR (OR = 2.77; CIs: 1.59-4.79; p < 0.001), CI (OR = 2.59; CIs: 1.43-4.66; p = 0.002), LAP (OR = 2.27; CIs: 1.25-4.11; p = 0.007) and BMI (OR = 1.78; CIs: 1.09-2.91; p = 0.019) remained associated with IR. Conclusions: The authors suggest using the studied adiposity markers as a routine since they were shown to be suitable parameters in association with IR.